House Budget Vote Collapses - Is the Shutdown's End In Sight?

Whitehouse.govWhitehouse.govLooks like the government shutdown endgame may be in sight.

House Republicans canceled a planned vote this evening on what would have been a return offer to the Senate deal that was brokered yesterday by Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The full details of that plan are still being hashed out, but it would fund the government through the middle of January, raise the debt limit until February 7 (with the possibility of "extraordinary measures" effectively extending it further), and create a sort of super-duper committee by requiring both committees to appoint conferees to talk about ways to further reduce the debt and deficit by December 13. 

The House bill would have funded the government until December 15 and lifted the debt ceiling until February 7, and also reversed a recent decision allowing Hill staffers and legislators to use their existing employer coverage contribution on health insurance purchased in the exchange. 

But the House plan, which leadership spent all day working on in a last-minute effort to return something to the Senate, was pulled after GOP leadership found that it did not have enough Republican votes to pass the plan. House Democrats had said they would vote against it. 

Which means that the only game in town is the McConnell-Reid deal that appeared on the horizon yesterday. Republicans in the House seem to have accepted that they are now out of manuevers, and that the Senate deal will now pass. 

But not, however, without a large group of House GOP no votes—and an assist from House Democrats. If and when Speaker of the House John Boehner goes ahead and holds a vote on the Senate plan, a sizable group of House Republicans are expected to vote against the proposal. Democrats will make up the difference, and the vote will pass. The shutdown will be over, and the Republicans who pushed for it hardest will have gotten essentially nothing for it. 

Glenn Greenwald, Having Introduced Us to Edward Snowden, Heads to New Media Start-Up

Bringing some staff to Rio, you say?How appropriate the news was leaked. Glenn Greenwald, who has now quite famously become part of the Edward Snowden leak stories by reporting them via The Guardian (and by having his partner temporarily detained in England over them), is leaving his current job. BuzzFeed got the scoop:

Glenn Greenwald, the lawyer and blogger who brought the Guardian the biggest scoop of the decade, is departing the London-based news organization, for a brand new, large-scale, broadly-focused media outlet, he told BuzzFeed Tuesday.

Greenwald published revelations from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about the extent of American and British domestic spying and about officials deception about its scope. He said he is departing for a new, “once-in-a-career dream journalistic opportunity” with major financial backing whose details will be public soon.

“My partnership with the Guardian has been extremely fruitful and fulfilling: I have high regard for the editors and journalists with whom I worked and am incredibly proud of what we achieved,” Greenwald said in an emailed statement. “The decision to leave was not an easy one, but I was presented with a once-in-a-career dream journalistic opportunity that no journalist could possibly decline.”

A spokesperson for The Guardian said the parting is amicable. Greenwald said more news about this new media project will be forthcoming. He wasn’t ready to provide too many details as yet, because, you know, leak.

Read the full story here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Support Grows for Cops to Wear On-Body Cameras

The push for cops to start wearing on-body cameras while on duty is gaining momentum.

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a position paper in support of the practice. Although the ACLU is generally opposed to increases in state survelliance, they endorsed the idea as “a way to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers.”

thivierr/Flickrthivierr/Flickr

The civil liberties group is one of the latest to join a growing coalition of academics, judges, journalists, politicians, and others calling for cops to start wearing lapel cameras on duty.  The motivations are clear: Allegations of police misconduct are rampant and disputes between citizens and law enforcement officials are highly contentious. In cities across the country, Americans file hundreds of complaints against their local police departments every year. Many of these cases go unresolved or even ignored. Proponents of cops wearing portable recording devices believe that adding an “objective record” of the incidences will help mitigate the problem.

When a federal judge ruled New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy unconstitutional in August, she ordered the department to implement a test run of wearable police cameras on the grounds that video footage of police stops could either “confirm or refute the belief of some minorities that they have been stopped simply as a result of their race.” (Mayor Bloomberg has so far resisted implementing the program.)

In September, the Baltimore Sun penned an editorial in favor of the practice, saying it will help "restore trust" between police departments and the public.

Earlier this week, Flex Your Rights, a nonprofit that educates citizens about their constitutional rights when interacting with police, told Reason.com that they advocate for on-body cameras because it levels the playing field between police and citizens:

Without contradictory evidence, the officer's word is usually the official story. But the ubiquity of cameras threatens to destroy this power.

