Here's some potentially VERY good economic news that was lost amid the weekend news flurry.  Those…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Some Potentially VERY Good Economic News

Here's some potentially VERY good economic news that was lost amid the weekend news flurry.  Those with "skin in the game," and who likely possess the best perspective, are betting heavily on an upturn, as highlighted by Friday's Wall Street Journal:

Corporate insiders are buying stock in their own companies at a pact not seen in years, a sign they are betting on a rebound after a coronavirus-induced rout.  More than 2,800 executives and directors have purchased nearly $1.19 billion in company stock since the beginning of March.  That's the third-highest level on both an individual and dollar basis since 1988, according to the Washington Service, which provides data analytics about trading activity by insiders."

Here's why that's important:

Because insiders typically know the…[more]

March 30, 2020 • 11:02 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.
ObamaCare: Fiction, by Acclamation Print
By Troy Senik
Thursday, October 08 2009
Balancing cost and coverage is analogous to balancing weight loss and deep-fried Twinkies: you can have one or the other.

When the book is written on the first decade of the 21st century, it will read that it was a time when grave challenges were met by unserious men.  
For the past 10 years, Americans have increasingly come to feel that theirs is a government populated either by the incompetent or the dishonest. At the turn of the millennium, the threat of radical Islam alternated between being systematically ignored or serially downplayed.  When September 11 made the gravity of that threat irrefutable, the response nestled itself in the psychologically comfortable but strategically untenable notion that the conflict could be won through limited wars of minimal inconvenience.  And today this politics of wishing continues with every diplomatic conclave that is touted as the first step towards disarming Iran or North Korea.
On the domestic front, a similar resistance to hard truths has become ascendant.  Federal spending has exploded while politicians cling to pledges of no new taxes.  Lost somewhere in the morass, apparently, is the reality that the resulting deficits are de facto taxes, with interest thrown in for good measure.  A few years ago, efforts at Social Security reform were stalled when opponents claimed there was nothing structurally unsound in America’s entitlement programs – a claim that could have been made with equal integrity about the levee system in New Orleans.  
The latest – and perhaps most shameless – entrant into this pageant of fictions is the healthcare reform being touted by President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress as the elixir for what ails the nation.  Since it is Obama’s want to be the ne plus ultra of all that is appealing and all that is deceptive in American politics, it should come as no surprise that his plan is superlative both in its ambition and its shunning of reality.
The headline of a New York Times article earlier this week – “Democrats Try to Balance Cost and Coverage in Health Plan” – provided ample testimony to the fact that Americans are once more being tied to the mast of either ignorance or duplicity.  Balancing cost and coverage is analogous to balancing weight loss and deep-fried Twinkies: you can have one or the other.   
Bringing millions of previously uninsured (or, in the conveniently nebulous terminology of liberalism, “underinsured”) Americans into the market will cost money.  This is a fact so elementary that it would not bear saying were it not for the fact that it has eluded a plurality of the United States Congress.  If there was one definitive moment when liberalism ceased to be a serious intellectual movement, it was the day when its apostles became flummoxed by the notion that goods and services cost money.
The fuzzy thinking and/or deception is ubiquitous.  The “public option” is said to compete on a level playing field with private insurers – but what entity ever competes fairly in a market that it regulates? Employees are told that they can keep their health insurance if they like it.  Yet employers – the individuals who actually make decisions about purchasing insurance coverage – will see massive incentives to dump their employees’ care if the proposed legislation passes.  In a program sold on “choice,” the federal government will dictate the coverage standards for health insurance and fine or imprison individuals who refuse to buy a plan.  In a framework supposedly rooted in competition, American citizens will still be prohibited from buying insurance across state lines. 
Barack Obama is clearly a man who yearns for historical transcendence. Yet by embracing prevarications he finds himself firmly in league with the sort of mediocre leaders who are confident in the American people’s ability to choose them for elected office but not to consider the honest trade-offs inherent in complicated issues.  If that trend continues, he should expect the lack of respect to be reciprocated.

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years did Congress first meet in Washington, D.C.?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called on the federal government to take control of the medical supply market. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker demanded that President Trump take charge and said 'precious months' were wasted waiting for federal action. Some critics are even more direct in demanding a federal takeover, including a national quarantine.It is the legal version of panic shopping. Many seem…[more]
—Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
— Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
Liberty Poll   

Who is most to blame for the delay in passage of the critical coronavirus economic recovery (or stimulus) bill?