Archive for Freedomworks

FreedomWorks Policy Update: Is HHS Hiding Latest ObamaCare Enrollment Data?

ACA_Enrollment_Trends

In the early months of the open enrollment period for the insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), nobody in the Obama administration seemed to know how many people had actually signed up for the subsidized insurance plans being offered. This left a lot of experts and members of Congress curious given that the exchanges, after all, were Internet-based and must have had some sort of electronic record of usage and purchases. As bad as the technical problems were during the initial roll out of the ObamaCare exchanges, there was simply no way that these websites were built without a mechanism that tracked or could be used to track enrollment. Yet the administration remained persistent that they had no such data.

The truth is likely that those website glitches suppressed initial enrollment to dismal levels and that the White House was simply saving face by claiming ignorance. This is almost undeniably the case, because as soon as many of the technical problems had been rectified and enrollment began to tick up, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the White House were miraculously able to report on a consistent basis exactly how many people had selected insurance plans through the exchanges. In fact, HHS has released a very detailed report on insurance exchange usage for both the federal and state run exchanges every month since the beginning of open enrollment. Well… almost every month.

I referenced these reports in a post I compiled last week, on April 9, that dove into the Obama administration’s latest claim that over 7 million individuals had enrolled in exchange-based insurance plans. I figured many people were probably curious where the White House was getting the 7 million figure from. I explained:

“Every month since open enrollment on the exchanges began, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) within HHS has released a report detailing cumulative exchange usage and enrollment for both federal and state-managed exchanges. Best guess is that the White House is referencing a statistic in the report labeled “Marketplace Eligible Individuals Who Have Selected a Marketplace Plan.” This appears to be the closest thing to “enrollment” that is reported by HHS. The ASPE report for October through the end of February, which was published March 11, reported that a little over 4.24 million had “selected a marketplace plan.” We’ll likely have to wait a few more days for ASPE to tally March enrollment to see if this is the source of the White House’s figure.”

Now, two and a half weeks into April, the administration and its allies are still running with the “over 7 million” figure, even boldly claiming that the number of enrollees has grown to as many as 8 million since the end of March. Curious how that is possible since open-enrollment technically closed at the end of March, but I digress. As I’ve noted before, the number of sign-ups is largely irrelevant and both supporters and detractors of the law have admitted to this. Yet, what actually stands out to me about the latest enrollment claims by the administration is that the ASPE and HHS have yet to release their monthly report on enrollment through the end of March to support it. In fact, judging by the release dates of the previous 5 reports, this month’s report is almost a week late and counting.

Considering the administration’s behavior during the initial roll out of ObamaCare, denying they had access to data they were later proved to be in fact privy to, the question is now begged:

What are they hiding about the latest exchange enrollment data?

Possible Answers

As detailed as the previous ASPE enrollment reports have been, they really only tell us a few things relevant to the debate over the efficacy of ObamaCare:

  1. Enrollment in exchange-based insurance plans
  2. Medicaid eligibility determinations
    and
  3. The age demographics of individuals enrolling in exchange-based plans
    The question therefore becomes, which of these could the administration be concerned enough about that forced HHS to withhold this month’s report thus far? Let’s briefly evaluate the options.

1. Enrollment in exchange-based insurance plans.

As mentioned before, the number of people that are enrolled in the plans doesn’t actually matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. As I explained in a previous post, the 7 million figure is not some magic number. It was an estimate made by the Congressional Budget Office last year of how many individuals would likely sign up during this first open enrollment period. More important are the characteristics of the enrollees, a point I’ll expand on shortly. Regardless, this means that the administration has little incentive to hide the raw total of individuals that have enrolled in plans.
This does remain a possibility however. Despite the technical irrelevance of reaching 7 million sign-ups, it does seem to hold some superficial significance. The Obama administration bought in hard on 7 million sign-ups and went for broke to get there. While not reaching that total wouldn’t have any real effect on the mechanics of the exchange-based insurance plans, it might have devastated the administration’s credibility and Democrats’ chances going into the 2014 mid-terms. Further, information contained in the last ASPE report released in March suggests that the trend in sign-ups wasn’t heading anywhere near 7 million by the end of March:

ACA Enrollment Trends

As you can clearly see, the rate of enrollment was beginning to level off through January and February, with total enrollment at just over 4 million. With enrollment for January and February at around 2 million combined, adding an additional 3 million in a single month would require a huge spike upward in the rate of enrollment. While that is certainly possible, the drastic nature of such an uptick lends credibility to the argument that the White House may be fudging the 7 million number.