The claims that on-body cameras could help are backed by evidence. A 12-month study conducted by Cambridge University, which Reason first covered back in August, found that “when the city of Rialto, California, required its cops to wear cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and the use of force by officers dropped by almost 60 percent.” Additionally, several police departments that require officers to wear on-body cameras have reported positive results. Six months after Laurel, Maryland, bought lapel cameras for their officers, they observed plummeting numbers of police force incidences and citizen complaints.

As of yet, few police departments use on-body cameras.   

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Cops in Case of Woman Possibly Wrongly Pronounced Dead; Lawsuit Against Doctor to Go Ahead

family looking for someone to blame?family photoA district judge dismissed a portion of a lawsuit against three police officers for civil rights violations, but allowed the wrongful death portion of the lawsuit against a doctor who may have wrongly declared a woman dead. The Press of Atlantic City explains:

Hottenstein, 35, of Conshohocken, Pa., was in Sea Isle City on Feb. 15, 2009, for the annual Polar Bear Plunge. The next day, at 7:52 a.m., a passerby called 911 to report a body, identified as Hottenstein, had been found on the city’s boat launching ramp.

Three police officers reported trying to find her pulse and when none was found they determined she was dead and deemed the area a crime scene.

At 8:22 a.m. a doctor with AEA pronounced Hottenstein dead over the phone although neither the city’s paramedics or the doctor ever examined her.

“In spite of this declaration of death, Tracy may not have been deceased at 8:22 a.m.,” U.S. District Judge Irenas wrote in his opinion. “Two experts, upon review of the facts and circumstances of the case, concluded that severe hypothermia may manifest symptoms that look akin to death.”

The judge said the police officers tried to help Hottenstein, and when that appeared futile treated the area as a crime scene, not actions that appeared to have “an intent to cause… harm”. In first allowing the lawsuit to continue, two years ago, the same judge dismissed claims of “negligent infliction of emotional distress “ against the paramedics, as well as the doctor, who is the last to remain a target of the lawsuit after this week’s ruling.

White House Dismisses Republican Effort to Reopen Government as Too Partisan, Talking to Democrats Instead, Obama Administration Argues Against Supreme Court Review of NSA Surveillance, Blue Screen of Death Spotted on iPhone 5S: P.M. Links

  • old school meets new schoolYouTubeThe White House dismissed House Republican efforts  to come up with their own plan to end the government shutdown as too partisan; President Obama meets with House Democrats instead this afternoon, while Republicans have abandoned their plan. The Senate, meanwhile, is reportedly close to a deal that would raise the debt limit on a short-term basis, until February.
  • The Obama Administration is arguing the Supreme Court should decline to hear a challenge to the NSA’s telephone metadata surveillance operations.
  • LAPD officer Mary O’Callaghan was charged with assault under color of authority for participating in the 2012 beating death of Alesia Thomas.
  • Two girls in Florida, aged 12 and 14, were charged with felony aggravated stalking for allegedly bullying a 12-year-old girl who committed suicide.
  • San Diego’s former mayor Bob Filner, who resigned earlier this year amid more than a dozen complaints of sexual harassment, was charged with one count of felony false imprisonment and two counts of misdemeanor battery. Hat trick!
  • A new book by investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez makes the case that drugs and money, not homophobia, were the primary motivation in the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming.
  • Researchers say they’ve found a blood-filled mosquito fossil in shale sediment in Montana, the first time such a specimen’s been identified.
  • The blue screen of death was spotted on the iPhone 5S, appearing just before an unexpected reboot.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. 

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

Scott Shackford on the Government Shutdown and America’s Permission-Based Society

Eric in DUB / Foter / CC BYEric in DUB / Foter / CC BYIf the purpose of government is to do the things citizens can’t do themselves, then why should the government shutdown affect our ability to engage in basic commerce like fishing for crabs, crafting beer or even simply hiring people? As Reason’s Scott Shackford explains, the government’s regulatory involvement in all areas of business has created a permission-based culture. If government officials are blocked from doing their jobs, then so are many private citizens, not because they physically cannot do so, but simply because there’s nobody to tell them they can.

View this article

School to Students: Go Ahead and Let Your Friends Drive Drunk

When zero tolerance meets guilt by association:

School policy, apparently.Two weeks ago, Erin received a call from a friend at a party who was too drunk to drive. Erin drove to Boxford after work to pick up her friend. Moments after she arrived, the cops arrived too and busted several kids for underage possession of alcohol.

