Archives: 02/2009

Nat Hentoff Joins Cato

It is official now – Nat Hentoff has joined the Cato Institute as a senior fellow

I spoke with him on the phone a few days ago and said I was looking forward to working with him – to which he replied “we’ve already been working together for years on civil liberties issues.”  True that.  He said Cato was a natural fit for him because we both take principled positions in defense of the Constitution and liberty.  

Nat Hentoff has authored many books and hundreds of articles, but here’s a quick sampling of his writings:  Criticizing President Bush’s attack on habeas corpus; defending Bush’s judicial nominee, Janice Rogers Brown; defending free speech on campus; criticizing the Clinton administration’s handling of the Elian Gonzales matter

Nat Hentoff wrote a regular column in the Village Voice for 50 years until last December.  His farewell column at the Voice is here.  Good stuff.  Cato will be stronger with Nat Hentoff’s passion for liberty and justice.

For more Cato Institute work on civil liberties, go here.

Harper: One to Watch in 2009

I’m pleased and humbled to have been named one of the Ars Technica/Tech Policy Central “People to Watch” in 2009. Along with my opposition to the REAL ID national identification scheme, they cite my work opposing the E-Verify national worker background check system (which would ultimately require a national ID).

Considering how the economic stimulus bill may be a vehicle for mandating broader use of E-Verify, the first thing you might see from watching me in 2009 might be an angry and disappointed advocate for liberty.

Don’t Call It “Stimulus”

David Friedman raises a very good point:

A well chosen name wins an argument by assuming its conclusion. Label cash subsidies to foreign government as “foreign aid” and who can be so hard hearted as to oppose them? Call subsidies to the public schools “aid to education” and you neatly skip over the question of whether additional spending in the public school system results in more education.

And “economic stimulus” is a classic example.

Everyone—including Obama, back when he was running for President—is against deficit spending. Relabel it “stimulus” and everyone is for it. The label neatly evades the question of whether having the government borrow money and spend it is actually a way of getting out of a recession—a claim for which evidence is distinctly thin. It is stimulus, so obviously it must stimulate.

So what should we call it? President Obama’s spending proposal? The deficit-spending package? I think we’d have trouble getting the media to call it the Big Boondoggle. Maybe the government bailout, following the Wall Street bailout and the auto bailout?

Alas, we’re probably stuck debating the “stimulus.” But that means the battle was half lost before it began.

New at Cato: The Cato Handbook for Policymakers

Now in its seventh edition, the Cato Handbook for Policymakers sets the standard in Washington for real cuts in federal spending, taxes, and power. It offers an issue-by-issue detailed blueprint for reducing the federal government to the limits intended by the Founding Fathers. Providing both in-depth analysis and concrete recommendations, Cato’s Handbook is an invaluable resource for policymakers and anyone else interested in securing liberty through limited government.

Purchase your copy today.

Interested in finding out where Cato scholars stand on our nation’s most important issues? Download chapters by topic.

Coordinated Care II: Greg Scandlen Responds

Last month, Cato released a paper titled, “Does the Doctor Need a Boss?“ by Arnold Kling and me.  Our friend Greg Scandlen called it “one of the most offensive papers I’ve ever read.” Scandlen is one of the leading lights of the consumer-directed health care movement. He is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, founder and director of Consumers for Health Care Choices, a former Cato health policy scholar, and has written for health policy journals such as Health Services Research and Health Affairs. I invited Scandlen to exchange thoughts on the issues raised. Click here to read my initial post, and here to read what others said about Scandlen’s comments.  Below is Scandlen’s first response.

Hey, Michael, thanks for giving me a chance to respond. You are right that we agree on far more than we disagree. You wrote, “I imagine we agree that fee-for-service, capitation/prepayment, and everything in between should have to compete without government favoring any one payment system over the others. Likewise, solo practitioners, HMOs, and everything in between should compete on a level playing field. And I suspect Scandlen would agree with our policy recommendations: that we should deregulate the medical profession, and let consumers control their health care dollars and choose their own health plan.”

Absolutely. But let’s try to learn from experience. We’ve already tried what you are suggesting. Indeed, rather than tilting in favor of fee-for-service medicine, the federal HMO Act of 1974 massively subsidized “health systems that use capitation/prepayment — which encourages coordinated care.” Mr. Nixon’s dream turned into a nightmare for millions of Americans who were denied the care they needed by remote managers who didn’t know them, didn’t know much about medicine, and had incentives to undertreat patients due to the very capitation arrangements you are embracing.

