Brian Doherty on Robert Sarvis and the LP's Surprising Total in the Virginia Governor Race

Robert Sarvis, a former tech entrepreneur and
lawyer involved with the free-market think tank Mercatus, won
a surprising amount of the vote as the Libertarian Party’s
candidate in last week’s Virginia governor’s race—6.6 percent, or
around 145,000 votes. That was the third largest vote
percentage any Libertarian has ever won for any governor’s
race. The two who did better, Dick Randolph in Alaska in 1982 and
Ed Thompson in Wisconsin in 2002, had, unlike Sarvis, held elective
office in their states before. Sarvis copped the best third party
result for any party in the south for agubernatorial candidate in
40 years. Many Republicans reacted to Sarvis’ strong showing,
combined with Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s narrow
defeat, with accusations that Sarvis caused Cuccinelli’s loss.
That was clearly not true. Although Sarvis was not the death of the
GOP in Virginia, writes Brian Doherty, he may represent a new lease
on life for the Libertarian Party not just in Virginia but
nationally.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/new-at-reason-brian-doherty-on-robert-sa
via IFTTT

Brian Doherty on Robert Sarvis and the LP’s Surprising Total in the Virginia Governor Race

Robert Sarvis, a former tech entrepreneur and
lawyer involved with the free-market think tank Mercatus, won
a surprising amount of the vote as the Libertarian Party’s
candidate in last week’s Virginia governor’s race—6.6 percent, or
around 145,000 votes. That was the third largest vote
percentage any Libertarian has ever won for any governor’s
race. The two who did better, Dick Randolph in Alaska in 1982 and
Ed Thompson in Wisconsin in 2002, had, unlike Sarvis, held elective
office in their states before. Sarvis copped the best third party
result for any party in the south for agubernatorial candidate in
40 years. Many Republicans reacted to Sarvis’ strong showing,
combined with Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s narrow
defeat, with accusations that Sarvis caused Cuccinelli’s loss.
That was clearly not true. Although Sarvis was not the death of the
GOP in Virginia, writes Brian Doherty, he may represent a new lease
on life for the Libertarian Party not just in Virginia but
nationally.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/new-at-reason-brian-doherty-on-robert-sa
via IFTTT

NAACP Back Marijuana Federalism

The National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) recently

endorsed
a bill that would make the federal ban on marijuana
inapplicable to people who grow, possess, or distribute cannabis in
compliance with state law. H.R. 1523, the Respect State
Marijuana Laws Act of 2013, would essentially repeal (or at least
limit) federal pot prohibition in the 21 states that allow medical
or recreational use of the drug. So far the bill, which was
introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), has 20
cosponsors
, including five more Republicans: Justin Amash
(Mich.), Dan Benishek (Mich.), Don Young (Alaska), Duncan
Hunter (Calif.), and Steve Stockman (Texas). 

The NAACP resolution endorsing H.R. 1523, which was adopted
by its board of directors at a meeting last month, notes that “even
though numerous studies demonstrate that whites and African
Americans use and sell marijuana at relatively the same rates,
studies also demonstrate that African Americans are, on average,
almost 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession,
and in some jurisdictions Blacks are 30 times more likely to be
arrested for marijuana possession than whites.” The NAACP, which in
recent years has highlighted the
racially disproportionate impact of marijuana prohibition and
condemned
the war on drugs, last year
supported
the successful legalization initiatives in Colorado
and Washington, so it’s not surprising that the organization wants
the feds to step back and let those experiments proceed. But Tom
Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority,
argues
that the NAACP’s willingness to stand up for state’s
rights is significant given the group’s history of battling
segregationists who (erroneously) waved that banner:

For obvious historical reasons, many civil rights leaders who
agree with us about the harms of marijuana prohibition still remain
reluctant to see the states chart their own courses out of the
failed “war on drugs.” Having the NAACP’s support for a states’
rights approach to marijuana reform is going to have a huge impact
and will provide comfort and cover to politicians and prominent
people who want to see prohibition end but who are a little
skittish about states getting too far ahead of the feds on this
issue. 

As I’ve argued
in Reason, there is nothing inherently right-wing about
the Constitution’s division of powers between the states and the
federal government. Properly understood, federalism was never a
license for violating rights protected by the 14th Amendment, and
today it can profitably be employed by progressives to further
their own causes. Ending the war on drugs should be at the top of
the list. 