A North Andover High School honor student, Erin was cleared by police, who agreed she had not been drinking and was not in possession of alcohol. But Andover High told Erin she was in violation of the district’s zero tolerance policy against alcohol and drug use. In the middle of her senior year, Erin was demoted from captain of the volleyball team and told she would be suspended from playing for five games.

North Andover High School: So committed to fighting teenage alcohol abuse, it'll punish you if you help stop a drunken teen from taking the wheel.

63 Cleveland Police Officers Suspended For 23 Minute Police Chase That Ended With Cops Firing 137 Shots

shot by copspolice photosThe Cleveland Police Department has suspended 63 patrol officers who were involved in a car chase last November that ended in East Cleveland with 13 officers firing 137 shots, killing both the driver, Timothy Russell, and the passenger, Malissa Williams. Cops say the chase started when an officer heard a gunshot from the car. No gun was ever found in the car, nor any casings where the chase started. The 13 cops involved in the fatal shooting were not among the 63 suspended; they are under a grand jury investigation. A state investigation previously concluded there was a systemic problem of an attitude of “refusal to look at the facts,” and handed the case over the prosecutors. In August, East Cleveland’s mayor said prosecutors were considering filing charges against the cops involved in the shooting, but as of this month the shooting is still being investigated.

The city of Cleveland asked the Department of Justice to review police policies following the chase and shooting, and the DOJ obliged by opening a civil rights investigation into misconduct and the possible systematic excessive use of force in March. The investigation could take up to a year and a half.

The suspensions for the 63 officers are for offenses ranging from insubordination to driving too fast. Cops kept chasing Russell’s car even after ordered to stop. They say they thought a cop was in trouble. The maximum suspensions were for just 10 days. Thirteen supervisors, who the department blames for letting the chase spin out of control, were previously disciplined.

Video of the shooting here, an animation created by the Ohio Attorney General’s office here.

Is the NSA Blackmailing Officials Into Supporting Snooping?

Restricted dataAlex WellersteinWhy are the likes of Sen. Dianne Feinstein so supportive of wide-reaching National Security Agency surveillance even as polls show a majority of Americans horrified by such intrusions? At the risk of venturing into paranoid territory, could it be that the NSA has gone all J. Edgar and compiled compromising information about officials who might otherwise be a bit less enthusiastic about snooping? That's what Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union wonders, and he has some evidence to support his theory.

Writes Stanley:

Sometimes when I hear public officials speaking out in defense of NSA spying, I can’t help thinking, even if just for a moment, “what if the NSA has something on that person and that’s why he or she is saying this?”

Of course it’s natural, when people disagree with you, to at least briefly think, “they couldn’t possibly really believe that, there must be some outside power forcing them to take that position.” Mostly I do not believe that anything like that is now going on.

But I cannot be 100% sure, and therein lies the problem. The breadth of the NSA’s newly revealed capabilities makes the emergence of such suspicions in our society inevitable. Especially given that we are far, far away from having the kinds of oversight mechanisms in place that would provide ironclad assurance that these vast powers won’t be abused. And that highlights the highly corrosive nature of allowing the NSA such powers. Everyone has dark suspicions about their political opponents from time to time, and Americans are highly distrustful of government in general. When there is any opening at all for members of the public to suspect that officials from the legislative and judicial branches could be vulnerable to leverage from secretive agencies within the executive branch—and when those officials can even suspect they might be subject to leverage—that is a serious problem for our democracy.

Stanley has more than speculation to go on. He points to an interview with former NSA analyst and whistleblower Russ Tice, who claims the Bush administration unleashed the NSA on Barack Obama back in 2004. He also told an interviewer just this summer that surveillance of high-ranking officials was a common procedure for his former employers.

From Washington's Blog:

Tice: Okay. They went after–and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things–they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the–and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of–heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House–their own people. They went after antiwar groups. They went after U.S. international–U.S. companies that that do international business, you know, business around the world. They went after U.S. banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after NGOs that–like the Red Cross, people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work.

Tice explicitly says such scrutiny made subjects susceptible to blackmail. And while his experience is some years old, other whistleblowers suggest the practice continues.

William Binney, another former NSA officer, told frequent spy-documenter James Bamford that he and J. Kirk Wiebe approached the Obama administration about putting safeguards on data collection and were brushed off. “We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state,” Binney told Bamford.

