Next month's arrival of a new Trump Administration, alongside a Congress ready to hit the ground running…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
ATSC 3.0: What Could It Mean for American Consumers?

Next month's arrival of a new Trump Administration, alongside a Congress ready to hit the ground running, promises a flurry of corrective activity after eight years of Barack Obama.

However, Americans should remain vigilant against regulatory mischief that some are trying to push through unnoticed at the outset of the new Administration and Congress.

Exhibit A:  An effort by broadcasters to convince Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to approve an entirely new broadcast television standard known as ATSC 3.0.

In a nutshell, the ATSC 3.0 standard amounts to yet another new federal action upon a private marketplace and a handout to a favored industry that could inflict significant and unnecessary costs, ultimately to be paid by consumers.

Under current law, cable and…[more]

December 02, 2016 • 04:24 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.
Pawlenty's Bigger Failing Print
By Quin Hillyer
Wednesday, June 15 2011
It doesn't matter one bit if Mitt Romney's 'individual mandate' was imposed by a state instead of by the feds; either way, a government forcing people to buy a product the person doesn't want, just by virtue of living and breathing within the government's jurisdiction, is a government without any real limits whatsoever.

Pundits universally seem to agree that former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty hurt himself in Monday night's debate by shrinking not just once but a few times from amplifying his own characterization of Obamacare as “Obamneycare,” as a shot at front-runner Mitt Romney's health-care fiasco in Massachusetts.

The pundits are right – but they miss the more important facet of Pawlenty's strange reticence. Many of us could not care less whether Pawlenty hurt or helped his own campaign. The bigger problem is that Pawlenty whiffed on a golden opportunity to promote the conservative cause, and the cause itself suffered as a result.

As an aside before reaching the main point, it's worth noting that it was odd that everybody let Romney skate on everything Monday night, from Romneycare to abortion to Romney's utterly ill-informed and leftist acceptance of global warming mythology. As a conservative, Romney's authenticity rates somewhere between that of Egg Beaters and that of the Great and Powerful Oz.

Now to Pawlenty's evasion: The worst problem with spending so much time claiming merely to have channeled Obama's own comparison of Obamacare to Romneycare was that he completely failed a golden opportunity to make a profound moral case against both.

Pawlenty had a chance to say proudly (and without any rancor or nastiness toward Romney personally) that he did indeed compare the two health care systems in order to draw a contrast between what is and isn't acceptable in a free society. It doesn't matter one bit if Mitt Romney's “individual mandate” was imposed by a state instead of by the feds; either way, a government forcing people to buy a product the person doesn't want, just by virtue of living and breathing within the government's jurisdiction, is a government without any real limits whatsoever.

Tyranny is tyranny at any level.  By Romney's logic, it would be better still if your local township, rather than the state, could send police to oversee you filling out your insurance application and writing the check. Next stop: SWAT teams to escort you to the hardware store to buy widgets.

Federalism is, of course, an important principle. Using states as “laboratories of democracy” is a good and practical idea. But federalism should never be an excuse for despotism. What's wrong is wrong. It's not a matter of practicality but of morality writ large. Indeed, James Madison warned that in certain ways the mischiefs of government could be worse – more restrictive of liberty, more apt to cause direct and ineradicable harm – at the local level than in an extended republic where a multiplicity and diversity of interests can keep tyranny in check.

Pawlenty didn't need to go into major philosophical depth to explain this.  All he had to say was: “Yes, I called it Obamneycare, for the same reason the president himself compared his system to Gov. Romney's: because both are dependent on an individual mandate to make them work. The reason that is seen as an insult is because the mandate, at any level of government, directly violates essential liberty. I don't care if it was an experiment. So too was the Frankenstein monster.

“Any government that can force you to buy a product is a government that is way too strong. It should especially be anathema to Republicans and independents who believe in limited government -- and it should be a point of embarrassment for Romney, in an otherwise decent career.”

There: That's a 40-second answer. It is an answer Pawlenty should have been prepared to give from the moment he introduced “Obamneycare” into the political lexicon. It is an answer that promotes freedom, and that can help sweep Obama from the Oval Office.

Question of the Week   
Where is the USS Arizona Memorial located?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"In 1987, American diplomats in West Germany warned President Reagan not to mention the Berlin Wall when he visited the city. The State Department and the National Security Council repeatedly deleted 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall' from the speech that the president was to deliver. He ignored them, to very good effect.Their freakout was similar when Reagan called the Soviet Union 'evil.' But…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, Washington Examiner
— The Editors, Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

Which one of the following finalists would you favor to win the “Baracki,” a totally fake and fictitious award for the most fabulous fake news of 2016?