Tag: hit&run

Tomorrow’s weekly episode of John Stossel’s eponymous Fox
Business show is all about “The Rise of the Libertarians.”

Matt Welch and I appear on the program to discuss the themes we
outlined in our book
The Declaration of Independents and to talk about all the
recent developments that argue for what we’ve called “the
Libertarian Moment” and even “the
Libertarian Era.”

Other guests include Penn Jillette, members of Students for
Liberty, and former Rep. Ron Paul. Follow the show on Twitter at
the hashtag #TheRise.

Stossel airs on Thursday at 9pm ET. Go here
for more information on the show.

Click above to watch a web-only exclusive preview of the
episode, in which Matt and I discuss whether a libertarian world
would be like Somalia, why libertarians are constantly forced to
answer such questions, and more.

Stossel’s syndicated column appears every Wednesday at
Reason.com.
Read the latest here and check out his archive
here.

President Obama may be approaching lame-duck
status, but he doesn’t want to go quietly into the night, focusing
on the upcoming midterm elections far more than previous
second-term presidents did, in spite of his approval ratings

hitting new lows.

From the Guardian:

A record-breaking fundraising spree by Barack
Obama has seen him make 30 separate visits to wealthy donors
since April, according to a Guardian investigation into campaign
finance trips that are running at more than twice the rate of the
president’s two-term predecessors.

Although unable to run again for election himself, Obama is
estimated to have raised up to $40m for
other Democrats since his last inauguration in January as
he devotes a growing portion of the second term to financing
efforts aimed at winning back control of Congress in next year’s
midterm elections.

It’s the campaign that never ends.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don’t forget you
can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us
at @reason247. 

As Jacob Sullum
points out, one of the Affordable Care Act’s great failings is
President Obama and company’s refusal to admit that health coverage
involves tradeoffs. Sure, it’s upsetting when your copay is higher
than you wish, or your policy doesn’t cover everything under the
sun, but the more you jam into a plan, the higher costs will be,
and somebody has to pay for them. So when the government waves its
hand and does away with what the president insists are “substandard”
plans by mandating a generous wish list of coverage, it makes
relatively affordable plans rather less so. The federal government
did that in spades last Friday when the Department of Health and
Human Services finalized
rules enforcing mental health parity—a very expensive
mandate—for most private health plans.

The mandate was expected, since it implements the Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Act, which has been on the books since 2008,
but which dwelt in statutory purgatory for five years because the
Obama administration
never issued guidance that would allow the law to be enforced.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says her
Friday announcement is “building on these rules” when it’s actually
overcoming a half-decade of bureaucratic inertia to put the law
into effect. Because the law has been sitting there for so long,
many of its costs may already be represented in the new heath plans
available under Obamacare, though those plans might have to be
tweaked, since the final rule was issued six weeks after
individual plans went on sale on the exchanges. Not that anybody
has been able to buy them, yet.

The costs that mandates add to health coverage are no mystery.
the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that, while
each individual mandate might elevate costs by only a small amount,
in aggregate “mandated benefits currently increase the cost of
basic health coverage from slightly less than 10 percent to more
than 50 percent, depending on the state, specific legislative
language, and type of health insurance policy.”

Mental health parity—which “ensures that health plans features
like co-pays, deductibles and visit limits are generally not more
restrictive for mental health/substance abuse disorders benefits
than they are for medical/surgical benefits” in HHS terms—is among
the more expensive mandates,
raising costs by five to 10 percent (PDF), all by itself.

Looking at expenditures, the Health Care Cost Institute found
that
mental health and substance abuse treatment costs jumped after
the passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Act, even in
the absence of final federal rules. The study looked at the time
period after passage, rather than for a direct causative effect of
the law.

That’s not to say that people don’t need mental health treatment
or help with substance abuse problems. But there’s no such thing as
a free lunch—or free health care. Shedding a tear and promising
people that all of their needs will be covered is cheap. Following
through, not so much.

(H/T Sevo)

I
didn’t know what a libertarian was when I started reporting, writes
John Stossel. I was just another liberal. I knew the Republicans
were icky, and Democrats were more like me—except they didn’t care
about debt. I had no idea there was an actual movement of thinking
people who want to honor the principles of the Founders—liberty and
limited government. It took me a long time to wake up. Old
politicians—and old voters collecting Social Security—may never
change their minds. But libertarianism is growing fast among young
Americans.

View this article.

Yesterday Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave his first
major speech since the recent plagiarism scandal. Speaking at
The Citadel, Paul outlined his views on the military and foreign
policy in a speech that included 33 footnotes. Unfortunately, Paul
did not outline much new in this speech, and it is already being
criticized for its lack of accuracy.