That's a soothing thought on the day that the Washington Post reveals that the NSA harvests personal contact lists from around the world, building roadmaps of our connections and relationships that can be very revealing about our lives. Our contacts and connections are just the sort of information that can become part of an awkward dossier. The sort of awkward dossier that elicits cooperative behavior from officials who'd rather their lives be kept under wraps.

It's not like blackmail has never been used by government officials before. The FBI's J. Edgar Hoover was said to be quite the master of turning inconvenient secrets into cooperative behavior.

US Lifting Restrictions on Arms Exports

can i buy a military aircraft too?Reason 24/7President Obama is easing the rules for arms exports, which critics say* will make it easier for countries like Iran to get access to spare parts they need to keep their aging jets running.

From Pro Publica:

The United States is loosening controls over military exports, in a shift that former U.S. officials and human rights advocates say could increase the flow of American-made military parts to the world’s conflicts and make it harder to enforce arms sanctions.

Come tomorrow, thousands of parts of military aircraft, such as propeller blades, brake pads and tires will be able to be sent to almost any country in the world, with minimal oversight – even to some countries subject to U.N. arms embargos. U.S. companies will also face fewer checks than in the past when selling some military aircraft to dozens of countries.

Arms control, apparently for US citizens covered under the Second Amendment only!

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247

*updated

Don't Count on Obamacare Small Business Tax Credits, Writes Malia Zimmerman

Obamacare ExchangeU.S. GovernmentThink small business owners really are going to get tax credits through Obamacare health exchanges? Think again. writes Watchdog's Malia Zimmerman. Reg Baker, chief operating officer of the Hawaii Medical Assurance Association, a health care insurance company not participating on the local Hawaii Health Connector exchange, told her that the tax credits aren’t guaranteed. Small businesses can only qualify to receive the tax credits for two years, there is extensive paperwork to fill out, and they will only benefit if they made enough of a profit to benefit from the tax credit, said Baker, who is also a certified public accountant.

View this article

4 Ways a Budget Deal Could Change Obamacare

Whitehouse.govWhitehouse.govWhen the government shutdown began, Obamacare was front and center.  House Republicans wanted to defund the health law—and said they wouldn’t vote for any continuing resolution that kept funding in place.

But with President Obama and Democrats in the Senate determined to protect the health care overhaul defunding the law through the budget process, or even significantly rolling it back, was always unlikely.

Still, reports from last night and this morning about an initial offer made by the leadership of both parties in the Senate and a likely counteroffer made by House Republicans this morning indicate that some health care tweaks may end up in a final deal.

A delay of Obamacare’s reinsurance fee: Obamacare institutes a $63 per enrollee annual reinsurance fee for the first three years the exchanges are in effect. The fees go into a pool that essentially acts as a backstop for any insurer that ends up attracting an unusually high percentage of sicker than average people. The reinsurance fee is charged per head, not per plan, so it makes family coverage more expensive. Big employers like Delta don’t like it; the airline estimates that it will cost the company $10 million next year. Labor unions don’t like it either, because it adds to the cost of health coverage. The proposal currently in play would not charge the fee next year, but would still fund the insurer backstop in 2014 through an advance from the Treasury, according to Politico. That advance would then be paid by an additional year of fees tacked on at the end.

A delay of Obamacare’s medical device tax: The bill the House is reported to be moving on this morning would delay the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers for two years. That’s a partial win for the medical device lobby, which has been pushing to kill the tax for a while. It’s also a provision with bipartisan opposition: Last year, 18 Democratic Senators signed a letter urging delay of the device tax. Most Obamacare opponents are not big fans of the tax either. But privately some have worried about attempts to repeal the tax entirely, as doing so would remove a pressure point for Democratic legislators.

A requirement that members of Congress buy health insurance on the exchanges without employer subsidies: Obamacare was written with a requirement that members of Congress and their staffers can only be offered coverage through the health exchanges. Typically, those exchanges don’t allow individuals to use tax-advantaged employer contributions to help pay for insurance. But a rule issued earlier this year said that members of Congress and their workers could use their existing employer contributions. Reports suggest that this morning's House proposal would reverse that rule for legislators, but not staffers. 

