Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Millennials like socialism — until they get jobs. Or until a pollster tells them that it would mean tax increases but doesn’t tell them, for example, that the tax increases would replace healthcare insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses. And doesn’t tell them that “more government services” means something other than, say, trash collection twice a week instead of once a week.

Okay, so the title of a Washington Post op-ed piece today by research fellow and director of polling at the Cato Institute Emily Ekins is “Millennials like socialism — until they get jobs.”  She knows that this is do because a recent Reason-Rupe poll—that’s libertarian magazine Reason, and some polling organization they hired—found that:

When tax rates are not explicit, millennials say they’d prefer larger government offering more services (54 percent) to smaller government offering fewer services (43 percent). However when larger government offering more services is described as requiring high taxes, support flips and 57 percent of millennials opt for smaller government with fewer services and low taxes, while 41 percent prefer large government.

Ah, yes; the ole, reliable, generic smaller-government-with-fewer-services-vs.-larger-government-with-more-services polling gimmick. Because of course everyone absolutely definitely, completely understands what the generic “services” are.  Like, say, trash pickup twice a week rather than once a week?

The survey was, by this writer’s undoubtedly accurate account, prompted by a recent Gallup survey that, to quote Ekins, found that an astounding 69 percent of millennials say they’d be willing to vote for a ‘socialist’ candidate for president — among their parents’ generation, only a third would do so.”  Spilling the beans about the motive for the Reason survey, she continues, “Indeed, national polls and exit polls reveal about 70 to 80 percent of young Democrats are casting their ballots for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a ‘democratic socialist’.”

Uh-oh.  And that was before Bloomberg released a poll yesterday showing Sanders’s support with a 1-point lead over Clinton nationally, with almost no undecideds: Sanders has 49% to Clinton’s 48%.

Ekins writes:

Millennials are the only age group in America in which a majority views socialism favorably. A national Reason-Rupe survey found that 53 percent of Americans under 30 have a favorable view of socialism compared with less than a third of those over 30. …

Yet millennials tend to reject the actual definition of socialism — government ownership of the means of production, or government running businesses. Only 32 percent of millennials favor “an economy managed by the government,” while, similar to older generations, 64 percent prefer a free-market economy. And as millennials age and begin to earn more, their socialistic ideals seem to slip away.

I dunno.  Ekins continues:

The appalling failure today of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts and Samuel Alito [Updated]

This speaks for itself.  I’m sure that Kennedy, Roberts and Alito call this ‘freedom’.  I won’t guess at what Sotomayor and Kagan call it.  But what Breyer calls it, or should, is conflict of interest.  Back when Breyer was lead counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, he helped draft the Federal Sentencing Guidelines—a really appalling policy—and has spent the remainder of his career serving as rear-guard protector of it.

Breyer makes me sick. Then again, so does Kagan (nothing new there) and now Sotomayor.

But let’s hear it for Ginsburg, Scalia and Thomas.


UPDATE: Anyone who’s interested in this subject–and anyone who’s interested in the broader subject of an increasingly important chasm between rightwing libertarianism that is limited solely to taxes/economic-regulation/the-47% schtick and right-wing libertarianism that actually also considers the issue of denial of actual physical freedom to be within the definition of Freedom! Liberty!, presumably even when the denial of physical freedom is by a state or local government rather than by the federal gummint–should read this blog post on the rightwing-libertatian Cato Institute’s web site, about this “cert.” denial.

Of particular interest to me is the comment about Kagan’s decision (evident throughout her tenure on the Court) to be part of the “pragmatic” wing.  As the Cato post implies, Kagan has a pretty curious idea of “pragmatism.”

The case at issue, Jones v. United States, was a case prosecuted federal court and subject to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  But the ground on which cert. was sought was one under the Sixth Amendment, and a ruling finding the judicial practice at issue unconstitutional would have applied to state prosecutions as well as to federal ones.

10/16 at 12:25 p.m.

Me v. William Cannon, Part II: The Jonathan Gruber Canard

Okay, well, as all you AB regular readers know, yesterday I posted a post deconstructing—and, yes, that’s what I did—a blog post on the Forbes website by William F. Cannon.  He blogs there on “health, freedom, and other uncertainties,” but his day job is Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.

The studies apparently entail mostly studying such things as YouTube video of Jonathan Gruber speeches and interviews.  Which, at least in this instance, is academic.

