Boom: A Federal Judge Just Handed The Obama Admin A Loss And The GOP A Win

The congressional Republican push to dismantle Obamacare scored a judicial victory this week when a federal judge determined that the U.S. House of Representatives has legal standing on which to pursue a constitutional challenge to the Obama administration.

According to CNN, the issue before U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer related to Obama’s implementation of a federal reimbursement program that would repay insurers forced to reduce costs for low-income enrollees. According to House Speaker John Boehner, the White House failed to obtain the legislative approval needed to enforce such a provision.

Boehner reacted to the ruling, stating that he is “pleased” that the judge upheld previous rulings that the House “does, in fact, have standing to challenge one of the president’s unilateral actions with regard to Obamacare.”

He went on to express his belief that it represents “another step toward holding the president accountable for his unconstitutional actions.”

While attorneys representing the Obama administration have already criticized the ruling and have announced their intention to appeal it, Collyer stood by her decision.

“Suffice it to say,” she asserted, “the Court is not convinced it erred. Defendants will have a chance to make their arguments to the Court of Appeals; the only question is whether they may do so now.”

Do you believe Obamacare is unconstitutional? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

You Won’t Believe The Thing That Most Americans Fear Today

When it comes to the thing most Americans fear, our nation’s leaders top the list.

Chapman University’s Survey of American Fears, Wave 2 asked over 1,500 adults from across the nation about their levels of fear in many different categories, ranging from crime to natural and man-made disasters to government surveillance.

Only one fear topped 50% for combined categories “afraid” and “very afraid”: Corruption of government officials.

“In wave 1 (a survey last year) the biggest fear was walking alone at night,” Dr. Edward Day, lead researcher on the survey, told USA Headline News. “This year it was a lot more about government and technology…we were really surprised that [fear of corrupt government officials] rose to the top of the list.”

Here are the top 10 fears and the percentage of respondents who said they were “afraid” or “very afraid” of the fear:

  1. Corruption of government officials (58%)
  2. Cyber-terrorism  (44.8%)
  3. Corporate tracking of personal information  (44.6%)
  4. Terrorist attacks  (44.4%)
  5. Government tracking of personal information  (41.4%)
  6. Bio-warfare  (40.9%)
  7. Identity theft  (39.6%)
  8. Economic collapse  (39.2%)
  9. Running out of money in the future  (37.4%)
  10. Credit card fraud  (36.9%)

The previous survey’s #1, “Walking Alone at Night,” was mentioned by only 16.4% of those surveyed and didn’t even make the top 50.

Dr. Day said that media coverage of the current electoral cycle and ongoing coverage of violence around the world is driving particular fear categories.

“People are very impacted by the media,” Dr. Day said. “Plus we happen to be in a political season. And not just a political season, but a political season where people are campaigning against the government. That it’s something bad and something you need to be afraid of, and people are buying that message.”

The #2 government category item that people feared was Obamacare, with 35.7% of respondents listing it under “afraid” or “very afraid.”

The fear of the government was a major factor to those in the survey who said they purchased a gun because of their fear.

“Fear of the government had the strongest relationship with buying a gun because of fear,” Dr. Day said. “People who have purchased a gun because of fear also have high levels of fear of technology and crime.”

The survey also showed that many Americans have unrealistic expectations in the event of a natural disaster.

“We found a major disconnect between people’s expectations of what would happen in a disaster and the reality of a disaster’s aftermath,” said Dr. Ann Gordon, lead researcher on the disaster portion of the survey. “The number one excuse given by Americans for not having an emergency kit is that they expect first responders to come to their aid immediately—this is an unrealistic belief in the wake of a natural disaster.”

Those answering the section about disasters ranked “not having time to make an emergency kit” as their top reason for not preparing.

Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died…Twice!

It’s deja screwed all over again.

In the fall of 2013, our family received notice from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado that we could no longer keep our private health insurance plan because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).”

We liked our high-deductible preferred provider organization plan that allowed us to choose from a wide range of doctors. But Obamacare wouldn’t let us keep it. Reluctantly, and after great bureaucratic difficulty, my hubby and I enrolled in an individual market plan with Rocky Mountain Health, which offered a much narrower provider network than the Anthem PPO plan we had before the feds snuffed it out.

Thanks to “reform,” our two kids’ dental care was no longer covered, and we had our post-Obamacare insurance turned down at an urgent care clinic — something that had never happened before.

This summer came another bombshell.

In August, we were informed of the “discontinuation of your Rocky Mountain Individual and Family plan effective December 31, 2015.”