Enforcement of Obamacare’s income verification provisions: This is an interesting one, because it doesn’t really change Obamacare. Instead, it basically asks the administration to enforce the law as it’s written—and certify that it’s doing so. Some of the health law’s income verification provisions were delayed over the summer, meaning that individuals applying for insurance subsidies would essentially be relying on the honor system. This addendum would require that the administration actually verify the income of subsidy applicants and that the Health and Human Services Secretary certify that the administration was doing so. Some House Republicans have already expressed concern about including this provision, because it treats enforcement of a law as a concession—a potentially problematic precedent.

Needless to say, all of this could change before a final deal is made. Already there are signs that the White House, which would also need to agree to any final deal, isn’t thrilled with this morning’s House offer. But whatever happens, it’s unlikely that any final agreement that moves through the Senate and the White House will include larger-scale changes to the health law. If Obamacare is going to be significantly altered, it won’t be through the budget negotiation process. 

Jonathan Rauch Explores America’s Enormous 20-Year Shift on Gay Issues, But Where’s the Credit for Tech Innovations?

Liberation! (But no fems, plz.)GrindrReason contributor Jonathan Rauch uses the cover of the latest issue of American Review to discuss the remarkable, breathtaking shift in public opinion on gay and lesbian issues in this country since 1995. Rauch makes note of the many factors resulting in cultural changes, but misses one key point (which I’ll get to). He opens by reminding us that it wasn’t all that long ago that even floating the idea of legally recognized gay marriages suggested you were a crazy person:

The fall of 1995 does not really seem all that long ago, does it? To me, it is as vivid as yesterday, yet also ancient as Babylon. I am walking with my father in Belfast, Ireland, and he is urging me to abandon my rash idea, which is to write in support of same-sex marriage. Why? I am puzzled: he has nothing against gay people, nor any disapproval of his gay son. The problem, he admonishes me, is that the idea of a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, is nuts. In fact, it is so far outside the realm of the possible that I will ruin my credibility as a journalist by supporting it. People will think I am nuts.

In 1995, his advice was not unreasonable. The idea of same-sex marriage seemed disgusting or risible to its opponents (who were practically everybody) and a pipe dream to its supporters. Some advocates imagined that their grandchildren’s generation might just possibly live to see it. In January of 1996, when I worked at The Economist magazine and we published a cover leader endorsing same-sex marriage, the mail which poured in was exceeded in volume and hostility only by the onslaught against the magazine’s call for the abolition of the monarchy.

The Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws only 10 years ago. Now a baker’s dozen of states recognize gay marriages. Of course, it’s not all rainbows and disco balls. Because the Supreme Court in its gay marriage cases last term declined to rule on whether recognition was a right (confining the ruling to requiring the federal government recognize gay marriages where legal), there’s still a struggle ahead. But culture shifts that have pushed America toward more acceptance of not freaking out over people being gay are not likely to reverse:

Begin with the obvious: demographics. It is very important, but perhaps not as important as you think. Support for gay marriage is correlated with age; three in four Americans under 30 favour it. Gay marriage opponents are dying off and being replaced with proponents. More is going on than generational replacement, however. We know this because support has increased impressively among every generational cohort. Tellingly, support almost doubled over the past ten years, Pew finds, among “silent generation” members born between 1928 and 1945 — people in their late 60s and older. A lot of Americans, not excluding older Americas, have changed their minds.

One reason is what I think of as the Tocqueville effect. Alexis de Tocqueville, the Frenchman whose observations of America in the 1830s remain shrewdly relevant, famously remarked on Americans’ deference to majority opinion: “As long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, everyone is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety.” Although he exaggerates, the broad point remains true: the legitimising effect of public opinion is such that, other things being equal, majority support tends to amplify itself. Even if I have doubts about gay marriage, the fact that most of my countrymen are on the other side weakens my resolve and impels me to acknowledge the legitimacy of their view. The difference between support at, say, 55 per cent versus 45 per cent — that is, the different between majority and minority standing — is one of kind, not merely of degree. That is not to say that opposition evaporates or crawls under a rock when it loses majority standing. But its power and relevance are greatly reduced.

MORE »

Rebels in Syria Risk Making Assad Look Cooperative as Inspectors Work To Destroy Chemical Weapons

Credit: thierry ehrmann/wikimediaCredit: thierry ehrmann/wikimediaAlthough the Assad regime has been accused by Western officials of using chemical weapons, it is the rebels in Syria who could could end up looking uncooperative and disruptive as chemical weapons inspectors continue their mission to dismantle the Syrian government’s chemical weapons.