2. Medicaid eligibility determinations.

Since the exchanges opened, the number of users they have determined eligible for Medicaid has consistently outnumbered the number of people that have signed up for exchange-based insurance plans. Yet, for all of Medicaid’s faults, be it the program’s gross insolvency or poor quality of care provided, the administration is actually proud of the amount of people that have gained Medicaid coverage. Even if the unreleased March numbers indicate a rapid escalation in the number of Medicaid eligibility determinations, outpacing insurance sign-ups, this is only a point that would only be perceived as a problem with the law by its opponents, yours truly included.

3. The age demographics of individuals enrolling in exchange-based plans.

This is the most likely sore spot for the Obama administration. The last ASPE report revealed that the overwhelming majority of enrollees in the exchange-based insurance plans were in fact older, and thus likely less-healthy, Americans. Sign-ups of individuals 45 and older for these plans actually out-paced enrollment of those aged 18 to 34 by a 2-to-1 margin. This means that the insurance risk pools being created by the ObamaCare exchanges and the subsidized coverage being offered are predominantly attracting those with the greatest propensity to draw on insurance and be a net-cost to the system. Without a large population of young and healthy individuals, who would be net-payers, in the exchanged-based insurance plans, the risk pools could become insolvent, forcing insurance companies to dramatically raise premiums across their customer base, from ObamaCare exchange-based to private market plans.

As proud as they are about 7 or 8 or however many sign-ups, the administration is well aware that the raw total of individual sign-ups is largely irrelevant to the stability of the plans created by the Affordable Care Act. They are equally aware of the importance of having enough young people sign up for exchange-based plans in order to subsidize the wave of older and less-healthy people drawn in by the promise of guaranteed and subsidized coverage. This is why the administration has spent the better part of this year, and especially the last month, conducting now infamous youth outreach stunts such as “Pajama Boy” and a White House interview with Zach Galifianakis, the equivalent of Curly of the Three Stooges in the “Hangover” movie trilogy. The failure to obtain sufficient youth sign-ups would be a huge blow to a White House that essentially traded the esteem of the Office of the President of The United States for them, making this the most likely reason they are withholding the specifics of latest enrollment figures.

Powered by WPeMatico

Watch Tom Borelli Discuss EPA Fails to Disclose Risks in Human Testing on Wilkow TV

“It’s clear the EPA will do anything to pursue its radical agenda,” says FreedomWorks Senior Fellow Tom Borelli.

Tom joins General Counsel for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute and former EPA official David Schnare and host Andrew Wilkow on The Blaze TV’s Wilkow.

Here’s a clip of the interview.

Read Tom’s post, “EPA Failed to Disclose Cancer Risks in Human Experiments.”

Watch Here

Powered by WPeMatico

Empower.org Member Chris Lynch Talks Personal Responsibility on The Willis Report

Chris Lynch, author of “Within Your Reach: A Journey through Diabetes,” and Empower.org member, appeared on The Willis Report with host Gerri Willis to discuss finances and personal responsibility on the Fox Business Network.

Watch Chris’ interview here (begins 5 minutes into video)

Powered by WPeMatico

The IRS Blinks

Thanks to grassroots pressure, the IRS has taken their eye off the persecution ball.

Back in November, on the eve of Thanksgiving when they thought nobody would notice, the IRS surreptitiously announced its proposal of a new regulation that would severely limit the ability of tax exempt to groups to participate in the political process. The proposal was short on specifics, but the regulation would have given the IRS the power to narrowly define what constitutes “social welfare” and “political activity,” qualities it says organizations must exhibit in order to qualify for tax exempt status.

In the wake of the agency’s tea party targeting scandal, it was clear that this was nothing less than an attempt to shut down groups that opposed the Obama administration and its agenda, using the tax code as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies. It did not take long for 501(c)(4) groups and the individuals they serve to realize this and to respond to this existential threat to their political voices.