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/naacp-back-marijuana-federalism
via IFTTT

Tesla Motors as an Example Modern Progressive Trickledown Economics

Tesla SWashington Post editorial writer Charles
Lane has a
nice takedown
today of Tesla, the high-flying federally
subsidized electric car company, as an example of “trickle-down”
economics as practiced by modern-day progressives

Tesla’s corporate fate is ultimately less interesting than the
fact that so many people, especially progressives, have become so
deeply invested in it — politically and psychologically, if not
financially.

Tesla epitomizes the mutation of modern American liberalism.
Once an ideology whose central concern was the plight of
lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities, liberalism is
increasingly about environmentalism and related “quality of life”
issues…

This version of green capitalism might be justified if it
delivered the public goods it promises. Tesla’s trickle-down
business plan calls for sales of expensive early models to pave the
way for an everyman electric vehicle later this decade.

But even if widely adopted, Teslas would have little impact on
climate change as long as drivers have to charge their vehicles
from a coal- and natural gas-fired U.S. electric grid. In May,
JPMorgan Chase analysts calculated that the
Model S’s annual fossil fuel “footprint” is bigger than that of a
Honda Civic hybrid
.

Nor is there a case for electric cars based on their
contribution to U.S. energy security. Thanks to increased oil and
natural gas production, United States imported only 40 percent of
its oil in 2012, down from 60 percent in 2005,
according to the Energy Department.
That trend is projected
to
continue

Of course, jobs — “green jobs” — are supposed to square the
ideological circle for liberals, making taxpayer “investment” in
Tesla and other environmentally friendly firms a “win-win” for
plutocrats and proletarians.

Tesla employs 2,000
people
at good wages. But others would have used the same
resources to employ people, perhaps more than 2,000, if the
government had not funneled them into Tesla — both directly through
loans, emissions credits and tax breaks and indirectly by
encouraging private investors to buy stock in a government-favored
company.

Tesla’s market capitalization, more than $17 billion, represents not
only a possible government-aided stock bubble but also a huge
societal opportunity cost.

Tesla’s Model S is, no doubt, a cool car. Whether it serves any
public purpose commensurate with the public resources it has
absorbed is another question.

For now, all we know is that [Tesla founder] Elon Musk, backed
by Wall Street and Washington, has built a very efficient machine
for the upward distribution of wealth and income.

Can you spell C-R-O-N-Y C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M?

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/tesla-as-example-modern-progressive-tric
via IFTTT

Obamacare’s Enrollment Numbers Aren’t Real Enrollment Numbers

So far, the administration has
consistently refused to release information about actual health
insurance enrollment through Obamacare. But as Scott Shackford
noted,
multiple news outlets
are now
reporting
that, according to knowledgable sources, somewhere in
the range of 40,000 to 50,000 people have enrolled in health
insurance through Obamacare’s problem-plagued federally facilitated
exchange system,

These aren’t official numbers, although an official release is
expected sometime this week. But taken at face value, and presuming
they are accurate, they indicate that Obamacare is struggling so
far to meet its enrollment goals. An internal document released
earlier this month by Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan) noted that the
administration’s goal for the first month was 500,000 enrollees.
Combine the reported federal enrollments with the 49,000 people
estimated to have enrolled in state-based exchanges, and you still
have less then twenty percent of the administration’s enrollment
goal.

But these numbers shouldn’t be taken at face value. That’s
because the administration isn’t actually counting enrollments.
Instead, it’s
counting the number of people who have placed health plans in their
online shopping carts
—not people who have signed up and agreed
to be billed, and certainly not people who have actually paid the
premium for the first month of coverage. It’s the equivalent of
Amazon counting a TV sold every time someone puts a TV in his or
her online shopping cart, regardless of whether or not they
actually go through the checkout process.

Now, there’s some legitimate room for debate and disagreement
about the best way to count enrollments. The best way to understand
the different methods is to look at some of the counts we’ve seen
for the District of Columbia.

According to documents made public by the Senate Finance
Committee last week, only five people had enrolled in private
insurance through the D.C. exchange.

That’s a pretty small number. But it doesn’t provide the entire
picture. What that means, as The Washington Post’s Sarah
Kliff
noted
last week, is that five people have enrolled in plans and
paid an initial premium by October 21. A significantly larger
number—164 people—however, have selected plans and agreed to be
billed. They just haven’t paid their premiums yet. And an even
greater number—some 321 people—have moved to the shopping cart
stage, selecting a plan and putting it in their cart, but not
agreeing to be billed.

I’m willing to believe that the majority of those 164 people who
have picked a plan and told an insurer to send them a bill will end
up with coverage. But the federal government is trying to count
people from the much larger third category—the group that in D.C.
encompasses the 321 people who have merely picked a plan and put it
in a virtual shopping cart.

If D.C.’s numbers are relatively representative—and, granted,
it’s possible that they may not be—then the actual number of people
who have gotten to the billing stage is only about half the number
who have simply selected a plan. So it’s entirely plausible that
the actual enrollment in the federal exchanges is more like
20,000-25,000 people.

And that’s presuming that everyone who agrees to be billed
actually pays. Which is not a foregone conclusion.

As Jon Kingsdale, who ran the Massachusetts health exchange for
years and helped advise the federal government on Obamacare, wrote
in The Washington Post over the weekend, “Tracking billing
and collections was a much bigger challenge than getting our Web
site to work.” And Kingsdale
thinks the collections effort will actually be harder in the
federal system
:

Enrollees are not covered until their first month’s premium is
received. In the individual insurance market, premium billing and
collection is difficult to track. Folks frequently pay late or in
weekly installments, or send too little or even too much. And when
they stop paying, they often do not notify the insurer; the company
must determine whether it is an intentional termination, an
oversight, or a lost or late payment. Unlike most of today’s 15
million direct enrollees, who pay premiums on their
own, an
estimated 27 percent
 of those who will be eligible for tax
credits under
the ACA do not have checking accounts
. So they must use cash,
money orders or prepaid debit cards to pay their share of monthly
premiums.

Under the health-care law, premium billing and tracking will be
even tougher. There are hundreds of prices across each of the
thousands of plans in the federal marketplace. Having enrollees pay
partial premiums, and the IRS issue tax credits for the rest, means
twice as much billing. Calculating subsidies based on personal
income tax filings also creates security issues: In addition to the
problems with verifying consumers’ identities online, which have
created delays on HealthCare.gov, tens of thousands of unlicensed
“navigators” are fanning out across the country to help folks
enroll. Many of these people don’t have to submit to thorough
background checks, although they will gain access to personal
financial information. 

The point is that even by the administration’s standards, these
early enrollment figures aren’t good. And because of the
administration’s chosen counting method, it’s almost certain that
they are actually worse than they seem. 

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/obamacares-enrollment-numbers-arent-real
via IFTTT

If NYC Police Are Worried About New Crime Wave They Should All Wear Video Cameras

Bodyworn CameraBack in August, Federal District Court Judge
Shira Scheindlin
ruled
that the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD)
pervasive stop-and-frisk tactics violated the constitutional rights
of citizens to be unmolested by the authorities. In addition, Judge
Scheindlin ordered

…the NYPD to institute a pilot project in which bodyworn
cameras will be worn for a one-year period by officers on patrol in
one precinct per borough — specifically the precinct with the
highest number of stops during 2012.

The outgoing Bloomberg administration has now successfully sued
to have the
judge thrown off the case
and her orders have been put on
hold.  In addition, Peter Vallone, the city council’s biggest
booster of aggressive policing tactics is now worried that two new
ordinances will dampened police crime fighting efforts leading to a
new crime wave in the Big Apple. As Capital New York

reports
:

“We are in for what I’ve been warning about, and we’re already
seeing it,” Vallone said, sitting in a cafe on Ditmars Boulevard in
Astoria. “There’s going to be a major crime increase.”

Vallone, whose positions on policing put him far to the right of
most of his fellow Democrats on the Council, was referring to what
he believes will be the effects of two new laws increasing
oversight of the NYPD which passed with the vocal backing of New
York City’s next mayor. 

One law creates an inspector general to oversee police policy
and a second facilitates lawsuits against the department,
in certain circumstances
, for allegations of bias.

Critics warn that lawsuits against the police are going to
proliferate and cost the city millions. Well, actually as
Bloomberg News has reported, settling lawsuits against the
NYPD for abuse already
cost the city $735 million
in 2012.

Fortunately, as Judge Scheindlin noted in her order, there is a
hi-tech solution to the many of these problems: require cops to
wear video cameras on the job. As I reported in my column,
Watched
Cops Are Polite Cops
,” requiring police officers to wear
cameras is a win/win for both police and citizens:

Earlier this year, a 12-month study by Cambridge University
researchers revealed that when the city of Rialto, California,
required its cops to wear cameras, the number of
complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent
and the
use of force by officers dropped by almost 60 percent.

Just this week, the Washington Post
reported
similar results in the city of Laurel, MD:

The city started using the device six months ago. Since then,
Chief Rich McLaughlin says, complaints against officers have gone
down and so has the use of police force.

