We have reviewed Arizona's new immigration law (SB 1070) and posted
an analysis
of its major provisions. The Arizona House subsequently passed a
revision, and we analyzed
that. Meanwhile, opponents have reacted stridently,
calling the state of Arizona:
Some of those offering equivocal or
negative commentary about the law admit they have not read it
(e.g., Marco
Rubio, Tom
Ridge).
As our previous posts here
and here
make clear, these characterization are not based on the text of
the law, which makes it a state crime to violate federal
immigration law. Ironically,
the use of extreme language by opponents
of the law may have the unintended effect of better achieving the law's
objectives than the law itself. More...
Alia Beard Rau of the Arizona Republic reports that Arizona legislators are proposing to make technical changes to SB 1070, the law enacted on April 23 that makes certain federal immigration law violations state crimes.
Arizona's legislature last week enacted legislation that has garnered considerable press attention and commentary, including criticism by President Obama (New York Times, Fox News, NPR, Real Clear Politics. In a Sunday op-ed published by the Washington Post, Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon says the bill is the product of a "far-right legislature"; that it is unconstitutional; and that it is motivated by "the vocal, spiteful few" who are "bitter, small-minded and full of hate." Gordon and others vow to challenge the law's constitutionality "because of the civil rights being violated and the vagueness of the statute." Colorado Democratic Rep. Jared Polis compares the law with Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust and says he fears "Arizona is headed for a police state."
Gordon's views seem typical of those views expressed in commentaries published since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23. We've seen very few editorials and commentaries supporting the law (e.g., IBD, ).
News stories seem to track this editorial pattern; the AP, for example, uses opponents as its source for fact claims about the law, not its actual text. Meanwhile, published commentary appears to be unrepresentative of public opinion. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports 70% of Arizona voters favor the law and 23% oppose it.
It has been reported widely that the version of health care legislation passed by the Senate (HR 3590, as amended) includes provisions that would prevent a future Congress from changing or repealing it.
A careful review of the bill shows that these reports are incorrect.
We've delayed publishing analysis of the Senate's health care bill until a version could garner 60 votes, and thus survive a cloture vote to cut off debate. That bill is Majority Leader Reid's manager's amendment to HR 3590.
In its debate over health care legislation, the Senate and the Obama administration must contend with conflicting forces and incentives. There appears to be a political consensus among supporters that "guaranteed issue" and "community rating" are essential features of any bill. ("Guaranteed issue" means people cannot be denied coverage no matter how risky they are. "Community rating" means people with low health risks have to subsidize them.)
As we have noted several times now, keeping these features requires that everyone have health insurance. This means people with low health risks must be compelled to buy (and pay too much for) health insurance.
Proposed health care legislation includes both employer mandates and an "individual mandate." Anyone not covered by employer-provided health insurance would be required by law to buy a qualifying health insurance plan or pay a tax.
An interesting debate has arisen concerning whether Congress has authority under the Constitution to require individuals to purchase health insurance. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are perhaps the most prominent opponents:
[C]an Congress require every American to buy health insurance?
In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus recently defended the proposition that such a law would pass constitutional muster.
Estimates of the social costs and benefits of health care legislation are hard to find. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal budget revenues and receipts, and while it is supposed to estimate non-federal costs, it generally does not do so.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has a calculator that tells you how much taxpayers would subsidize your health insurance if your employer did not provide it, and thus you had to purchase it yourself (the "individual mandate").
This calculator provides some very interesting insights about the House and Senate health care bills. Most strikingly, it's possible that a majority of Americans would receive large taxpayer subsidies.
Recently we have posted on the so-called "public option" (see here and here). Today we look at the effect of proposed health care legislation on the private market.
By necessity, it is private insurers that have both the interest and comparative advantage to estimate these effects. The federal government, and especially the Congressional Budget Office, is almost exclusively concerned with federal budget outlays, not social costs and benefits. To keep federal outlays down, legislators focus on shifting costs off budget -- typically, onto private insurers and their customers.
Analyses recently made public by one private insurer are instructive.
It's in the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, which the Speaker has not brought to the floor for a vote because it lacks enough votes to pass. It's in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions bill. It was in the Senate Finance Committee bill, then it was removed to secure one Republican vote. As the Senate leadership tries to merge these competing bills, news stories say that it's back in. Or back out. Or back in under certain conditions.
Economic incentive schemes are popular among economists and increasingly embraced by legislators. Cap-and-trade to control greenhouse gas emissions is perhaps the most visible of these incentive schemes. Pigouvian taxes are the other, and news today from an unexpected source provides useful and interesting lessons in how such taxes can work -- and how they can degenerate into plain vanilla taxes.
Today the House Democratic leadership released a discussion draft (HTML, downloaded PDF) of its 1,018-page proposed health care bill.
The House Republican leadership has released a chart that they say diagrams the Democratic plan. The House Republican alternative is HR 2520, titled "The Patients' Choice Act," summarized by its proponents here in 13 pages,
Major changes in the regulatory landscape often require serendipitous, attention-grabbing events to push them over the top. These events must be perceived to be related to the cause at hand, but no actual scientific relationship needs to exist. What matters is perception.
Right now, it seems highly unlikely that such an event will occur this year to push cap and trade over the top.
The Obama Administration's "cap and trade" bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (HR 2454, Waxman-Markey) has moved to the Senate, where the leadership hopes to have a bill ready to bring to the floor by September. The Washington Post reports that the bill is 15 to 20 votes short.
