Topic: Government and Politics

#Cato2016—Cato Scholars Ground National Debates in Solid Policy Analysis

As my colleague Jeff Milyo wrote somewhat recently, the national sport isn’t baseball; it’s politics. With Americans across the nation loyally cheering on either Team Red or Team Blue (or, for a growing few, Team Purple), the discussion around key political events can seem somewhat superfluously shallow. That’s where the Cato Institute comes in.

#Cato2016

Throughout the 2016 campaign season, Cato scholars will be injecting insightful commentary and hard-hitting policy analysis into the national conversation using the Twitter hashtag #Cato2016. 

We’ll be off to a running start with not one, not two, but three major nationally televised events this week.

Tonight at 7:00 p.m. EST, the Voters First Forum will be held at the Dana Center at Saint Anselm College and broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN. Featuring Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and George Pataki, the forum will be the first time the majority of the GOP presidential primary contenders will be sharing one stage.  Tune in on Twitter for commentary from Emily Ekins, Jonathan Blanks, Adam Bates, and more. You can find a full list of participating scholars and follow their accounts here.

Then, on Thursday, August 6th, Fox News will host two nationally-televised debates featuring candidates for the GOP nomination for the 2016 presidential elections. The first of these debates—to be held at 5:00 p.m. EST—will be an opportunity to hear from some of the lesser-known contenders, while the second of these debates—to be held at 9:00 p.m. EST—will feature those candidates who place in the top 10 of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by FOX News, leading up to the debate. Tune in on Twitter for commentary from Emma Ashford, Alex Nowrasteh, Patrick Eddington, Michael Cannon, Jason Bedrick, and more. You can find a full list of scholars participating in the 5:00 p.m.  and 9:00 p.m. debates via the @CatoEvents Twitter account.

Tuning into the debates (or simple wondering how they might impact the policy debate)? Join the conversation on Twitter with #Cato2016. 

Sen. Tim Kaine at Cato: A Year (and Counting) of Unauthorized War

This week marks the first anniversary of our latest war in the Middle East, but after some 5,000 airstrikes in two countries, and with 3,500 U.S. troops on the ground, we’ve yet to have an up-or-down vote in Congress on authorization for the use of military force against ISIS.

We’re recognizing—“celebrating” isn’t the right word—that unhappy anniversary at Cato with a talk by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), who holds the unfashionable view that Congress ought to vote on the wars we fight, and has been waging a (sometimes lonely) battle to get his colleagues to live up to their most important constitutional responsibility. The event runs from 9:00-10:00 AM on Thursday, August 6, so you can hear about the erosion of congressional war powers and grab your morning coffee without getting to work too late; RSVP here.  

President Obama announced the first wave of airstrikes in Iraq on August 7, 2014, and expanded the campaign against ISIS to Syrian territory in September. But it took him six months to send Congress a draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force—along with a message insisting that “existing statutes provide me with the authority I need” to wage war anyway.  Since then, as Senator Kaine recently noted, “Congress has said virtually nothing.” Recent headlines make that all too clear: “Congress avoids war debate as ISIL advances” (Politico, 5/28); “Islamic State War Authorization Goes Nowhere, Again” (Bloomberg, 6/9); “House kills measure to force debate on military force against ISIS” (The Hill, 6/11)…and so on. 

In the debate over the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act last month, Senator Kaine noted that, in the bill, Congress addresses military minutia in “excruciating detail,” but, at the same time, “we don’t want to vote on whether the nation should be at war.” When Kaine cosponsored (with Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV)) an amendment to the NDAA “expressing the sense of the Senate that we should have an authorization debate about whether we should be at war with ISIL,” it was ruled out of order: “so barracks mold, yes; vehicle rust, yes; the athletic programs at West Point, yes;” he sums up, but “whether we should be at war, nongermane to the Defense authorization act. Interestingly, we even took a vote on the floor of the Senate in the NDAA about whether we should arm the Kurds in a war that Congress has not authorized that we could debate and vote on; but whether we should be at war we have not debated and voted upon.”

The president’s claim that he already has all the authority he needs to wage war with ISIS is, as Senator Kaine put it in an earlier speech, “ridiculous.” Its principal basis is the AUMF Congress passed three days after the 9/11 attacks and was intended to be used against those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11 attacks or “harbored” those who did. Its main targets were, obviously, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, yet now, nearly 14 years later, the administration insists it serves as legal justification for a war of at least three years, in at least two countries, against a group that is not only not a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, but is engaged in open warfare against the group. Building on the Bush administration’s expansive interpretation of the 2001 authorization, the Obama administration has turned the 9/11 AUMF into an enabling statute for an open-ended globe-spanning war. “This is unacceptable,” Senator Kaine argues, “and we should be having a debate to significantly narrow that authorization” as well. 