That led in turn to the predominance of Managed Care in the 1990s, which all but eliminated fee-for-service medicine in the private sector. Instead, we had a labyrinth of networks, utilization review, prior approval, rationing, and limits on benefits, all imposed by corporations that were driven by efficiency concerns rather than patient care.

True, this all held down health care costs dramatically. But is that the purpose of a health care system? Holding down costs is easy, as we have seen in Europe – don’t provide any services. Simplest thing on Earth. We could also hold down transportation costs by not providing transportation, housing costs by not providing housing, food costs by not providing food. I suppose in some eyes all of this would be considered a success.

The problem is not, and has never been, that we pay a fee to get a service. That is precisely what we do in every other area of our economic lives. We pay a barber a fee and he cuts our hair. We pay a mechanic a fee and he changes our oil. We pay an accountant a fee and he prepares our taxes. None of it is particularly inflationary and none of it leads to poor quality.

That is because we are controlling our own money and we don’t like to throw it away. The same thing can happen in health care. In fact, the same thing IS happening in health care in “consumer driven” approaches. People are becoming more engaged, choosing more convenient and lower cost treatments, and saving a ton of money.

Now, I have no problem with people taking their money and using it to buy “capitated, coordinated care” if that is what they prefer. But I would urge you and Arnold Kling not to invest too much of your retirement funds in such companies. I expect not many people would choose such a model over having a real doctor.

Thanks, Greg.  I’ll be posting a response sometime soon.

Cato Unbound: An Appreciation of Partisanship

This month’s Cato Unbound is up, featuring a lead essay by Harvard Professor Nancy Rosenblum. She discusses themes developed more fully in her book On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Rosenblum makes the case that political parties have gotten an undeserved bad reputation, and that they do useful, unappreciated coordinating work in democratic politics.

In the first response essay, Brink Lindsey replies in essence that political parties are much better than they used to be, but there’s still plenty to complain about. Response essays by Henry Farrell of George Washington University and James Fishkin of Stanford University will appear on Friday and Monday, respectively, followed by a blog chat among the authors.

My own biggest questions on the topic are as follows.

First, is it even meaningful to say that we are “for” or “against” partisanship? Or, when we say this, are we really just saying that we’re for or against certain aspects of partisanship? Political parties seem to appear wherever we find the concepts of representative democracy and loyal opposition. Complaining about political parties is a bit like being against the weather.

We may hate many of the things that political parties do, but their main alternatives seem to be dictatorships and death squads. Even the most committed anti-partisans wouldn’t go that route. And even those who cheer for partisan politics may seem to be making a virtue of necessity.

Second, what about the legal regime that sustains the two-party system? The rules that support partisan politics were written by partisans, after all. Certainly we can’t just take them as a given. Ballot access regulations, campaign finance rules, and the incumbent advantage help to give us the specific type of partisan politics we have. Who else gets to write their own ticket like that, and should we let them?

The Audacity of Spin

Regarding Tom Daschle’s withdrawal from consideration to be the next secretary of Health & Human Services, a front-page story in this morning’s Washington Post pulls off one of the most ingenious feats of political spin I’ve ever seen:

But some observing the debacle wondered if the capital’s ways were changing. The story of how [Daschle] fell in with the monied elite and out with the popular mood involves a longtime Democratic financier, Leo Hindery Jr., and his keen interest in currying influence with powerful politicians. The outcome caught many in Washington off guard.

“I think it’s possible this is some sort of bridge between an old Washington and the new Washington,” David Arkush of Congress Watch said of the initial backing of Daschle and the sudden reversal.

So you see, Daschle’s withdrawal is actually a victory for President Obama!  He’s changing Washington already!  Brilliant!

Actually, the brilliance is Arkush’s for getting the Post to adopt his spin both in the article and the subtitle (“Some See Failed Nomination as Harbinger of Change”).

For the record, I hope Arkush is right.  I hope Obama does something about the revolving door that lets people like Daschle write complicated laws and then make millions of dollars helping people navigate and alter them.  Of course, as they say, the only way to reduce the amount of money in politics is to reduce the size of government.