Inspectors working on destroying the Assad regime’s chemical weapons face numerous challenges, including not just tight deadlines but also the frequently changing front lines in the Syrian civil war. Although the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient tasked with overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, has not cited any instance of rebels hindering their work, an unnamed Western diplomat in the Arab world told The New York Times that any disruption from the rebels could make Assad look comparatively cooperative:

A Western diplomat in the Arab world said that though the Syrian government was legally responsible for dismantling its chemical weapons under an international agreement, its opponents should also cooperate in the process, because several chemical weapons sites were close to confrontation lines or within rebel-held territory.

“The international community also expects full cooperation from the opposition,” the diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a delicate issue. “However divided the opposition might be, it would look very bad if the government was seen to be cooperating fully, while inspections were held up because of problems with the opposition.”

Many Syrians are not happy about the OPCW winning the Nobel Peace Prize, a move which (according to NPR) some have interpreted as a gift to Assad.

After the chemical attacks in Damascus suburbs in August this year it looked as if the Assad regime could be on the receiving end of Western military strikes. Now, it looks like the use of chemical weapons in Syria could end up making the Assad regime look more responsible and cooperative than its opposition. It all depends on whether the ideologically varied rebels decide to allow the chemical weapons inspectors to do their job.

"Economics Teaches Us Humility": Q&A with George Mason University's Pete Boettke

"Economics is a set of eye glasses, and when you put them on you bring the world into sharp relief," says George Mason University Professor Pete Boettke, who is author of the new book, Living Economics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. "It's a way of thinking about the world that has implications that are political in nature when you follow through with it persistently and consistently."

View this article

Obamacare Navigator Confuses Floridians About New Law's Nonexistent Credit-Check Requirements

Healthcare.govU.S. GovernmentObamacare being a new, confusing and really poorly implemented system that has Americans baffled and frustrated, the administration set aside millions of dollars to hire highly trained "navigators" to lead Americans through the bureaucratic thickets. Those navigators are hard at work, and in fine federal style, they're making a cock-up of the whole affair. In Florida, Anne Packham, the chief navigator, publicly insisted that applicants for coverage through through the exchange would be subject to a credit check before contradictory information from D.C, caused her to backtrack, again in public.

From ClickOrlando:

ORLANDO, Fla. -A day after saying that anyone signing up for the Affordable Care Act had to provide their credit score, the lead Navigator admitted that she had been providing factually incorrect information to the public.

Anne Packham, one of the people assigned by the state to help people navigate the government's website, asserted in an interview on Tuesday – and then later during follow up questions - that the credit check was put in place so providers can make an educated decision about who to insure.

"That's so that health insurance providers can make an educated decision about who to insure based on if someone is defaulting on all of their bills they may not want to have them as part of their health plan," she said during Tuesday’s on-camera interview.

A representative for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said Wednesday credit scores have nothing to do with insurance rates under the Affordable Care Act.

The Department of Health and Human Services, by the way, seems so besieged by Obamacare confusion that it has laid off the "we can't afford the electricity for our Web servers and our press officers are starving in an alley" jive that prevails throughout the rest of the federal government. It's still posting press releases and pleading that it can only contradict its people in the field one at a time.

Confusion reigns!U.S. Government

So take a number and wait your turn.

As it turns out, applicants are run through credit agencies, but allegedly to confirm their identities, not their creditworthiness.

A.M. Links: NSA Gathering Email, IM Contacts Worldwide, Reid Says Talks With McConnell Have Made “Tremendous Progress,” Teens Suspended For Wearing Confederate Flags

Credit: National Security Agency/wikimediaCredit: National Security Agency/wikimedia

  • The Washington Post is reporting that the NSA has been collecting contacts from email address books and instant messaging accounts from around the world.
  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says that talks with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on ending the current fiscal stalemate have made “tremendous progress.”
  • Two teens have been suspended from Tahoma High School in Maple Valley, Washington after wearing Confederate flags as clothing in response to a fellow student wearing a rainbow flag to mark LGBT History Month.
  • An alleged pirate kingpin has been arrested after being lured to Belgium from Somalia to participate in a fake documentary.
  • Inspectors working on destroying Syria’s chemical weapons are facing numerous challenges including tight deadlines and a dangerous security situation.
  • The second dry ice explosion in two days has been reported at LAX.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

Shikha Dalmia Says Racial Preferences Could Backfire On Minorities

Credit: Phil-Roeder-CC-BYCredit: Phil-Roeder-CC-BYFor the second time in a decade, Michigan's racial preferences saga has reached the Supreme Court. The court will hear arguments today to settle the fate of Proposal 2 (aka the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), the 2006 ballot initiative that banned preferential treatment for minorities in Michigan colleges. Shikha Dalmia argues that the logic that Prop. 2 opponents are deploying is too clever by half and could backfire on minorities.