The decision to go to war is among the gravest choices a constitutional democracy can make. The Framers erected firebreaks to hasty action, designed to force deliberation and consensus before the resort to deadly force. As James Wilson put it to the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, “this system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power in declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.’’ Join us Thursday as we explore how Congress can take that power back. 

Boston Beats Beijing in Olympics Contest

News comes this morning that Beijing has been awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics, beating out Almaty, Kazakhstan. Which touches on a point I made in this morning’s Boston Herald: 

Columnist Anne Applebaum predicted a year ago that future Olympics would likely be held only in “authoritarian countries where the voters’ views will not be taken into account” — such as the two bidders for the 2022 Winter Olympics, Beijing and Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Fortunately, Boston is not such a place. The voters’ views can be ignored and dismissed for only so long.

Indeed, Boston should be celebrating more than Beijing this week. A small band of opponents of Boston’s bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics beat the city’s elite – business leaders, construction companies, university presidents, the mayor and other establishment figures – because they knew what Olympic Games really mean for host cities and nations:

E.M. Swift, who covered the Olympics for Sports Illustrated for more than 30 years, wrote on the Cognoscenti blog a few years ago that Olympic budgets “always soar.”

“Montreal is the poster child for cost overruns, running a whopping 796 percent over budget in 1976, accumulating a deficit that took 30 years to repay. In 1996 the Atlanta Games came in 147 percent over budget. Sydney was 90 percent over its projected budget in 2000. And the 
Athens Games cost $12.8 billion, 60 percent over what the government projected.”

Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford University, the world’s leading expert on megaprojects, and his co-author Allison Stewart found that Olympic Games differ from other such large projects in two ways: They always exceed their budgets, and the cost overruns are significantly larger than other megaprojects. Adjusted for inflation, the average cost overrun for an Olympics is 179 percent.

Bostonians, of course, had memories of the Big Dig, a huge and hugely disruptive highway and tunnel project that over the course of 15 years produced a cost overrun of 190 percent.

Read the whole thing.

Federal Government: Too Big to Manage

One of the themes in my new study, “Why the Federal Government Fails,” is that the federal government has grown too large to manage with any reasonable level of efficiency and competence. Even if politicians worked diligently to advance the general interest, and even if federal bureaucracies focused on delivering quality services, the vast size of the government would still generate failure after failure.

Here’s an astounding fact: the federal government’s 2014 budget of $3.5 trillion was almost 100 times larger than the average state government budget of $36 billion, as shown in the figure. The largest state budget was California’s at $230 billion, but even that flood of spending was only one fifteenth the magnitude of the federal spending tsunami. Total state spending in 2014 was $1.8 trillion, which includes spending on general funds and nongeneral funds.

Texas Regulators Bark Up the Wrong Tree

For almost 50 years, Dr. Ronald Hines has been a licensed veterinarian in Texas. After a spinal cord injury prevented him from continuing to provide in-person services, Dr. Hines started a website to provide advice on pet care. He never tried to be an animal’s primary veterinarian—he noted a disclaimer to that effect—and did not prescribe medication. 

After a decade of such practice without any complaints or problems, the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners charged Dr. Hines with violating state law by failing to be physically present at the location of the pets before providing veterinary services. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld this restriction on Dr. Hines’s speech because, according to the court, any speech by a professional within the scope of his profession directed toward an individual’s circumstances isn’t protected by the First Amendment. 

Dr. Hines has asked the Supreme Court to review the case and Cato has filed a brief supporting that petition, joined by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. 

The Fifth Circuit erroneously construed the Texas regulations as governing nonspeech conduct that only incidentally impacted speech. But everything that Dr. Hines did was speech!—there was no nonspeech conduct to regulate. Even if the regulations were content-neutral restrictions that incidentally restricted speech, the restrictions should have been reviewed under heightened scrutiny—meaning that the government would need to show a strong justification for its enforcement action. But the restrictions at issue here are explicitly content-based: Dr. Hines could’ve talked about any topic he wanted, except the topic of veterinary care. 

Under the lower court’s logic, the following people would be unknowingly violating Texas law: Dr. Sanjay Gupta provides health information online; Loveline Radio provides relationship and drug-addition advice; The Mutual Fund Show provides financial advice; in addition to radio talk shows on pet care. All these people, and many others, would be expected to know and follow the detailed regulations of every single state. 

