Topic: Government and Politics

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.

An Unnecessary Indictment of Dylann Roof

Today, the Justice Department indicted Dylann Roof on 33 federal hate crime charges for the killings of nine people at Emanuel A.M.E. church in Charleston last month. This indictment is entirely unnecessary.

Hard as it may be for some to imagine now, there was a long time in this country when racially and politically motivated violence against blacks was not prosecuted by state and local authorities. Or sometimes, as in the case of Emmett Till—the young boy from Chicago who was lynched in Mississippi for allegedly being too forward with a white woman—prosecution was a farce and the perpetrators were acquitted.

Cronyism in Maryland

Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland and Democratic presidential candidate, is no Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have made more than $100 million from speeches, much of it from companies and governments who just might like to have a friend in the White House or the State Department. But consider these paragraphs deep in a Washington Post story today about O’Malley’s financial disclosure form:

While O’Malley commanded far smaller fees than the former secretary of state – and gave only a handful of speeches – he also seemed to benefit from government and political connections forged during his time in public service.

Among his most lucrative speeches was a $50,000 appearance at a conference in Baltimore sponsored by Center Maryland, an organization whose leaders include a former O’Malley communications director, the finance director of his presidential campaign and the director of a super PAC formed to support O’Malley’s presidential bid.

O’Malley also lists $147,812 for a series of speeches to Environmental Systems Research Institute, a company that makes mapping software that O’Malley heavily employed as governor as part of an initiative to use data and technology to guide policy decisions.

I scratch your back, you scratch mine. That’s the sort of insider dealing that sends voters fleeing to such unlikely candidates as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

These sorts of lucrative “public service” arrangements are nothing new in Maryland (or elsewhere). In The Libertarian Mind I retell the story of how Gov. Parris Glendening and his aides scammed the state pension system and hired one another’s relatives.

In some countries governors still get suitcases full of cash. Speaking fees are much more modern.

The Right to Earn a Living Deep in the Heart of Texas

The same day three weeks ago that the Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), our friends at the Institute for Justice claimed a strong victory in favor of individual rights and economic freedom in an important case before the Texas Supreme Court (a.k.a. SCOTEX).

In Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, the court was faced with a state constitutional challenge to a licensing requirement that hair threaders acquire cosmetology licenses – to the tune of nearly $9,000 and 750 hours – when such classes “are not related to health and safety or what threaders actually do.”