When the regulation was submitted for public comments, the outrage was overwhelming. Individual activists often rely on 501(c)(4)s to help educate them about political issues, and to provide a voice for the grassroots that would otherwise be drowned out by the big money establishment. Overall, more than 140,000 comments were logged – a record breaking number and vastly more than the IRS could have possibly expected..

Now, we’re learning that these efforts were not in vain. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, in an interview with USA Today, conceded that the agency had no choice but to take the enormous amount of grassroots opposition to the regulation into account.

“I think we have to take all of that into consideration,” Koskinen said. “There are very thoughtful comments and concerns, and one of the questions that has evoked a lot of comment is, once you define what political activity is, to what organizations should it apply in the 501(c) context and how much of it should be allowed? All of that is going to be very important.”

Koskinen says he expects to release a revised regulation for a second round of public comments, a process that could take until the end of the year.

This is a victory for those of us who value the disintermediation of politics and the empowerment of the grassroots. We made a big noise, and we made a difference. Delaying this damaging regulation for a year is certainly nothing to sneeze at. With Lois Lerner now facing potential jail time, and the IRS backing off this issue as well, we have every reason to be proud of the efforts we have made to defend freedom and political accountability.

In all likelihood, however, the revised rule will be nothing but a watered down version of the original proposal. The idea that the IRS—an agency that has proven itself to be hopelessly partisan and corrupt—will simply abandon its efforts to silence conservative groups strains credibility. Now more than ever, it is important to continue holding politicians’ and bureaucrats’ feet to the fire to ensure that the Obama administration is not able to use regulatory agencies to punish those who oppose his policies.

In the midst of the midterm elections, the establishment has been trying to push the narrative that the tea party is dead, that their day has come and gone, and that it’s time to give up on this whole “standing on principle” business. The IRS’ retreat on this issue shows just how far this is from the truth. Americans are learning that, through organization and the coordination made possible by technology, they have the power, each and every one of them, to effect real change. If the IRS wants to take that away, they had better be ready for a fight.

Powered by WPeMatico

Lois Lerner Playing the Victim Card

Pictured: not a victim.

The saga of Lois Lerner, the IRS official who oversaw the unjust persecution of conservative and tea party organizations during the 2012 election, continues to be one of the most interesting and infuriating cases of political corruption in recent memory. After twice invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying on what she knew and when she knew it, Ms. Lerner now faces the prospect of jail time, having been officially held in contempt of Congress and recommended for criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice.

Yet one of the most astonishing features of this whole circus has been Lerner’s alleged rationale for refusing to cooperate the investigation and help right the wrongs of her agency. Presented with an opportunity to display honesty and humility in order to root out political corruption, Lerner instead took refuge in cowardice.

Lerner’s attorney claimed that she feared that giving an open testimony before the congressional committee would place her life in danger. “Ms. Lerner has been the subject of numerous threats on her life and safety, and on the life and safety of her family. I left with the staff recent evidence of those threats,” he wrote in a letter to Darrell Issa, the committee chairman.

It is a bit rich for someone who participated in the wholesale abuse of government power to oppress ordinary citizens to now paint herself as a victim. This is a typical, and wholly predictable, tactic of the left. Whenever they are caught doing something unseemly, it is never their fault. Progressives are incapable of seeing themselves as anything other than victims, and their opponents as anything other than oppressors. Any other perspective would shatter their self-image as noble underdogs, fighting the evil and greedy capitalists for the common good.

“Blaming the victim” is a phrase most commonly applied by progressives to denounce Republicans in the imaginary “War on Women.” It would be hard to find a more clear cut case, however, than an official with the IRS actually fear mongering against the very people they have wronged.

Apart from perpetuating the left’s culture of victimhood, Ms. Lerner’s behavior also continues another pattern of mischaracterization that has been going on for years—the idea that the tea party is composed of violent extremists. This is a myth that has persisted in spite of a complete dearth of evidence. Tea party rallies have been uniformly clean, cordial and peaceful, in stark contrast to the paths of waste and destruction left in the wake of the Occupy Wall St. movement—a movement that the media was nevertheless lionized by the media, its sins and excesses swept unceremoniously under the rug.

Yet time and time again, the media has rushed to portray tea partiers as perpetually teetering on the edge of violent psychopathy. If Lerner has in fact received death threats, as her attorney claims, it is indeed troubling, but it is no more than every public figure—including myself—receives on a regular basis. That fear of idle threats should prevent a powerful, and no doubt well protected, woman from atoning for the sins of her agency by telling the truth is, in a word, shameful.