The physical examination requirement doesn’t even make sense as a matter of basic veterinary practice. It only requires that vets visit a location, not that they actually examine a particular animal. It prevents a vet’s colleague from relying on notes and records when the primary-care vet is unavailable. Dr. Hines couldn’t even tell a client that her pet’s condition sounded serious and so the owner should, say, not let the animal drink water and bring it to him right away. 

Moreover, someone who wasn’t a licensed veterinarian could have provided the same advice as Dr. Hines without a problem; the law prohibits good information from qualified individuals while allowing unqualified individuals to give bad advice. The regulation just ends up hurting the poor, who can’t afford to travel to Dr. Hines, and practically creates geographic limitations on speech. 

The Supreme Court should take up Hines v. Alldredge and protect basic First Amendment rights in the context of occupational regulation.

Senate Conservatives Seek to Rein In the Court

Late last year, Reason magazine’s crack legal correspondent Damon Root chronicled the rise of the modern libertarian legal movement in his important new book, Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court. In it, he focused especially on the struggle that some of us have been engaged in for more than four decades to recast the terms of the debate over the proper role of the courts from “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint” to “judicial engagement” and “judicial abdication.” That shift has been crucial because it refocused the debate from judicial behavior to where it should have been all along, namely, on the proper interpretation of the law before the court.

The struggle to bring about that shift, although much further along than when it began decades ago, is far from finished: Witness hearings just two days ago before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts. Called by Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz in the wake of last month’s Supreme Court decisions in King v. Burwell, upholding Obamacare’s subsidies for insurance purchased through exchanges established by the federal government, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage the law of the land, the hearings were titled “With Prejudice: Supreme Court Activism and Possible Solutions.”

As the title suggests, committee conservatives, in the majority, remain focused on what they see as the Court’s activism. Their witnesses were two professional friends of mine, former Chapman Law Dean and now Professor John Eastman and Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan. Nominally representing the liberal activist side was Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel.

I say “nominally” because Professor Siegel took pains early in his testimony to expose problems with the very idea of judicial activism. If defined in opposition to judicial deference, he said, many of the recent decisions of the Court’s “conservatives” would have to be called “activist.” But if the term is defined as engaging in legal infidelity, then we’re arguing not about activism or restraint but about whether the judge read the law correctly.

That’s right. In fact, “judicial engagement” emerged in libertarian thought mainly in opposition to calls from conservatives like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia for courts to be more deferential to the political branches. But it was animated by the contention that the basic problem with conservative deference was its misreading of the law. In particular, under our Constitution, as Bork put it, majorities were entitled to rule in “wide areas” simply because they were majorities, even if in “some areas” minorities were entitled to be free from majority rule—to which many of us responded that that had the law exactly backwards, turning the Constitution on its head.

But having put his finger on the real source of the differences between the activist and restraint schools, Siegel then went on to illustrate why conservatives called the hearings in the first place, arguing that the Court got it right in both King and Obergefell. In King, Siegel said, Chief Justice John Roberts was right to ignore both the text at issue in the case and the rationale for that text and instead “to read the statute in context and as a whole.” Those, of course, are the kinds of words that enable courts to reach almost any conclusion they wish—to engage in the “activism” conservatives rightly condemn. On reading the law correctly here, credit the conservatives.

King v. Burwell: How the Supreme Court Helped President Obama Disenfranchise His Political Opponents

Criticizing my recent post-mortem on King v. Burwell, Scott Lemieux kindly calls me “ObamaCare’s fiercest critic” for my role in that ObamaCare case. Other words he associates with my role include “defiant,” “ludicrous,” “farcical,” “dumber,” “snake oil,” “ludicrous” (again), “irrational,” “aggressive,” “comically transparent,” and “dishonest.”

Somewhere amid the deluge, Lemieux reaches his main claim, which is that (somehow) I admitted: “the King lawsuit wasn’t designed to uphold the statute passed by Congress in 2010. It was intended to ‘enfranchise’ the people who voted against the bill.” I’m not quite sure what Lemieux means. But perhaps Lemieux doesn’t understand my point about how the Supreme Court helped President Obama disenfranchise his political opponents.

As all nine Supreme Court justices acknowledged in King, “the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase” is that Congress authorized the Affordable Care Act’s premium subsidies, employer mandate, and (to a large extent) individual mandate only in states that agreed to establish a health-insurance “Exchange.” That is, all nine justices agreed that the plain meaning of the operative statutory language allows states to veto key provisions of the ACA—sort of like the Medicaid veto that has existed for 50 years and lets states destroy health insurance for millions of poor Americans. The Exchange veto includes the power to shield millions of state residents from the ACA’s least-popular provisions: the individual mandate and the employer mandate.

Pages