Anyone who has been following Paul’s beliefs on foreign policy
would not have been surprised to hear him highlight his disapproval
of foreign aid to Egypt, his constitutionalism, his opposition to
intervention in Syria, as well as his anger over the
administration’s response to the attack on the American consulate
in Benghazi last year. Although Paul did not voice any new
complaints, he did say that he will soon be announcing the
formation of a task force “to bring together great minds from the
world of national defense, and put forward a plan to modernize our
military, and strengthen our defenses,” which will include an audit
of the Pentagon.

While Paul may have included 33 footnotes in his speech, The
Daily Beast’s Josh Rogin points out that although more information
was cited, the speech included factual errors relating to claims
about the situations in Egypt and Syria as well the attack on the
American consulate in Benghazi:

From
The Daily Beast:

For example, in the following two sentences about Egypt, Paul
makes at least four factual errors.

“In Egypt recently, we saw a military coup that this
Administration tells us is not a military coup. In a highly
unstable situation, our government continued to send F-16s, Abrams
tanks and American-made tear gas,” Paul said.

In fact, the State Department has repeatedly said it would not
weigh in on whether the July overthrow of Egyptian President
Mohamed Morsi was a “coup,” deciding that the administration was
not required to make a determination one way or the other.

Following the military takeover of the Egyptian government, the
administration quietly halted all shipments of heavy weapons to
Egypt, mostly adhering to a law requiring a cutoff of military aid
to any country that has experienced a coup, while maintaining a
position of ambiguity over whether a coup had taken place.

Rogin also points out that Paul’s claims relating to the
situation in Syria also contain factual errors:

“As we continue to aid and arm despotic regimes in Egypt, we are
also now sending weapons to the rebels in Syria,” Paul said.
“According to a recent poll from Pew Research, over 70 percent of
Americans are against arming the Islamic rebels in Syria, yet the
Senate continues to arm these Islamic radicals. [15] [16] This is
unacceptable!”

The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the
Syrian rebels, something that has angered several Republican
colleagues of Paul, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The Free
Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian opposition has received
only Meals Ready to Eat, first aid kits, and 10 pickup trucks. The
CIA is reported to be vetting some arms shipments to the rebels
coming from third countries such as Saudi Arabia, but the White
House has repeatedly shot downState Department proposals to arm the
Syrian rebels.

Paul also incorrectly quotes the Pew poll that he footnotes. The
Pew Research Center wrote “overall, 70% oppose the U.S. and its
allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups
in Syria.” Paul instead used the phrase “Islamic rebels” to
substitute for “anti-government groups.”

Finally, Rogin points out that Paul managed to contradict
himself when he talked about Benghazi:

Perhaps the most confusing part of Paul’s speech is a passage
about Benghazi where the Kentucky senator contradicts himself in
back-to-back sentences.

“When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned
the Ambassador down. [27] Under cross-examination, she admitted
that she never read the cables asking for more security. [28],”
Paul said.

The article Paul footnotes as proof for his first sentence
explains that witnesses were “expected” to testify that Clinton was
personally involved in the refusals to place more security in
Benghazi in the attack; not that this was a fact. The second
sentence confirms that Clinton was not personally involved in the
Benghazi security request, refuting what Paul said one sentence
earlier.

James Rosen at
McClatchyDC has also written on the factual inaccuracies in
Paul’s speech at The Citadel.

Paul is widely expected to run for president. If he wants to
have a shot at securing the GOP nomination he will have to make
further steps to ensure that his public statements are not only
free of possible plagiarism, but that they are also accurate. As
Reason’s Editor-in-Chief
Matt Welch wrote earlier this month, “…these sloppy,
undergraduate-level infractions suggest strongly that Sen. Paul is
running a loose ship, one not currently ready for the prime time of
winning a national election.”

The lack of accuracy and the accusations of plagiarism are
frustrating for those, like myself, who agree with many of Paul’s
positions on foreign policy (even if I might wish he would change

some of the rhetoric and
more fully explain the policies that would be implemented in a
Paul administration). Paul is one of the United States’ most
prominent non-interventionists, and it would be a shame if his
positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of
errors that have been highlighted recently.

Yesterday Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave his first
major speech since the recent plagiarism scandal. Speaking at
The Citadel, Paul outlined his views on the military and foreign
policy in a speech that included 33 footnotes. Unfortunately, Paul
did not outline much new in this speech, and it is already being
criticized for its lack of accuracy.