Over the past month, we have received several bold-faced notices alerting us that “IMPORTANT ACTION IS REQUIRED: YOU MUST CHOOSE A NEW INDIVIDUAL & FAMILY PLAN TO MAINTAIN YOUR HEALTH COVERAGE IN 2016.” The clock is ticking: open enrollment begins Nov. 1.

The coerced choices are pretty damned crummy. Individual market PPOs have evaporated. We are being shoved once again toward the Obamacare government health insurance exchange vortex known as Connect for Health Colorado (which should really be called “DISconnect from Health Colorado). Or into a narrow regional HMO.

So much for “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” eh, Mr. President?

Obama lied and our health plan has now died — twice.

“Progressives” sneered at millions of us who received the first round of individual market health plan death notices. Mother Jones called it the “phony canceled health insurance scandal” when I first reported my 2013 health plan homicide by Obamacare.

But it’s real, it sucks, and we know we are not alone among the estimated 22 million other Americans who purchase health insurance directly on the ever-shrinking individual market.

In Illinois, Blue Cross announced it was eliminating its most popular individual plan with the largest network of doctors and hospitals of any of its offerings, Blue PPO. More than 170,000 enrollees will have to scrounge up an alternative. Customers are panicking, and insurance broker Mike Troha told the Chicago Tribune last week: “I wouldn’t be shocked if all the PPOs are gone in a few years in the individual markets.”

Last month, the Maryland Insurance Administration approved premium rate increases for small group and individual health insurance plans effective next year, with some rates spiking by double digits thanks to “significant changes in regulation and market dynamics over the past two years.”

Remember: One of the reasons for those rate hikes is that Obamacare’s mandated benefits provisions force insurers to carry coverage for items that individual market consumers had deliberately chosen to forgo. Americans who had willingly and willfully opted for affordable catastrophic coverage-style plans now have fewer and fewer choices.

In Texas, some 300,000 individual health insurance subscribers are watching their plans disappear and their access to specialists. In New Mexico, the state Obamacare exchange ended all of its PPO offerings in favor of HMOs. And in Arizona, Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna and Meritus are all dropping PPO plans offered to tens of thousands of individuals and families.

As the Arizona Republic’s editorial board noted this weekend, “Rosy predictions of cost savings bandied by advocates five years ago are now running into the harsh economic reality of unanticipated consequences.” Hospitals are consolidating. Doctors are quitting their private practices or hitching themselves to the big hospital wagons. “And bigger means fewer options. Only a handful of critics predicted in 2010 that one consequence of Obamacare would be the return of HMOs. But, in retrospect, no one should be surprised.”

In other words: The destruction of the private health insurance market is going exactly according to plan and as many of us warned.

Thanks, Obamacare.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

A Government Of Social And Behavioral ‘Nudges’

On September 15, 2015, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order with the intent on implementing “Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People.” The Executive Order (EO) is based on a “growing body of evidence demonstrating that behavioral science insights — research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them — can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people.”

Furthermore, the EO continues: “Where Federal policies have been designed to reflect behavioral science insights, they have substantially improved outcomes for the individuals, families, communities, and businesses those policies serve. For example, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation in retirement savings plans have made it easier to save for the future, and have helped Americans accumulate billions of dollars in additional retirement savings. Similarly, streamlining the application process for Federal financial aid has made college more financially accessible for millions of students.”

As innocuous as this may sound, the EO is entirely based on the principles, ideas, and concepts developed by the radical behaviorist Cass Sunstein. Sunstein was appointed administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) by Obama back in 2009. While Sunstein resigned in late 2012, his influence was enormous as he was given unprecedented power in reviewing nearly every federal regulation that was passed while he was in office. For example, he reviewed the rules implementing Obamacare as well as the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law. He backed and re-wrote major environmental initiatives, including higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and new toxic emissions rules for power plants.

Sunstein reviewed nearly everything in the vast administrative state while his power was much more significant in dealing with under-the-radar rules and regulations that often went unnoticed. As The New York Times  describes him, ” he wielded enormous power as the White House overseer of federal regulation, [who] came to Washington to test his theories of human behavior and economic efficiency in the laboratory of the federal government.” The Times continues: “He reviewed every regulation proposed by every executive agency.”

Even though he is no longer in office, his influence is evident as the first two examples given in Obama’s EO come from Sunstein and are explained in his book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Furthermore, his works are cited numerous times in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team Annual Report that was released in conjunction with the Executive Order. The second paragraph of Obama’s EO cites the concepts developed in Sunstein’s “Nudge” by explaining the core role played by behavioral insights in developing federal policies. This idea is that the government, using social and behavioral sciences, can design and implement policies in a way that “nudges” citizens towards certain behaviors and choices to advance the goals of the administration and the federal government.

As Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller explains in a perfect example of one of these “nudges,” Obama’s federal health care law, Obamacare, was replete with “nudge” language and experimentation which was brought to light in the debate of whether the individual mandate contained in the law was a tax hike. While Republicans insisted that it was a tax increase, the White House portrayed it as a penalty on the logic that the word “tax” had a negative connotation. The result of this is that Americans are now forced to buy overly expensive healthcare plans as defined by politically appointed experts such as Kathleen Sebelius and Jonathan Gruber. If you fail to be nudged into buying their plans, you are assessed an ever increasing annual tax or fine.

The current example of a “nudge” is the administration’s push to change our gun culture in the wake of the Umpqua Community College Shooting. Seen from the standpoint of Sunstein, in order to reduce gun violence in America, he has suggested that Americans must be “nudged” in a way that changes how we behave as a culture. Approaching the question on how this is to be done, Sunstein writes that society must view the gun owner not as a rational actor but as a “befuddled character, bedeviled by impulses and sentiments,” while the Second Amendment must be disregarded “as an obstacle” in the way of “U.S. gun control legislation.” Echoing this sentiment during his fundraising trip to Hollywood this weekend, Obama stated that in regards to his visit to Oregon on Friday, “there were some folks who were protesting about their Second Amendment rights as they understood them.”

This was a subtle remark aimed at those who were protesting Obama’s visit to Oregon by practicing their Second Amendment rights as they viewed Obama’s visit as nothing more than an attempt to politicize the tragedy that took place a week earlier at the community college. The underlying assumption made by Obama in which he dismisses those protesting about their Second Amendment rights as “they understood them” is quite profound in that it shows how Obama doesn’t regard this right as being universally acknowledged by all Americans. The goal here though is to not only politicize those Americans who have practiced their right to keep and bear arms by claiming they’re nothing more than a minority, but to also nudge all Americans towards accepting heavy restrictions on guns, with the justification of the government keeping us all safe.

One of the groups they are “keeping us safe from” are in fact military veterans who are consistently deprived of due process while having their guns taken away for unconstitutional reasons. This was brought to light in a letter drafted by Senator Chuck Grassley sent to then Attorney General Eric Holder on April 13th wanting to know why tens of thousands of military veterans were routinely and unfairly blocked from owning guns. Grassley points out that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) made the decisions based on Veterans who require bookkeeping services, a standard which was used as an end-run around the gun control law. As Grassley explains in his letter, “All federal agencies are required to report names of individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s (NICS) ‘mental defective’ category. Placement on the list prohibits owning or possessing a firearm. The legal standard by which a name is supposed to be reported to the ‘mental defective’ category is whether the individuals are a danger to themselves or others. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) process does not support such findings. Instead VA reports individuals to the gun ban list if an individual merely needs financial assistance managing VA benefits. Although the VA process is not designed to regulate firearm ownership, it results in veterans and their loved ones being barred from exercising their fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights.”

Yet, keeping guns out of the hands of our veterans by giving the VA the ability to redefine who is and isn’t a threat to themselves or others was merely the first step in Obama’s agenda to re-shape how we view the Second Amendment. The plan is to go after anyone who has had a domestic dispute, beginning with those who have been convicted of a misdemeanor. The end goal is to restrict any gun use by a person who has a friend, a family member, a colleague, a neighbor or a doctor who thinks they are at risk. According to the Obama administration’s Spring 2015 “Unified Agenda”–published May 22–the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) announced that they will be pushing a number of new gun control rules for implementation by executive fiat. For example, here are just two of the numerous sets of rules that are going to be implemented by executive fiat:

RIN: 1140-AA04 — will expand persons barred from gun ownership and possession by including “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as grounds for forfeiting the right to “ship, transport, possess, or receive in or affecting commerce firearms or ammunition.” It would also make it “unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the recipient has been convicted of such a misdemeanor.”

RIN: 1140-AA47 — broadens the number of people barred from gun possession by expanding the ATF’s mental health provisions on background checks by preventing the mentally ill from owning firearms, which past cases they have taken guns from people for merely taking sleep medications or seeing a psychologist. 

Among the most controversial proposals, though, the collection of vast and extensive data on all gun owners and gun transactions is the true aim of Obama’s agenda. If you combine this collection of data with the notion that the president is going to make it easier for the government to diagnose citizens as mentally ill, such as he’s done in the VA, he will have the ability to suspend a constitutional right based upon your health record. This is much more concerning given who the recently appointed Surgeon General is and his stance on gun control.

