The reason 35 states chose not to build a local ObamaCare exchange – even though the federal government…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
ObamaCare Exchanges Are Losing Money

The reason 35 states chose not to build a local ObamaCare exchange – even though the federal government made billions of dollars available to do so – is pretty simple: After an initial burst of funding the a state must foot the bill to maintain it.

That’s turning out to be a very costly proposition.

Consider Oregon.

“The case of Oregon is the most extreme,” explains an editorial in the Washington Examiner. “After spending $200 million to develop its own health insurance exchange, the Beaver State was forced to abandon it altogether because of pervasive and intractable technical problems.”

It gets worse.

“Tiny Vermont spent roughly $4,000 for every uninsured Vermonter to develop its exchange – more than enough to buy a pre-ObamaCare policy for everyone for an…[more]

May 04, 2015 • 07:59 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
As Economy Flounders, Obama Focuses on What Americans Eat, Smoke and Drive Print
By Troy Senik
Thursday, July 07 2011
And what fiddle has the emperor chosen during the conflagration? Obama, ever the blunderbuss, has invested his energies in a troika of nanny state initiatives aimed at intervening in the minutia of everyday American life.

Delivering his first address to a joint session of Congress in February 2009, Barack Obama told the assembled legislators that his plans for a federal spending binge of nearly a trillion dollars was “not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t.” Rather, he said, the stimulus plan was intended to “put people back to work and put money in their pockets.” 

More than two years after that speech, two things are clear: Obama’s empirical projections were inaccurate and his ideological protestations were disingenuous. Indeed, the stimulus plan was not, as Obama tried to frame it, a triumph of supposed pragmatism over ideology (ala George W. Bush’s “I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system”). Rather, it was a leading indicator of the fact that Obama not only believes in big government, but in fact believes in virtually nothing else.

Consider America 29 months after Obama’s bold initiative to “put people back to work and put money in their pockets." Unemployment is over nine percent. Fuel and food prices are skyrocketing.  The housing market is still in the doldrums, with most economists expecting a further decline as the year moves on.

Yet despite the continued misery, Obama shows no sign of relenting. In fact, he shows little sign of doing anything at all. His big-spending budget was voted down by the Senate 97-0 earlier in the year – and that after more than two years in which congressional Democrats refused to pass a budget of their own, lest they be held politically accountable. Meanwhile, the nation rapidly approaches its debt limit, inflation nears Jimmy Carter levels (when using the same methodology used in Carter’s day) and long-term unemployment is worse than it was during the Great Depression.

And what fiddle has the emperor chosen during the conflagration? Obama, ever the blunderbuss, has invested his energies in a troika of nanny state initiatives aimed at intervening in the minutia of everyday American life.

First, there’s the endless quest to nose around in Americans’ eating habits, a crusade led by First Lady Michelle Obama. Were this the kind of feckless Rose Garden rubbish we’re used to hearing from first ladies, it might be benign through force of inertia. But – as always with the Obamas – there’s a price tag attached. The First Lady’s concern over so-called “food deserts” – urban areas where grocery stores are supposedly too far afield for the indigent to have access to fresh produce – has inspired her push for $400 million in federal spending to remedy the ill. The only problem? A report from Obama’s own Department of Agriculture shows that poor Americans actually live closer to grocery stores than wealthy ones.

Then there’s the endless progressive jihad against smokers. Leave aside for a moment the unseemly irony that liberals castigate the tobacco industry while relying on its customers for an endless supply of tax revenue. Now they’re adding shame to confiscation by having Obama’s Food and Drug Administration unveil grisly new warning labels featuring images of corpses and a man smoking through a tracheotomy hole. As with the obesity issue, however, the vast majority of Americans are already well aware of the health risks associated with smoking. And, yet again, a study prepared for the Obama FDA indicated that the labels have little real effect on smoking habits.

Finally, there’s that most sacrosanct of American possessions: the automobile. When the Obama Administration isn’t busy carpet-bombing subsidies into hybrid vehicles, it’s trying to get the rest of the nation’s auto fleet to more closely resemble their green brethren. That’s why the White House is currently pushing for a 56 mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency standard by 2025 (by point of reference, the Toyota Prius doesn’t even go that high).  But the moral purity of Obama’s goals can’t obviate the unintended consequences. Higher fuel efficiency standards generally mean lighter, less safe vehicles. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that increases in fuel economy in the 1970s and 1980s led to 1,300 to 2,600 more auto accident fatalities per year.

Two years ago, the president told us that he doesn’t believe in big government. At this point, however, it’d be something just short of reassuring if he admitted that statement was a lie. At least then we’d understand why he proceeds apace while all the facts point in the opposite direction.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following is not observed on May 1st in the United States?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"A former terror suspect has been named as one of the gunmen shot dead by police after two attackers blasted an unarmed security guard in the ankle during an anti-Islam art contest in Texas on Sunday night.Two heavily-armed men, who are believed to have been carrying explosives, were killed by police after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at around 7pm during a controversial…[more]
 
 
—Wills Robinson, Dailymail.com and Ted Thornhill, MailOnline
— Wills Robinson, Dailymail.com and Ted Thornhill, MailOnline
 
Liberty Poll   

With regard to U.S. foreign policy and national security, which one of the following likely Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination has positions most closely resembling your own?