Anyone who has been following Paul’s beliefs on foreign policy
would not have been surprised to hear him highlight his disapproval
of foreign aid to Egypt, his constitutionalism, his opposition to
intervention in Syria, as well as his anger over the
administration’s response to the attack on the American consulate
in Benghazi last year. Although Paul did not voice any new
complaints, he did say that he will soon be announcing the
formation of a task force “to bring together great minds from the
world of national defense, and put forward a plan to modernize our
military, and strengthen our defenses,” which will include an audit
of the Pentagon.

While Paul may have included 33 footnotes in his speech, The
Daily Beast’s Josh Rogin points out that although more information
was cited, the speech included factual errors relating to claims
about the situations in Egypt and Syria as well the attack on the
American consulate in Benghazi:

From
The Daily Beast:

For example, in the following two sentences about Egypt, Paul
makes at least four factual errors.

“In Egypt recently, we saw a military coup that this
Administration tells us is not a military coup. In a highly
unstable situation, our government continued to send F-16s, Abrams
tanks and American-made tear gas,” Paul said.

In fact, the State Department has repeatedly said it would not
weigh in on whether the July overthrow of Egyptian President
Mohamed Morsi was a “coup,” deciding that the administration was
not required to make a determination one way or the other.

Following the military takeover of the Egyptian government, the
administration quietly halted all shipments of heavy weapons to
Egypt, mostly adhering to a law requiring a cutoff of military aid
to any country that has experienced a coup, while maintaining a
position of ambiguity over whether a coup had taken place.

Rogin also points out that Paul’s claims relating to the
situation in Syria also contain factual errors:

“As we continue to aid and arm despotic regimes in Egypt, we are
also now sending weapons to the rebels in Syria,” Paul said.
“According to a recent poll from Pew Research, over 70 percent of
Americans are against arming the Islamic rebels in Syria, yet the
Senate continues to arm these Islamic radicals. [15] [16] This is
unacceptable!”

The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the
Syrian rebels, something that has angered several Republican
colleagues of Paul, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The Free
Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian opposition has received
only Meals Ready to Eat, first aid kits, and 10 pickup trucks. The
CIA is reported to be vetting some arms shipments to the rebels
coming from third countries such as Saudi Arabia, but the White
House has repeatedly shot downState Department proposals to arm the
Syrian rebels.

Paul also incorrectly quotes the Pew poll that he footnotes. The
Pew Research Center wrote “overall, 70% oppose the U.S. and its
allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups
in Syria.” Paul instead used the phrase “Islamic rebels” to
substitute for “anti-government groups.”

Finally, Rogin points out that Paul managed to contradict
himself when he talked about Benghazi:

Perhaps the most confusing part of Paul’s speech is a passage
about Benghazi where the Kentucky senator contradicts himself in
back-to-back sentences.

“When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned
the Ambassador down. [27] Under cross-examination, she admitted
that she never read the cables asking for more security. [28],”
Paul said.

The article Paul footnotes as proof for his first sentence
explains that witnesses were “expected” to testify that Clinton was
personally involved in the refusals to place more security in
Benghazi in the attack; not that this was a fact. The second
sentence confirms that Clinton was not personally involved in the
Benghazi security request, refuting what Paul said one sentence
earlier.

James Rosen at
McClatchyDC has also written on the factual inaccuracies in
Paul’s speech at The Citadel.

Paul is widely expected to run for president. If he wants to
have a shot at securing the GOP nomination he will have to make
further steps to ensure that his public statements are not only
free of possible plagiarism, but that they are also accurate. As
Reason’s Editor-in-Chief
Matt Welch wrote earlier this month, “…these sloppy,
undergraduate-level infractions suggest strongly that Sen. Paul is
running a loose ship, one not currently ready for the prime time of
winning a national election.”

The lack of accuracy and the accusations of plagiarism are
frustrating for those, like myself, who agree with many of Paul’s
positions on foreign policy (even if I might wish he would change

some of the rhetoric and
more fully explain the policies that would be implemented in a
Paul administration). Paul is one of the United States’ most
prominent non-interventionists, and it would be a shame if his
positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of
errors that have been highlighted recently.

For the first time since the
Quinnipiac poll began asking the question, Americans are
equally likely to trust Obama as Congressional Republicans with
handling health care policy (42 to 43 percent respectively. In
fact, just a few weeks ago, President Obama enjoyed a 9-point
advantage over his GOP colleagues (47 to 38 percent) for handling
health care.