Gruber, Cannon explained in a Jul 28, 2014 opinion piece on Politico, is “the MIT economist who helped congressional Democrats write the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2009.”  Or, as Wikipedia says, “In 2009–10 he served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).”  I’ll let Cannon, in his Politico piece, help me explain further:

[Gruber] has been sharply critical of Halbig v. Burwell, a lawsuit alleging the Obama administration is illegally subsidizing health insurance for 5 million Americans in the 36 states with exchanges established by the federal government. The PPACA offers those subsidies to only those who enroll through an exchange “established by the State.” (Disclosure: I helped lay the groundwork for Halbig and three similar lawsuits.)

The occasion for his Forbes blog post yesterday was that:

Last week, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed documents from the Treasury Department and IRS that could have a huge impact on Pruitt v. BurwellHalbig v. BurwellKing v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS – four lawsuits that could have a huge impact on ObamaCare.

Those cases challenge the federal government’s ability to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s major taxing and spending provisions in the 36 states that failed to establish a health insurance “Exchange.” The federal government established fallback Exchanges within those states, but the PPACA says the IRS can implementthe law’s Exchange subsidies, employer mandate, and (to a large extent) its individual mandate only “through an Exchange established by the State.” Nevertheless, the IRS issued a regulation implementing those taxes and expenditures in states with federal Exchanges anyway. That regulation that is being challenged as illegal by taxpayers, employers, school districts, and states, who claim the IRS is taxing them without congressional authorization.

The occasion for my blog post here at AB yesterday was to point out that the issue is not whether some IRS administrator or HHS official initially used the statute’s “through an Exchange established by the State” phrase in drafting the agency regulations to implement the ACA.  The issue is instead, uh, what “established by the State” means within the statutory scheme.  The question, more specifically, is whether mandatory default delegation, by a state to the federal government, of the setup and operation of a state’s exchange is, y’know, the establishment of an exchange by the state.  Sorta like whether the delegation of, say, prison operations by a state to a private for-profit company is the establishment of a prison system by the state or is instead a rogue operation with coopted police powers to hold people against their will.  Which I think would be called false imprisonment, in tort law.

The Antidisestablishmentarianism Theory of Obamacare Illegality. (The ACA has a (dis)establishment clause! Who knew?) [Updated.]

A federal judge in the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in one of several cases brought by states including Indiana and Oklahoma, along with business owners and individual consumers, who say that the law does not grant the Internal Revenue Service authority to provide tax credits or subsidies to people who buy insurance through the federal exchange. …

The subsidy cases, if successful, would strike at the foundation of the law. Subsidies and tax credits, which could be available to millions of low- and middle-income Americans, are central to Mr. Obama’s promise of affordable care. In drafting the law, Congress wrote that such financial help would be available to people enrolled “through an exchange established by the state” under the law.

A New Wave of Challenges to Health Law, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, today

Hmm.  Okay, let me take a crack at this.  The law gives each state the option of running its own exchange or instead allowing the federal government to run an exchange for the state–an operation that must be done separately for each state, because each state has its own insurance companies offering different policies than other states, and subject to state insurance laws and state agency oversight.

The law doesn’t say “through an exchange run by the state” under the law; it says “through an exchange established by the state” under the law.  The states know their options.  Fourteen of them chose to establish an exchange by setting one up and running it.  The rest have chosen to establish an exchange by delegating to the federal government the job of setting up and running the exchange for the state.

The law itself, in other words, by requiring that each state choose one of two mechanisms to establish an exchange–directly or instead by delegation to the federal government–required every state to have (i.e., to establish) an exchange.  The tax credit, or subsidy, provision of the statute does not limit tax credits (subsidies) to people who live in states that choose to physically set up and run the state’s exchange itself.  It provides that benefit to people regardless of their state of residence, because by operation of law–specifically, by operation of that law–states can establish their exchanges by delegating to the federal government the physical setting up and running of the exchange.

Depends, in other words, on what the meaning of established is.  Or, more accurately, on what Congress intended the meaning of “established” to be.  And I’ve just told you what that is.  Surely, the federal courts understand the concept of contracting out a tech job.  Thirty-three states have chosen to contract out this job to the federal government.  Except, of course, that the contract was not negotiated but instead compelled by law.