In March of this year, Vivek Murthy was sworn in as Surgeon General after being confirmed in a lame-duck 51-43 vote in December of 2014, before the Republican-controlled Congress took over in January. The reason his confirmation was pushed before the Republicans gained control of both the House and Senate was due to the fact that Murthy is the President and Co-Founder of the radical progressive group Doctors for America. The group, formerly known as Doctors for Obama, outlined what they would like to see happen to gun owners in order to develop a comprehensive national plan to stop gun violence. In a letter drafted by Murthy to members of Congress in 2013, he recommends the following ways in which gun violence should be addressed:

Remove military-style guns and ammunition that are designed to be able to kill large numbers of people quickly. Specific approaches should include:A federal ban on the sale of assault weapons and ammunition – to stop weapons from being added to the existing stock. Buyback programs – to reduce the number of military-style weapons that are currently in circulation.

Strengthen safety measures and regulations for guns used for hunting, sport, and self-protection. Every state requires a driver’s license and car registration in order to drive, and physicians certify those who should no longer drive because they would be a grave danger to themselves and others. We should approach the purchase, transfer, and operation of guns and ammunition with similar rigor. Specific approaches should include: Universal background checks and licenses for anyone purchasing guns and ammunition – including mandatory firearm safety training and testing and regulation of private sales and transfers of guns and ammunition.

Remove prohibitions and barriers that keep health professionals from protecting our patients from harm. Gun violence is an area where both state and federal policies have prohibited us from doing our job. Research shows that having a gun at home markedly increases risk of injury and suicide. Specific approaches should include: Prohibit laws preventing physicians from discussing gun safety with patients. Remove the provision in the Affordable Care Act and other federal policies that prohibit physicians from documenting gun ownership.

Now that Murthy is the Surgeon General, he can actively use his position to promote gun violence as a health issue and enact a sort of backdoor gun control that gets at the core of reshaping how America views gun violence, specifically in a way that those like Cass Sunstein could only have dreamed about. That dream primarily being the ability of the government to break down and erode some of the powerful institutional and cultural tools we have to protect ourselves from the instinct to “nudge” other people through the instrumentalities of the state. As Sunstein argues, “People are sometimes bad choosers, making their lives worse. In some cases, public officials are in an excellent position to help.”

“But the human desire to help,” responds Steven Teles of The American Interest, “can very easily shade over into the desire to rule—in other words, to move from benevolence toward social authoritarianism.” By combining the principles of science and compassion, which is precisely what Obama’s Social and Behavioral Sciences Team is doing, they conceal the fact that what they’re doing is justifying the exercise of power with no limit. Teles writes: “A government of nudges is opposed to any constitutional principles governing where it may and may not act, because it views all such questions as empirical in nature and thus not subject to being cabined before the fact. It acts, for the most part, in relatively small ways, but over a huge, sprawling canvas. It prefers to be organized technocratically and wants to create islands of expert governance insulated as much as possible.”

In short, a government of “nudges” envisioned by the likes of Sunstein and created by Obama is a government that disregards the free will of the individual to make their own choices. It brings to mind a government described by George Orwell in Animal Farm: “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Here’s What ‘Progressive’ Corporate Welfare Looks Like

There appears to be a mistaken belief on the Left that any government action is either done in the interest of “the people” or in the interest of corporations and rich oligarchs. So the naked corporate welfare to Archer Daniels Midlands is called out, as are the sports stadiums being paid for by taxpayers, and of course the banker bailouts as well. (Although, it should be noted that congressional Democrats voted in support of TARP by a rate of three to one, whereas a slight majority of Republicans opposed it.)

In general, however, the Left seems to see tax cuts as corporate welfare while ignoring or outright supporting corporate welfare in many of its guises. The reason is because corporate welfare is rarely sold to the public as a way to help millionaires become billionaires at the taxpayer’s expense. It’s much more insidious than that. Usually, this cronyism comes wrapped in a bill of goods that makes it much easier to swallow.


While the Right yells about how the so-called Obamacare is socialized medicine, it would actually best be described as a corporatist scheme. Or in other words, it’s corporate welfare.

Indeed, if it were some socialist scheme to destroy private enterprise, one would suspect that these companies’ stock prices would plummet before the passing of the bill (March 23, 2010). Here’s what actually happened in the year prior to the bill’s passing for the five largest health insurance companies (the Dow Jones is in red):

Chart from (WLP = Anthem; CI = Cigna; HUM = Humana; AET = Aetna; UNH = United Healthcare)

The average return for these five companies over the year was 72.85 percent, almost twice that of the Dow Jones Industrial average. Cigna lead the group with a 98.5 percent increase. Now, it’s important to understand how stock prices are valued. They are not derived from the value of the assets a company holds, or even what the company has done recently. Instead, they are valued by how much a company is expected to make in the future and how much those future cash flows are worth today.