The IRS targeting scandal was an outrageous breach of power and the American people deserve to learn the truth about why their government betrayed them. Now, with Lerner being held in contempt of Congress and recommended for criminal prosecution, we can only hope that justice may finally be served.

Help Hold Lois Lerner Accountable

Powered by WPeMatico

USA Freedom Act Would Restrict the NSA

In the wake of the National Security Agency (NSA) revelations, polls show that the majority of Americans support reforms to the agency. Most are not pleased that the government is spying on their private activities without even a warrant. A handful of NSA reform bills have been introduced but they are not all created equal.

Here at FreedomWorks, we are supporting the USA Freedom Act. While it’s not a perfect bill, it’s a big step in the right direction. I would prefer a full repeal of the Patriot Act but I realize that Congress isn’t quite there yet. The next best thing is the USA Freedom Act that tightens section 215 of the Patriot Act to limit the bulk collection of records on Americans. Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to spy on people without probable cause or letting anyone know that they are being monitored.

The USA Freedom Act would also increase government transparency by mandating the government publish how many people are subject to surveillance orders and reveal secret significant FISA Court opinions to the public. It would get rid of the gag order on companies and allow them to report how many requests they get from government to share information.

In an interview with United Liberty, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) said that there is a lot of support for the USA Freedom Act which currently has more than 140 cosponsors.

“There’s more than enough votes to pass the FREEDOM Act. The White House proposal and the Intelligence Committee proposal are simply an effort to stall the process. They don’t really do much, and it’s an effort to keep this issue going so that the President can continue to use the same system he’s been using without making any substantive changes.”

You can help ensure that the USA Freedom Act gets a vote by calling House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte at 202-225-5431.

There is a worry that they may push through a weak NSA reform bill just so they can say they “did something.” There are more a dozen proposals but there are four primary proposals. Access does a great job at rating these proposals. Click here to see their scorecard.

The USA Freedom Act is still the best bill to reform the NSA’s unconstitutional spying programs.

Powered by WPeMatico

ObamaCare: Politicians' Dreams Are Debased By Slothful Governance

Democracy and Power 105: The Politician seeks power

To some people, government appears as a vast reservoir of power which inspires them to dream of what use might be made of it. They have favorite projects of various dimensions which they sincerely believe are for the benefit of mankind. They are thus disposed to recognize government—an instrument of passion, the art of politics to inflame and direct desire.
- Michael Oakeshott – English political philosopher 1901-1990

ObamaCare: Politicians’ Dreams Are Debased By Slothful Governance

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Democrats and many Americans dreamed of universal healthcare. With Democrats in control of the House, Senate and the Presidency, they had the power to fulfill their dream. Initially, Obama coerced and bribed everyone in the medical industry to support ObamaCare…or, at least, not actively oppose it. Then, Obama, Pelosi and Reid procured the necessary votes in the House and Senate – through more coercion and bribes.

The public? “Don’t worry, they will like it. It is a benefit for mankind.”

Wrong. Even ardent supporters of ObamaCare acknowledge major flaws in the law and its implementation. Recently, Celinda Lake a top spin-master exhorts the Democrats, “In terms of Obamacare, don’t defend it, say it was flawed from the beginning, and we’re going to fix it.” An admission that House and Senate Democrats promulgated flawed legislation. President Obama signed the flawed legislation into law, and consequently millions of American lost their doctors, have no access to the hospital of their choice, lost their insurance, or are required by law to buy a bronze insurance policy (at minimum), which often costs more and has higher deductibles. For us “benefited” Americans, the IRS is the enforcer.

Okay, okay! The law is a horrific mess, very expensive, reduces employment, retards the economy and is a complicated burden. Horrifically, politicians’ dreams superseded mature and sober Congressional deliberation. Obama, Pelosi and Reid were totally focused on their dream – universal healthcare. Ardently, they exerted their political skills and enormous power to fulfill their dream. As Speaker Pelosi infamously declared, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Just pass ObamaCare and let the bureaucracy mandate regulations and implement the law? Sure.

