Archive for 2014

MEGAN MCARDLE: ObamaCare Takes A Body Blow.

The case, Halbig v. Burwell, involved the availability of subsidies on federally operated insurance marketplaces. The language of the Affordable Care Act plainly says that subsidies are only available on exchanges established by states. The plaintiff argued this meant that, well, subsidies could only be available on exchanges established by states. Since he lives in a state with a federally operated exchange, his exchange was illegally handing out subsidies.

The government argued that this was ridiculous; when you consider the law in its totality, it said, the federal government obviously never meant to exclude federally operated exchanges from the subsidy pool, because that would gut the whole law. The appeals court disagreed with the government, 2-1. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million people may lose their subsidies as a result.

This result isn’t entirely shocking. As Jonathan Adler, one of the architects of the legal strategy behind Halbig, noted today on a conference call, the government was unable to come up with any contemporaneous congressional statements that supported its view of congressional intent, and the statutory language is pretty clear. Members of Congress have subsequently stated that this wasn’t their intent, but my understanding is that courts are specifically barred from considering post-facto statements about intent.

When you read through the ruling, it’s easy to see the many ways in which the law’s architects brought this on themselves. The law was highly complex, badly drafted and highly controversial. When a Republican won a special election for the Senate in Massachusetts (!), the Democrats had to push it through on a straight party-line vote with some adroit parliamentary maneuvering — which gave them a health-care law, but one that was badly put together and couldn’t be substantially amended. The gaping holes were patched with administrative fixes, like an Internal Revenue Service ruling that held federally established exchanges to be equivalent to an exchange established by the state. But the vast scale of the law meant that the administrative gymnastics that held it together might not be sustainable.

To cobble together a win, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi folks broke a lot of rules. That has risks.

Here’s more from Jonathan Adler.

Also, related: Fourth Circuit upholds IRS tax credit rule.

KEVIN DRUM EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT that he couldn’t turn out ravening mobs to enforce leftism. Silly Kevin. Obama only threatened the investment bankers with pitchforks to get them to give him money. That’s why you failed, Kevin. Because you chose a corrupt leader. But had you chosen an incorruptible one, it would have been worse. Especially for you.

YOU CAN’T PROTECT THE FLOW OF GRAFT WITHOUT BREAKING A FEW EGGS, OR SOMETHING: NY’s War on Uber Sweeps Up Innocent Drivers. “New York City may be so intent on stomping out new taxi services that innocent city dwellers are getting caught in the crossfire. According to DNAinfo, over the past year employees of New York’s Taxi and Limousine Commission have been seizing cars that they believed were being used as part of an illegal taxi service. Here’s just one example DNAinfo highlights, in which a New Yorker named Kareeal Akins was pulled over and his car taken on suspicion of offering cab rides. . . . The fact that this crackdown is spilling over to deprive ordinary citizens of their cars is typical behavior for a bureaucracy that cares more about protecting established interests like cab companies than serving the people.” Tar. Feathers.

ANNALS OF THE COVERUP: The Hill: Experts Say Lois Lerner’s Emails Could Have Been Recovered From Hard Drive.

Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said that the committee had learned that Lerner’s hard drive was “scratched,” and that private sector specialists likely could have recovered emails.

IRS technicians also recommended that the agency seek outside help in recovering the emails, before the hard drive was recycled. A Ways and Means spokeswoman said the information came from an analyst with the IRS’s criminal investigations unit, which examined Lerner’s hard drive.

The IRS has said for weeks that Lerner’s hard drive crash left them unable to reproduce all of her emails for more than two years.

Last week, agency officials said under oath in court filings that Lerner’s hard drive couldn’t be restored, and was then destroyed to protect confidential taxpayer information.

“It is unbelievable that we cannot get a simple, straight answer from the IRS about this hard drive,” Camp said in a statement.

“The Committee was told no data was recoverable and the physical drive was recycled and potentially shredded. To now learn that the hard drive was only scratched, yet the IRS refused to utilize outside experts to recover the data, raises more questions about potential criminal wrong doing at the IRS.”

Raises questions, answers them, whatever.

IN A SQUEAKER: Perdue wins Republican Senate runoff in Georgia. “The outcome is a blow to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which made a sizable investment on behalf of Kingston.”

UPDATE: From the comments: “It should be noted that Kingston, unlike some others, immediately tweeted a message of support for Perdue upon learning that he’d been defeated for the nomination. He should be commended for his generosity in defeat.”

COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW: Are Female Journalists Softballing Jill Abramson Because She’s A Woman?

Here’s the thing. I don’t begrudge Abramson the right to pick the journalists she believes will give her the warmest embrace, or will accept her terms for an interview. Why shouldn’t she do that? In this case, she’s not in the role of “journalist,” she’s the newsmaker trying to spin her version of events. And on that score Abramson has a deft touch. She is not only brilliant at overseeing the news, she is also brilliant at managing the news, particularly when it’s about her. In the weeks since her firing, the public relations skirmish looks something like: Abramson 7, The New York Times 0.

But it is an absurd display of credulity and clubbiness on the part of her interviewers to take dictation on whatever Abramson says, to accept her version of highly controversial events surrounding her firing at The Times and then call it a day.

There are plenty of questions still to be asked: What about Abramson’s compensation battles with her bosses and, if true, her extraordinary decision to hire a lawyer when she was the executive editor? What warnings was she given that she might be fired? What did she tell then-managing editor Dean Baquet about the prospect of another managing editor coming in? Is his version of events complete?

I happen to be one who thinks there indeed was a double standard operating in the executive suite at The Times, and that a man would not be dismissed for his management style when his performance as a journalist was unsurpassed. But I was hoping for some better understanding of this issue when Abramson finally started speaking.

I’m beginning to think the details may never come out. Abramson has mainly dodged male reporters. And the male reporters I know would just as soon stay clear of the whole matter anyway. Most men don’t go rushing to cover tempestuous stories of sex discrimination.

That means it’s probably up to female journalists to seek complete answers to an event that’s still of no small importance in some quarters, particularly the quarters containing the young female journalists Abramson says she cares about most.

If female journalists want to be treated equitably, they should abide by their own principles of fairness. That means not giving your own a slide because you think they deserve it. Behaving otherwise is convenient, but it’s not journalism.

If it weren’t for clubby double standards, today’s journalism wouldn’t have any standards at all.

SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “What did socialists use before candles? Electricity.”