View this article

Come See Jonathan Rauch Talk About the 20th Anniversary of Kindly Inquisitors in New York Tonight at the Museum of Sex!

Do you own this book? You totally should. |||Twenty years ago, the great classical liberal journalist Jonathan Rauch (see his Reason archive here) wrote arguably the best modern defense of free speech: Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought. Now, the University of Chicago Press is bringing out an expanded 20th anniversary edition, featuring a new forward by George Will and a new afterword from the author, an adaptation from which we'll be running in the December issue of Reason.

Tonight, beginning at 6:30 pm at the OralFix bar in New York's fabulous Museum of Sex, Reason and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) are proud to bring you a conversation between Rauch and New York Times science writer John Tierney, discussing how the free-speech battle has changed for the better and worse in the last two decades.

The venue is at 233 Fifth Avenue (at East 27th); the bar is downstairs through the gift shop, and there will be snacks and adult beverages. RSVP is a must, at reason.nyc@reason.org.

Read Nick Gillespie's 2007 interview with Rauch here.

Get Ready for Lots of Talk About Just How Awful Sequestration Has Really Been

Now that Republicans and Democrats are jawing about a resolution to the government shutdown and impending deadline for the issuance of new government debt, get ready for lots of talk about just how awful the sequestration cuts in the 2011 Budget Control Act have been. And how they must not be allowed to form a new baseline for future government spending because they are killing the hopes and dreams of future generations. Stuff like this:

If Democrats disliked the 2011 Budget Control Act, they disliked its bastard stepchild, the sequester, even more. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama calls the sequester cuts: “harsh” and “arbitrary” and warned that they would “devastate priorities like education, energy and medical research” and “cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.”...

The promise of the Obama presidency was not merely that he’d bring Democrats back to power. It was that he’d usher in the first era of truly progressive public policy in decades. But the survival of Obamacare notwithstanding, Obama’s impending “victory” in the current standoff moves us further away from, not closer to, that goal.

It’s not just that Obama looks likely to accept the sequester cuts as the basis for future budget negotiations. It’s that while he’s been trying to reopen the government and prevent a debt default, his chances of passing any significant progressive legislation have receded. 

As it happens, the deal supposedly being hatched in the Senate will fund government through January 15, 2014, just before $19 billion in a second round of sequestration cuts kick in. The idea is that this timing will give Democrats time to try and reverse the terrifying specter of spending just $967 billion rather than $986 billion or $1.058 trillion in discretionary dollars. Take a peek at the chart to the upper right, which tracks the impact of sequestration over a 10 year window. The tiny difference should make most people sleep soundly at night. Unless you actually care about the government actually living anywhere close to reality:

Remember, kids, that anytime future increases in government spending are restrained even slightly, a kitten dies. Because despite five straight years of record-high levels of government spending (the feds spent about $3.5 trillion in 2013, which isn't charted above), there just isn't enough money being spent to accomplish truly progressive goals. Pity.

The End of Doom with Ronald Bailey at Reason's LA HQ, Weds., 10/16!

ron baileyIs the environment really doomed?

On Wednesday, Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey, whose new book The End of Doom challenges the neo-Malthusian control freaks, will sit down with ReasonTV to talk about why the environment isn't doomed, why we won't overpopulate the planet, and why things are generally getting better, not worse, over time. You are cordially invited to join the Reason team in the studio for lunch before the taping begins.

  • What: "The End of Doom" with Ronald Bailey
  • When: Wednesday, October 16; 12:00 p.m. lunch, 12:30 p.m. taping
  • Where: ReasonTV Studios at 5737 Mesmer Ave., 90230 (map: http://bit.ly/16l3p0E)

Please RSVP to Mary Toledo at mary.toledo@reason.org or 310-391-2245 by Tuesday, October 15. Looking forward to seeing you there!