Voila!  The antidisestablishmentarianism theory is disestablished.  The tax credits/subsidies clause in the ACA applies even to you, Red State denizens who qualify financially.  Congratulations.  I mean, my condolences.

But also in the article is this jaw-dropper, a quote from Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University and one of the two proud creators of the ACA disestablishment-clause hypothesis:

Among critics of the law there is a feeling that the law doesn’t have the same legitimacy as a law that passed with bipartisan support.

Let me take a crack at this, too.  This will only take a moment: I don’t recall the provision in the Constitution that classifies laws duly enacted without bipartisan support illegitimate.  But I do wish the Dems had remembered that Article or Amendment in 2001 when Congress enacted the first set of tax cuts for the wealthy, without bipartisan support.  Not that it would have mattered, though.  I mean, who knew that when the Supreme Court put George W. Bush in office via an opinion that said its legal reasoning would apply to that case only, the five justices in the majority also meant that the clause in the Constitution that delegitimizes laws enacted without bipartisan support doesn’t apply to laws enacted by only Republicans?   But you can bet it doesn’t.

Adler’s partner in theory development is a Cato Institute “health policy scholar” Michael F. Cannon, and the Times article gets a quote from him too.  Not to be outdone in the outragousness department by his compadre, Mr. Cannon thusly described the Strategic Airwaves Command plan developed immediately after the ACA was signed into illegitimate law:

After the A.C.A. was enacted and after the president signed it, a lot of people — me included — decided that we weren’t going to take this lying down, and we were going to try to block it and ultimately either get the Supreme Court to overturn it or Congress to repeal it.

Mr. Cannon will testify today at a televised House committee hearing about his and Professor Adler’s theory.  The professor must have a scheduling conflict, because he apparently is not on today’s witness list.  But presumably Mr. Cannon, scholar that he is, can cite the legal authority for the proposition that laws aren’t legitimate unless enacted with bipartisan support if it’s a Democratic rather than a Republican majority that voted for the bill.  He’s not a lawyer, but he does work for the Cato Institute.  Which, as the Times article notes, is libertarian-leaning.  As opposed to, say, democratic-leaning.  But not as opposed to fascist-leaning.  Which the current Republican Party, egged on by its corporate-funded puppetmasters, is.

What’s next from the libertarian crowd?  Polling places only in gated communities? Damn! I shouldn’t suggest it, should I?  Oh, well; they’d have thought of it on their own soon enough. That’s why Cato is called a think tank.

UPDATE: Reader Jack writes in the Comments thread:  “The relationship between Cato and the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) improved with the nomination of Cato’s new president John A. Allison IV in 2012. He is a former ARI board member and is reported to be an “ardent devotee” of Rand who has promoted reading her books to colleges nationwide.” Wiki

Also, “….but so intense is Allison’s devotion to Rand’s work that he has waged a campaign to make college students read it, using the power of the BB&T Charitable Foundation and millions of dollars in donations to schools to achieve his goal.” Jane Mayer,”

It does seem to me that the mainstream media should stop referring to Cato as a libertarian think tank now that that organization is simply an arm of the Koch brothers’ propaganda machine.

ALSO: Here’s a report on the argument yesterday afternoon in the case.

SECOND UPDATE: An exchange between reader EMichael and me in the Comments thread:

  • EMichael
    December 4, 2013 9:28 am

    Hard to figure out whether to laugh or cry.

    Fairly humorous that one half of the GOP’s healthcare reform platform is to stop the ambulance chasers via tort reform while using the same ambulance chasers to stop the Dem healthcare reform.

    The sad part is that there are judges who will not just laugh at these people and throw them out of his courtroom.

  • Beverly Mann
    December 4, 2013 1:37 pm

    Yup, EM. There’s a cadre of lawyers who have made this their specialty: tortious-interference-with-Obamacare. It’s apparently quite lucrative.


What Obligations Do Mainstream Media Editors (e.g., The Washington Post’s) Have to Bar Their Regular Political Columnists (e.g., Michael Gerson) From Stating Bald Misrepresentations of Fact?


When people realize that their most personal, sensitive, intimate, private health-care information is in the hands of the IRS that’s been willing to use people’s tax information against political opponents of this administration, then people have pause and they pull back in horror.

— Michele Bachmann, on ABC News/Yahoo, May 20 (H/T Glenn Kessler, in a spot-on takedown today)