Following their leaders’ dictates, Senate and House Democrats abrogated their moral duty to intelligently and somberly promulgate the law and passed what Celinda Lake admits was “flawed from the beginning.” Immediately, upon ObamaCare becoming the law, our President delegated authority to Secretary Sebelius and the bureaucracy. Soon thereafter, hundreds of revisions have been made by bureaucrats, which have negatively impacted, doctors, patients, insurers, employers, the American economy and our respect for our government.

Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) died before Obama, Pelosi and Reid were major political players. However, Oakeshott fully understood the insatiable lust for power of dreamers:

To some people, government appears as a vast reservoir of power which inspires them to dream of what use might be made of it. They have favorite projects of various dimensions which they sincerely believe are for the benefit of mankind. They are thus disposed to recognize government—an instrument of passion, the art of politics to inflame and direct desire.

Unfortunately, America is paying an enormous price for the dreams of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their acolytes.

Powered by WPeMatico

Democrats Demonize Conservative Supreme Court Justices

Democracy and Power 115: Other Power Players

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

Democrats Demonize Conservative Supreme Court Justices

The Hill reports that Senate Democrats and liberal groups are demonizing conservative Justices of the Supreme Court. Clearly, Democrats intend to influence future ObamaCare decisions. The Hill reports:

Senate Democrats and liberal groups are mounting a pressure campaign against the Supreme Court, hoping to influence future decisions by blasting conservative justices for alleged political bias.

The essence of our Constitution is to limit and disperse the power of government. Now, Democrat Senators, Reid (D-NV), Whitehouse (D-RI) Schumer (D-NY), and Leahy (D-VT) as well as their political allies are intentionally violating the principle of the Separation of Powers. The framers of our Constitution limited the power of Congress, and it is the Supreme Courts duty to declare a law void when Congress exceeds the limits on their Constitutional powers.

Here is a real example: Was Chief Justice Roberts influenced in the ObamaCare case? Did he switch his vote that the ObamaCare fine was a tax – a tax is a Constitutional power vested with Congress – because he thought the power and prestige of the Supreme Court would irreversibly damaged? There are many people who speculate and reason that is exactly what happened. Robert’s feared the Democrats would scream that the Court stole the election in 2000. Then, if the Roberts’ Court declared ObamaCare void, the Democrats would scream again the Court was voiding a duly passed law – ObamaCare. Thus, Roberts created the tax to save the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.

What were the mental machinations of Chief Justice Roberts? Most likely, Americans will never know. Except, it is certain Democrats believe Justice Roberts and the Court can be pressured. They accept they pressured Roberts and are spending time and money to pressure the Court again. Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, compared the Senators pressure campaign to coaches working the referees in basketball games.

“The left clearly tried to work the refs on the Affordable Care Act,” said Randy Barnett. “They worked the refs after Citizens United, which helped set things up for the Affordable Care Act challenge. If it seems to work, why not continue? It’s unfortunate, I think, that they’ve been encouraged in this behavior by its apparent success.”

Alexander Hamilton, one of the smartest of America’s Founders, wrote in Federalist No. 78, “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.” Today, approximately 230 years later, Democratic Senators are attempting to demonize our conservative justices. Worse, it appears that Chief Justice Roberts was influenced by previous pressure.

In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton explained the necessity of the Supreme Court to declare a law void, “… whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” Finally, Hamilton reasoned if the Court fails in its responsibility to declare a law unconstitutional there is no restraint on Congress. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

It is deplorable that our Senators and President have demonized members of the Supreme Court. It is unconscionable for members of the Court to succumb to campaigns of demonization. America critically needs political leaders imbued with the philosophy of freedom. Government that is small and limited. Achieved by dispersing and separating the enormous powers of government.

Powered by WPeMatico

NSA Used Heartbleed Attack, Failed To Warn Of Its Danger

National Security Agency

The U.S. National Security Agency knew for years about the Heartbleed bug and exploited it against Americans, according to Bloomberg.

System administrators, software developers, and computer support personnel are trained to report immediately all security flaws. Bloomberg says that didn’t happen here.

The agency found the Heartbleed glitch shortly after its introduction, according to one of the people familiar with the matter, and it became a basic part of the agency’s toolkit for stealing account passwords and other common tasks.