Jacob Sullum on the Marijuana Money Muddle

Credit: north-cascades-national-park-CC.Credit: north-cascades-national-park-CC.As far as the federal government is concerned, any business involving the production or sale of marijuana—even if it is blessed by state law—is a criminal enterprise. But as Al Capone could tell you, the feds still want their cut. Jacob Sullum goes through the financial hurdles, such as paying taxes and writing checks, that legal marijuana businesses face.

View this article

Brickbat: Making a Felony Out of It

Some Georgia lawmakers say they want to change the state's “zero tolerance” law on weapons at school after two teens were charged with felony violations of that law in separate instances. Andrew Williams was charged after an assistant principal at Allatoona High School found a pocket knife in the center console of his car, and Cody Chitwood was charged after police found knives in a tackle box he'd left in his car after a fishing trip. Both face up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted of the charges.

Sen. Feinstein Fails to Justify NSA Surveillance

Gawker does a good job tearing apart Sen. Dianne Feinstein's sad attempt to get her subjects to agree that NSA surveillance must be A-OK, said sad attempt appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

Highlights:

1) The NSA program could have stopped 9/11. It's right there in the story's subhed: "If today's call-records program had been in place in before 9/11, the terrorist attacks likely would have been prevented." Odd, since Feinstein includes this paragraph right up front:

In the summer of 2001, the CIA's then-director, George Tenet, painted a dire picture for members of the Senate Intelligence Committee when he testified about the terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda. As Mr. Tenet later told the 9/11 Commission, "the system was blinking red" and by late July of that year, it could not "get any worse."

Huh. So... the CIA did issue dire warnings prior to 9/11, although the NSA's program was not in place at that time. This directly contradicts Feinstein's point about the necessity of the NSA's phone spying...

2) The NSA itself says the program works.

Working in combination, the call-records database and other NSA programs have aided efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to disrupt terrorism in the U.S. approximately a dozen times in recent years, according to the NSA. This summer, the agency disclosed that 54 terrorist events have been interrupted—including plots stopped and arrests made for support to terrorism...

The fact that all of these "terrorist events" that have been foiled by the NSA are sourced to the NSA itself renders the entire thing rather worthless for the purposes of public debate. What this really means is, "the NSA says the NSA's work works." Is that true? Maybe, maybe not. Can we verify it? No. Does the NSA have an established record of misleading self-justifying public statements? Yes...

3) Al Qaeda is scary. They are making "nonmetallic bombs," you see. Therefore, we must intercept every phone call in America.

Earlier this month, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that in the case of the AQAP threat this summer, there were a number of phone numbers or emails "that emerged from our collection overseas that pointed to the United States." Fortunately, the NSA call-records program was used to check those leads and determined that there was no domestic aspect to the plotting.

Not only is this justification sourced to James Clapper, a man who lied to Congress under oath about NSA surveillance activities, but it attempts to justify domestic spying with a case in which there "was no domestic aspect to the plotting." And this was presumably the best example that Feinstein could come up with....

I wondered back in 2006 where the terror threat was, post-9/11, and I can't see that much has changed.

Ohio Republicans Attempt to Eliminate Minor Parties; Libertarians and Greens Push Back

Credit: Nestle, CC BY NC NDCredit: Nestle, CC BY NC NDA bill in Ohio that effectively derails any ongoing minor party campaigns and may have long-term repercussions for such parties was approved by the state senate last week. Libertarians and Greens in the state, who called the Republican-backed bill “The John Kasich Protection Act,” believe it is unconstitutional and are fighting to stop it.

State Sen. Bill Seitz, who presented Senate Bill 193 as an emergency measure in September, argued that the current state of affairs is like “the wild, wild West” (despite the fact that all minor party votes in the 2012 presidential election added up to 1.6 percent of the total count). He said:

Obviously, if you are in one of those minor parties, you probably would like that current, lawless state of affairs to continue because you get to stay on the ballot without demonstrating any modicum of support.

The Associated Press explained that S.B. 193, which heads to the Ohio House of Representatives this week, would require minor parties acquire “more than 56,000 signatures using last year's election numbers. To remain a qualified political party, groups must get 3 percent of the total votes cast in the following gubernatorial or presidential election.”

MORE »

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • What the end of prohibition looks like in Colorado.
  • Municipal bankruptcy is heading to a local government near you.
  • Young Americans are being suffocated by government spending.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement