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.
Press Releases
Coalition Urges Support of "REINS Act" Print E-mail
Monday, October 28 2013

Download the PDF version of the letter here.

October 28, 2013

Dear Member of the United States Senate:

We, the undersigned public interest organizations, write to urge you to support the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013 (the “REINS Act”). This bill restores legislative control and accountability to the federal regulatory process by providing for meaningful congressional oversight over new regulations agencies imposed on the American people. It requires both houses of Congress to approve any proposed “major rule”—that is, any rule likely to affect the economy by $100 million or more—before such a rule goes into effect. The REINS Act already passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a sizeable margin. (H.R. 367, passed Aug. 2, 2013). It is now time for the Senate to follow suit.

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 47 that the “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Despite Madison’s warning, federal agencies increasingly make rules based loosely on federal laws, enforce these rules against private parties and adjudicate enforcement actions before administrative law judges who serve the executive branch.

“The accumulation of these powers in the same hands is not an occasional or isolated exception to the constitutional plan,” warns John Roberts, the chief justice of the United States; rather, “it is a central feature of modern American government.” (Roberts’ dissent inCity of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1878 (2013)). Professor Jonathan Turley, writing in The Washington Post, argues “[o]ur carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.” (“The rise of the fourth branch of government,” Washington Post, May 25, 2013).

The REINS Act, therefore, aims to ensure Congress monitors the laws it writes and considers how they affect the American people. This is especially important given that annual regulatory compliance costs amounted to $1.8 trillion in 2012, which, for the first time, was more than half of all federal outlays ($3.4 trillion), according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 2013 report, “Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State.” The REINS Act curtails some of the executive branch’s authority, but it respects our Constitution’s structure.

As Professor Jonathan Adler writes, “[w]hile the REINS Act would reduce the discretion of executive and independent agencies to adopt far-reaching regulatory measures, it would neither interfere with core executive functions nor constrain the inherent discretionary authority of the executive branch.” (“Placing ‘Reins’ On Regulations: Assessing the Proposed REINS Act,” 16 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 1 (2013).)

We recognize some federal regulations may deliver net benefits to the American people. Importantly, the REINS Act does not prevent agencies from promulgating such regulations, nor does it discourage Congress from approving them. Rather, the bill merely ensures major new rules—whether beneficial or otherwise—face the meaningful scrutiny of the peoples’ representatives in Congress. The REINS Act offers Congress an opportunity to reaffirm beneficial agency rules, yet still reject rules which do more harm than good. The bill thus rebalances the power dynamic in Washington, giving it back to those who are accountable to the American people—at the expense of unelected bureaucrats. Our Constitution demands nothing less.

Sincerely,

Lawson Bader
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Wayne Brough
FreedomWorks

Christine Hanson
Americans for Prosperity

David Williams
Taxpayer’s Protection Alliance

John Tate
Campaign for Liberty

Joseph Bast
The Heartland Institute

Coley Jackson
Freedom Action

Phil Kerpen
American Commitment

George Landrith
Frontiers of Freedom

Seton Motley
Less Government

Larry Hart
American Conservative Union

James Martin
60 Plus Association

Timothy H. Lee
Center for Individual Freedom

Andrew Moylan
R Street

Grover Norquist
Americans for Tax Reform

 


Page 14 of 100
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.