Keeping bugs secret from the public is prudent, as this keeps additional bad guys from realizing that a bug is present for exploitation. There is only one reason for keeping flaws secret from the programmers who made the errors, however, and that is to be able to keep using the flaw. The agency irresponsibly left Americans unsafe.

While the NSA ought to be exploiting any weakness in the information infrastructure of foreign governments and America’s enemies, without a warrant it should not do so to Americans. In addition, failure to disclose flaws also allows other attackers to continue to use the flaws against the American public.

FreedomWorks and Senator Rand Paul are suing the NSA on behalf of all Americans.

The Heartbleed bug is the result of a programming flaw in the OpenSSL suite of software that powers many Internet sites’ security. In the flawed implementation, a server (such as a web site) receives a request from the client for a piece of information of a certain size.

Rather than checking that the piece of information, such as a password, is the requested size, the flawed server implementation would deliver a chunk of information the requested size — up to 64 kilobytes of information. Since multiple users’ security information is often stored together, the Heartbleed exploit usually delivers other users’ secrets. It may not be the information an attacker is seeking, and only affects data the server had recently accessed, but the attack can be repeated over and over.

Together with the NSA’s massive and illegal collection of data on all individuals, these secrets could be used to spy on Americans. People often use the same password in multiple locations, so finding one password would allow the NSA to use it in the other locations it discovered with its illegal phone and Internet tracking.

The color code in this field is #3d2fb6

Support the Lawsuit

Powered by WPeMatico

All Aboard… for Cronyism!

Choo choo choose to stop corporate cronyism!

People often criticize capitalism as giving too much power to big business, and use this concern as a justification for more government intervention in the economy. But the kinds of business practices that are most damaging come not from free market competition, but from government-sponsored cronyism, where certain businesses are given legal advantage over others for political purposes.

This is the situation in Florida, where a scheme known as All Aboard Florida would establish a high speed rail system with taxpayer dollars. Defenders of the program argue that, since a private company will be managing the operation, there is no need to be concerned about big government inefficiency and ineptitude, but nothing could be further from the truth. So far, governor has already committed more than $200 million in taxpayer money to fund the infrastructure, with a number of other spending necessity still waiting to receive spending scores.

This amounts to a state-granted monopoly on a transportation system that is not being demanded by the market. As we have seen with Amtrak, as well as countless public transit systems in cities all around the country, a lack of demand and poor planning inevitably result in systems that barely function, while remaining a continuous drain on taxpayers who never asked for these trains to be built in the first place.

It is doubtful that the spending commitments will end with the funds already promised. Already, there is talk of the government issuing sizable loans to the project, and a recent report found that current projects are woefully inadequate from the point of view of public safety. In order to bring the project up to code, we can be certain that Floridians will be obligated to supply additional funds out of pocket, not to mention covering the costs of any budget shortfalls once the trains are up and running.

With a publicly funded infrastructure project of this size, there is no way that the state will allow the business to fail if demand is lacking, which it almost certainly will be. This means further subsidization, and a lack of accountability that blurs the line between public and private management.

Proponents of these type of projects always claim that they will result in job growth and economic stimulation for the community. This is false. When taxpayer money is used to finance a specific project, those funds are diverted away from other potential uses. Early economist Frederic Bastiat famously pointed this out in his illuminating essay “That Which is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen.” The money spent to build high speed rail (which, it will be remembered, is not wanted by the people paying for it) is not able to be spent elsewhere, such as to fill genuine market needs. When the government picks winners and losers, there is always an efficiency loss, since a central authority cannot anticipate the needs of consumers more than the discovery process of the market. The jobs thus “created” are not only an illusion, but actually represent a loss from the number of jobs that would have been created had the government not intervened. Yet 150 years after Bastiat, we are still having to debunk the same fallacy.

These sorts of public works projects only serve the purpose of politicians rewarding their friends at the expense of everyone else. High speed rail is a particularly attractive project for cronyists to support, because progressives like the way it sounds. Democratic Senators Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu have supported projects similar to All Aboard Florida in their states.

A group of grassroots activists has organized a petition to oppose the corporate cronyism of All Aboard Florida, and have already collected more than 5,000 signatures. Additionally, FreedomWorks is issuing an Action Alert for our activists to hold politicians accountable for using taxpayer money to support a private company.

Stop high speed cronyism in Florida now!

Powered by WPeMatico