“It keeps everybody in check, on both sides,” he said….

When they were first told they had to film every encounter, some
officers in Laurel were not thrilled, McLaughlin said. But now they
come to him asking for the cameras. He just ordered a new batch,
and now nearly all 70 officers have them.

Officers from nearby cities “ask, ‘Oh, how do you like Big
Brother?’” said Officer Matt Jordan. “But I don’t have a problem
with it. I like it.”

The camera helped clear him after a citizen complaint, Jordan
said. Once, it defused a confrontation outside a bar: “As soon as
they saw the cameras, they left.” In court cases, they’ve been used
to secure a drug-related guilty plea and prove that an officer was
shoved….

The American Civil Liberties Union, which generally is wary of
surveillance, recently
expressed support
for the cameras. But the organization
acknowledges the privacy concerns of the police and the public, and
its support comes with conditions.

“I absolutely know this tool will transform policing,” Scott
Greenwood, a police accountability attorney and general counsel for
the ACLU, said in an interview. “It’s an unalloyed good, provided
that policies are in place that mandate the use of devices rather
than leaving it up to the discretion of the officers.”

With proper rules governing the release and retention of video,
I concluded:

It gives citizens better protection against police misconduct
and against violations of their constitutional rights. And it
protects good cops against unfair accusations, too. Requiring
police to wear video cameras should be universally adopted sooner
rather than later.

Anyone worried about a “crime wave” should be advocating the
adoption of this sensible policy.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/if-nyc-police-are-worried-about-new-crim
via IFTTT

Matthew Feeney Discusses America’s Fiscal Nightmare on the Alan Nathan Show at 5:50pm ET

Earlier today I spoke with Jane Silk on the Alan Nathan
show about the state of the American economy, welfare, and American
attitudes on spending. 

Listen live here at
5:50pm ET, the segments lasts about 10 minutes.  

Read more from Reason.com on welfare and government spending
here and here

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/matthew-feeney-discusses-americas-fiscal
via IFTTT

Matthew Feeney Discusses America's Fiscal Nightmare on the Alan Nathan Show at 5:50pm ET

Earlier today I spoke with Jane Silk on the Alan Nathan
show about the state of the American economy, welfare, and American
attitudes on spending. 

Listen live here at
5:50pm ET, the segments lasts about 10 minutes.  

Read more from Reason.com on welfare and government spending
here and here

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/matthew-feeney-discusses-americas-fiscal
via IFTTT

Video: Meet the Winners of the 2013 Reason Video Awards and Watch Their Work!


Last week
, Reason TV announced the winners of its first-ever
Reason Video Awards, giving out $10,000 in prize money to makers of
“short-form video, film, and moving pictures that explore,
investigate, and enrich our appreciation of libertarian beliefs in
individual rights, limited government, and especially human
possibilities.”

Watch the presentation of the video awards by clicking above or
click the link below for a look at all the finalists’s videos and
to learn more about the other awards given out that
evening. 

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/meet-the-winners-of-the-2013-reason-vide
via IFTTT

Voters in Portland, Maine Expect Police to Comply on Marijuana Legalization Ordinance, Says City Councilor

mountain won't come to youLast week, Portland, Maine was

one of several municipalities
in the country to vote
overwhelmingly in favor of ordinances purporting to decriminalize
or legalize the possession and recreational use of certain amounts
of marijuana. Police pushed back. In Portland, where the ordinance

eliminated local penalties
, police
pointed to state laws
they would continue to issue citations
under, saying they had no problem with the vote because it didn’t
change anything.

Supporters of the ordinance aren’t having it.
Via the Bangor Daily News:

In a statement Friday, Tom MacMillan, chairman of the
Portland Green Independent Committee, which campaigned for the
ordinance, said, “The vote on Tuesday was a clear indication that
Portland residents want our police force to stop punishing adult
marijuana users. The police have the discretion to do so while
still enforcing city, state and federal rules for public use, use
under 21 and possession over 2.5 ounces. Portland officials must be
accountable to the will of the people.”

“It is very encouraging that marijuana possession citations have
decreased by 26 percent over a period of a year,” City Councilor
David Marshall said in the release. “The voters expect the public
and the police to comply with the ordinance when it goes into
effect. The election results are a mandate that supports the
discretion police are using in regards to adult marijuana
possession.”

Compliance: for police too.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/12/voters-in-portland-maine-expect-police-t
via IFTTT