A plurality of young Americans 18-29, a key Obama constituency,
were actually slightly more likely to trust Republicans in Congress
than Obama on health care by a margin of 46 to 41 percent). A
plurality of independents also favored the Congressional GOP over
Obama by a margin of 47 to 32 percent.  A slim plurality of
Latinos favored Obama to Republicans on health care 49 to 41,
compared to Caucasians who favored Republicans (50 to 34 percent)
and African-Americans who favored Obama (78 to 13 percent). Despite
the so-called Republican War on Women, Obama only retains a 2-point
advantage among women (44 to 42 percent), while men favor
Republicans (44 to 39 percent).

Obama’s slipping advantage is particularly surprising given the
president’s previous upper hand on an
issue traditionally owned by Democrats. Not only that, but
Republican
favorability sank to record lows just a few weeks ago during
the government shutdown.  

However, once public debate over the government shutdown
settled, attention focused on the messy and glitch-laden launch of
the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchange websites. The
websites managed to only sign up
6 enrollees in the first day. Thus far the Wall Street
Journal
reports that only about 100,000 Americans have enrolled in
federal and state run exchanges, falling about 80 percent short of
the 500,000 enrollments the
administration’s models had predicted.

Reports of insurers cancelling millions of Americans’ health
insurance policies despite President Obama’s repeated
promises that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep
your health care plan” have further disillusioned the public.

Quinnipiac also
found that only 36 percent of Americans approve of President
Obama’s handling of health care, independent of a comparison,
compared to 43 percent in October.

Amidst the government shut down just a few weeks ago, few would
have guessed the public would trust the Republicans on major
issues, let alone health care. However, the roll out of President
Obama’s signature health care law has proven a difficult and
uncertain process. Even before the shutdown
62 percent of Americans thought implementation of the ACA was
not going well.

Perhaps the last few months have further demonstrated why it is
not often that federal government can be trusted to do things
well.

The public’s trust in President
Obama has hit a new low according to a recent
Quinnipiac poll, with a slim majority (52 percent) who say the
president is not “honest or trustworthy” whereas 44 percent believe
he is. Just last month, most Americans (54 percent) agreed the
president was honest and trustworthy, while 41 percent
disagreed.

In November, Quinnipiac
found that a solid majority (60 percent) of independents
distrusted Barack Obama as well as 86 percent of Republicans, but
only 12 percent of Democrats. Slim majorities of all age groups
also reported a lack of trust in the president, including 51
percent of millennials, some of Obama’s most enthusiastic
supporters. Eight-one percent of African-Americans trust Obama and
59 percent of Caucasians do not, while Hispanics are evenly divided
51 percent to 49 percent in slight favor of the president. A
majority (55 percent) of men are distrustful of the president, and
a slight plurality (49 percent) of women agrees.

Presidential trust has likely waned amidst the millions of
Americans who have had their current health insurance plans
canceled even after President Obama
consistently promised “if you like your health care plan, you
can keep your health care plan.” Moreover, the messy rollout of
health insurance exchanges have resulted in
only 100,000 enrollments, falling about 80 percent short of
500,000 enrollments the administration’s
models had predicted. The actual implementation of the health
care law has continued to undermine the Obama administration’s
promises and predictions.

Within this context, it is perhaps less surprising that only

36 percent approve of the president’s handling of health care,
compare to 43 percent in October. Not only that, for the first time
since Quinnpiac began asking the question, Americans are equally
likely to trust Republicans with health care as President Obama (43
and 42 percent respectively). Just last month, Obama enjoyed a 9
point advantage over his GOP colleagues (47 to 38 percent). Once
debate over the government shutdown settled, the renewed focus on
the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare has not gone well for the
president.

• Officials in Ohio have denied a
  death row inmate’s request to have his organs donated to his
  relatives, saying that he made the request too late.
• Rep.
  Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) is concerned about the number of Western
  jihadists fighting in Syria, who could return to North America or
  Europe to launch attacks.
• 
  Opium production in Afghanistan is at a record high.
• Sen.
  Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is cosponsoring a bill which
  would force insurance companies to reinstate health plans that were
  canceled because of Obamacare.
• Hawaii’s Senate has passed a bill
  legalizing gay marriage.
• 
  China’s Communist Party has agreed that markets should play a
  “decisive role” in allocating resources.

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7
content widgets for your
websites.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter,
and don’t forget to sign
up for Reason’s daily updates for more
content.

Whatever the outcome of the Wells investigation
into Richie Incognito’s alleged misconduct against his teammate
Jonathan Martin, the Dolphins affair has once again focused
public attention on the NFL’s unusual labor system. S.M. Oliva
points out that labor regulations are only making the situation
worse by limiting the ability of players to leave an unpleasant
situation and seek work elsewhere.

View this article.