Login
Home > Blog > Regulatory Policy

15 Aug 2010

Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 12
Does the Privacy Act protect the records of unlawful aliens?

by Richard Belzer

in

The Washington Examiner reports that the Department of Homeland Security will not release records of unlawful aliens detained in Prince William County VA, on the ground that doing so would violate the Privacy Act of 1974.

Is this correct?

More...

2 May 2010

Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 11
How Opposition to Arizona SB 1070 May Be Harming Unlawful Aliens

by Richard Belzer

in , ,

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...

30 Apr 2010

Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 10
Arizona legislature may amend SB 1070

by Richard Belzer

in , ,

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.

More...

27 Apr 2010

Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 9
Arizona Senate Bill 1070

by Richard Belzer

in , ,

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.

Today we analyze the text of the bill.

More...

22 Feb 2010

Health Care Legislation, Part 14:
Obama's January 22 proposal

by Richard Belzer

in , ,

President Obama announced a televised meeting for Thursday to discuss all options for health care legislation. Overnight, the White House released "The Obama Plan: Stability & Security For All Americans," which the President intends to be the focal point for the event. Although this Plan is short, the White House also released a one-page summary.

The January 22 Obama Plan is not accompanied by legislative text. Thus, it can only be analyzed in qualitative terms. We do that below the jump.

More...

6 Jan 2010

Health Care Legislation, Part 13:
Would the Senate bill prevent a future Congress from repealing the law?

by Richard Belzer

in ,

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.

More...

5 Jan 2010

Health Care Legislation, Part 12:

by Richard Belzer

in ,

Cartoonist Lisa Benson explains the "individual mandate."



More...

4 Jan 2010

The Market Failure in Mail-Order Brides:
Can State regulation help?

by Richard Belzer

in ,

Washington Examiner reporter Alan Suderman says "Maryland lawmakers are pushing for tighter regulations on the mail-order bride industry."

There is no question Maryland can write more regulations. But can regulation solve market failure?

More...

2 Jan 2010

Airline Security after Abdulmutallab:
Is TSA behaving rationally?

by Richard Belzer

in ,

After Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration issued a directive requiring airlines to immediately make major changes in their operations.

Travel bloggers Christopher Elliott and Steve Frischling published the directive. On December 29, both were served with subpoenas demanding the surrender by December 31 of all private records that might reveal the identity of the source. Frischling surrendered his computer to federal agents on December 30. Predictably, they destroyed it rather than return it. Elliott contested the subpoena and TSA withdrew them on December 31.

Whether TSA's actions were legal (or should have been illegal) is an interesting question. What is more immediately interesting is that the directive itself implies a higher concern about the appearance of safety than safety itself. Nothing in the directive would have prevented Abdulmutallab from bombing Flight 253 or prevent a similarly equipped terrorist from blowing up an airliner tomorrow.

More...

28 Dec 2009

Health Care Legislation, Part 11:
Insight from the funny papers

by Richard Belzer

in , ,

Both the Senate and House versions of health care legislation include provisions that would prohibit insurers from declining to underwrite people with preexisting conditions and prevent them from imposing annual or lifetime caps on coverage.

Today's Shoe illustrates one of the problems with these proposed restrictions.

More...

22 Dec 2009

Health Care Legislation, Part 10:
The bill that passed cloture

by Richard Belzer

in , ,

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.

More...

30 Nov 2009

Health Care Legislation, Part 9:
Why supporters insist on the individual mandate

by Richard Belzer

in , ,

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.

More...

27 Nov 2009

Health Care Legislation, Part 8:
Is an 'individual mandate' constitutional? Necessary?

by Richard Belzer

in , ,

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.

More...

21 Nov 2009

The Government's New Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening, Part 2:
Bipartisan complaints with ironic consequences

by Richard Belzer

in ,

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation that women without any risk factors for breast cancer obtain mammograms less frequently has elicited furious complaints by both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress. We blogged on the report when it was released.

More...

18 Nov 2009

The Government's New Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening:
Sensible advice or incipient rationing?

by Richard Belzer

in ,

The US Preventive Services Task Force issued a report with revised recommendations calling for much less frequent use of mammograms for screening women with no risk factors for breast cancer. The announcement triggered an extraordinary reaction, most of which was negative.

Few of those reacting had actually read the report. In many cases, the complaints were factually inaccurate -- by that we mean they objected to things that were not in the report.

What happened?

More...

 1  2  3  4  5  6     »