This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which deregulated American freight…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Happy 40th to the Staggers Rail Act, Which Deregulated and Saved the U.S. Rail Industry

This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which deregulated American freight rail and saved it from looming oblivion.

At the time of passage, the U.S. economy muddled along amid ongoing malaise, and our rail industry teetered due to decades of overly bureaucratic sclerosis.  Many other domestic U.S. industries had disappeared, and our railroads faced the same fate.  But by passing the Staggers Rail Act, Congress restored a deregulatory approach that in the 1980s allowed other U.S. industries to thrive.  No longer would government determine what services railroads could offer, their rates or their routes, instead restoring greater authority to the railroads themselves based upon cost-efficiency.

Today, U.S. rail flourishes even amid the coronavirus pandemic…[more]

October 13, 2020 • 11:09 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.
Media Keep Butchering the Facts About Obamacare Print
By David Harsanyi
Friday, July 28 2017
[D]espite Kessler's non sequitur, Trump's core contention that insurers are "fleeing" is well within the boundaries of a political truth.

Since its passage, and in a way that is unlike any policy issue in modern American history, the press have rallied to the defense of Obamacare. From day one, there has been almost no light between the average liberal activist and average health care reporter.

Or the average "fact-checker," for that matter. "Fact-checking" has evolved from an occasionally useful medium to an exercise in revisionism and diversion. Take the Washington Post writer Glenn Kessler's recent article titled "President Trump's Mangled 'Facts' About Obamacare." Those who read the headline might assume it's just Trump doing what Trump does most of the time. Yet it turns out that all these supposedly "mangled" contentions about Obamacare are, at the very least, debatable assertions.

Kessler, for example, doesn't approve of Trump stating: "Americans were told that premiums would go down by $2,500 per year. And instead, their premiums went up to levels that nobody thought even possible." Other than the hyperbole ("nobody thought even possible") tacked on, this statement is substantively true.

The ostensive debunking of the "premiums are soaring" claim is really just a confirmation that premiums have indeed risen. Sure, Kessler blames the vagaries of modern life and demographics - because these things apparently didn't exist when Democrats were making their big unrealistic promises in 2009.

More interestingly, he contends that when then-President Obama promised Americans that their insurance premiums would drop by $2,500 per year per family, what he really meant was premiums would be $2,500 less than the anticipated rise. So, in other words, according to estimates, the average family is now supposedly paying $3,600 less than what it would have paid if Obamacare hadn't been passed.

When Republicans bother to defend Obamacare repeal bills, they are pretty explicit in explaining that Medicaid "cuts" are merely a slowing of spending growth. But Obama repeatedly statedprobably hundreds of times over a two-year spanthat the bill would "reduce" the cost of premiums by $2,500 per family. I can't find a single instance anywhere of Obama, or anyone else selling the legislation, offering a nuanced context for this claim.

According to Kessler, Obama didn't lie or "mangle facts" or mislead anyone. Rather, he gave a "misguided ... pledge." The word "misguided" intimates that Obama wasn't misleading anyone on purpose. Moreover, the promise of lower premiums and the lie that you could keep your insurance if you liked it were the central political selling points of the Affordable Care Act to the middle class. They were the only aspects of the law that would have benefited those who already had health insurance.

Trump has also said: "Insurers are fleeing the market. Last week it was announced that one of the largest insurers is pulling out of Ohiothe great state of Ohio." The fact-checker Kessler does not approve. He argues: "Trump decries that some insurance companies have announced they are leaving the Obamacare marketplace. But he ignores that many say they are exiting the business because of uncertainty created by the Trump administration, in particular whether it will continue to pay 'cost-sharing reductions' to insurance companies."

Kessler accidentally forgot to mention that the uncertainty created by the "cost-sharing reduction" subsidies meant to entice insurance companies to participate in Obamacare's fabricated exchanges exists because they are unconstitutional. After all, the president can't overturn a law. Trump has no duty to pay these subsidies; in fact, he probably has a duty not to pay them. Congress never appropriated any funding for such payments. A federal court found that the Obama administration was acting unconstitutionally when it created them.

Whatever the case, despite Kessler's non sequitur, Trump's core contention that insurers are "fleeing" is well within the boundaries of a political truth. Insurers were bolting before he became president.

You'd think someone would have written a comprehensive fact-check of the Democrats' lie that 24 million people will "lose" their health insurance due to repeal bills. Who knows? Maybe fact-checkers will get around to pointing out that the Congressional Budget Office believes 14 million of the 24 million are people who will choose not to buy it in 2018 in the absence of a penalty. No doubt, fact-checkers will point out that around six million or more of those 24 million are people the CBO just assumes would have left Obamacare markets anyway. You know, baselines and all.

It is true that Obamacare repeal legislationwhatever the specifics happen to beis going to be unpopular. Why wouldn't it be? There isn't a single Republican lawmaker out there effectively slapping down these misleading claims. Voters will be. Republicans certainly can't rely on fact-checkers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist

Copyright © 2017 Creators.com

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first 20th century presidential candidate to call for a Presidential Debate?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Joe Biden's tax proposals have gone through a variety of iterations over the course of his campaign, but lately, he's settled on a pledge not to raise taxes on those earning under $400,000.This pledge is not consistent with his current proposals, but he's even less likely to be constrained if he's elected president.Even if Biden claims he would not directly raise income tax rates on those earning…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, Washington Examiner
— The Editors, Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe you will be better off over the next four years with Joe Biden as president or with Donald Trump as president?