Vermont will not push forward with its plan to launch a state-based single payer health care system…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Citing Costs, Vermont Shelves Single Payer Health System

Vermont will not push forward with its plan to launch a state-based single payer health care system in 2017, reports the Daily Caller.

Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin made the announcement on Wednesday, citing several factors.

Among the most important were changes in financing assumptions. Vermont had been counting on infusions of federal funding to buoy the program, but confirmed that it overshot its estimates by a whopping $311 million. Without the expected seed money of federal tax dollars there’s not enough start-up capital needed to get the project going.

The other blow to Vermont’s single payer scheme – to be called Green Mountain Care – is its lack of financial sustainability. In order to make the enterprise successful, Vermont would need to levy tax hikes like an…[more]

December 18, 2014 • 11:06 am

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.
The “Republican Establishment” Rides Again Print
By Troy Senik
Thursday, February 02 2012
While it’s an informal designation, the establishment is very much alive and well.

As the first month of the Republican presidential race draws to a close, a fissure that has laid dormant within the party is coming to define the campaign: the divide between the conservative insurgency personified by the Tea Party and what’s conventionally referred to as “the Republican establishment.”

The former has ricocheted between several different candidates over the past year – from Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry, then to Herman Cain, followed by Newt Gingrich (and, to a lesser extent, Rick Santorum). The establishment, by contrast, has been consistently supportive of the candidacy of Mitt Romney. The shortcomings of the conservative candidates – which has led to a failure by Tea Party-types to consolidate around a single campaign – has given a decided advantage to Romney; one that only compounds his preexisting superiority in terms of money, organization and name recognition.

This leaves the Republican Party in an awkward predicament. The Tea Party, though it has typically suffered some political growing pains, was almost solely responsible for the groundswell of Republican support that saw the GOP recapture the House of Representatives and swell its ranks in the Senate in 2010. Now Tea Partiers are being asked to march forward under the banner of a presidential candidate who’s done little to assuage fears that he doesn’t share their values.

Rather than attempting to pacify the Tea Party rank and file, the establishment has fallen back on a bizarre strategy: denying its own existence. In a recent interview with Time Magazine, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush – ironically, a man possessing a strong conservative record – said "I don't know what the Republican establishment is. I haven't learned the secret handshake, and I don't know where to go for a membership card." Methinks the governor doth protest too much.

While it’s an informal designation, the establishment is very much alive and well. In fact, they’re the group of Republicans that has been on the receiving end of just as much Tea Party fury as big-government liberals. In some senses, the Tea Party actually reserves a special level of disdain for this group; as Republicans, the thought goes, they should know better.

So who are they? Generally speaking, they are long-time denizens of Washington or other loci of power. They are institutionalized elected officials, money men, party leaders, or grandees of business, consultancies or advocacy groups. And they are often made suspect by the duration of their power, a trait that gives pause to conservatives who believe that a dedication to limited government entails a devotion to not assimilating to the ways of the Beltway.

Their titles, however, are not definitive. It’s possible to hold any one of the positions above and immunize oneself against Potomac Fever. The defining characteristic of the establishment is what they believe. They prioritize the goal of winning elections over the policy changes that such elections should yield. They may blanch at expanding government further, but they have no appetite for the labor involved in rolling back the state or the media derision that will accompany it. They find the operative beliefs of the conservative movement convenient only insofar as they can be turned into campaign slogans. And, in moments of whispered honesty, they will often reveal their contempt for the rank and file voters who populate their party.

The establishment had its turn at the wheel over the last decade and the conservative movement reaped a whirlwind as a result. Federal spending and deficits increased; regulation proliferated; entitlements expanded; embarrassing pork projects passed through Congress as part of a gentleman’s agreement in which both parties agreed to gorge their special interest benefactors; bailouts were given to the financial and automotive industries, and, in the end, the Republican Party was rebuked at the ballot box.

Conservatives should not delude themselves into thinking this is a passing trend. Over the past century, only three men – Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan – were able to beat back establishment pretensions and earn the party’s presidential nomination. As of this writing, it looks unlikely that a similarly situated candidate will earn the nomination in 2012.

Many Tea Partiers and their sympathists will undoubtedly interpret this as a source of grief. But their demoralization is premature. A short-term focus on beating the establishment has not yielded fruit. That calls not for sorrow, but for a long-term focus on replacing it outright.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following Americans was the first to successfully fly a self-propelled, heavier-than-air aircraft?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"In recent months, the outlook for the Castro regime in Cuba was growing steadily darker. The modest reforms it adopted in recent years to improve abysmal economic conditions had stalled, due to the regime'€™s refusal to allow Cubans greater freedoms. Worse, the accelerating economic collapse of Venezuela meant that the huge subsidies that have kept the Castros afloat for the past decade were in…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, The Washington Post
— The Editors, The Washington Post
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you approve or disapprove of the so-called “Cromnibus” bill that funds most of the federal government through September 2015, but only funds the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration, through February 2015.