In other words, investors seemed to be uniformly of the opinion that Obamacare was good for business. And they were right. Here are those same companies’ performances during the last five years:

It shouldn’t be hard to see why an individual mandate and billions in subsidies for people to buy insurance from these companies could increase profits. This is especially true given all of the rate increases. The law’s poor conception has pushed health insurance companies to seek rate increases of 20 to 40 percent for 2016 because the “new customers … turned out to be sicker than expected.”

How about the pharmaceutical companies? In March of 2009, Billy Tauzin, head of PhARMA (the main lobbying group for the pharmaceutical industry) was asked whether investors should be worried about the upcoming healthcare reform. He responded as follows:

Think about what this plan does: This plan talks about providing comprehensive health insurance to people who don’t have it. That means to patients who can’t take our medicines because they can’t afford it: $650 billion spent to better insure Americans for the products we make. That ought to be a very optimistic and positive message for everyone [who] is interested in our sector of the economy.

They continued:

Mike Huckman: “… if there is some kind of universal healthcare plan where prescription drugs are more broadly available and they’re available at a cheaper price, [is it possible] that your sector may make up in a higher prescription volume and sales what it might lose on price?”

Billy Tauzin: “Absolutely, think about this: almost half of the prescriptions that get written today go unfilled … primarily because people don’t have adequate insurance.”

The LA Times reported that “Tauzin has morphed into the president’s partner. He has been invited to the White House half a dozen times in recent months.” Tim Carney lists some of the blatant corporate welfare in the bill:

1. Complex drugs known as biologics will receive a 12 year monopoly patent instead of the standard 5 years.

2. The individual mandate will require everyone to buy prescription drug insurance.

3. $196 billion in annual subsidies will be given to poor and middle class Americans to buy health insurance.

4. It preserves the 2003 Medicare Part D stipulation that prohibits Medicare from negotiating down prices for drugs it subsidizes.

5. It continues to prevent re-importation of drugs from Canada.

Given this, it’s not surprising that the drug industry paid $150 million to support Obamacare with things such as this delightful ad:

Cap and Trade

Early in Obama’s presidency (and John McCain’s platform), he pushed for “cap and trade,” a market-driven method to fight global warming. Or more accurately, a corporate welfare-laden plan that wouldn’t do much of anything.

Paul Krugman accused opponents of the bill of committing “treason against the planet,” and most of the left seemed to agree. But to give credit where credit is due, Dennis Kucinich actually hit the nail on the head:

[H.R. 2454, the cap-and-trade bill] is regressive. Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.

Indeed, Al Gore makes an interesting observation in some of the bonus material to his documentary An Inconvenient Truth:

A lot of business leaders are changing their positions. New businesses and CEO’s and corporations every week are now joining this new bandwagon saying “we want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.”

Or perhaps they just saw gobs of money available to be made by getting in line with the government. After all, there was the Solyndra scandal, and then GE reduced its tax burden to zero primarily with green energy tax credits. Al Gore has even gotten in on the government dole for green technology and made a fortune. And then of course, there was Ken Lay.

In 1997, then-Enron CEO Lay wrote an op-ed entitled “For Prevention’s Sake: Focus on Climate Solutions.” In it, he strongly advocated the Kyoto Protocol, which would cap carbon emissions worldwide. On August 4, 1997, Lay met with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and others at the White House to discuss Kyoto. He was an enthusiastic supporter. In 2001, Lay sent an emissary to the Bush administration to lobby for Kyoto. Surprisingly, his old friend turned him down (other interests to appease perhaps?). And of course, the reason Enron wanted cap and trade was the same as Goldman Sachs: to create a new energy market for them to trade in.

Cigarette Cronyism

Interestingly enough, the government actually makes more money off of tobacco than the tobacco industry (about $48 billion to $35 billion). And oddly (and morbidly), smoking probably saves the government money as it just means people die when they’re 50 or 60 instead of when they are 70 or 80 (and thus collect less Social Security and Medicare).

Cigarettes are still the most preventable cause of death around. So many would think the 1998 government lawsuit that lead to the Master Settlement Agreement would be a good thing. Not so fast. Here’s how Tim Carney describes it:

In exchange for settling all the state lawsuits filed in the 1990’s, the companies promised huge annual payments to state governments. To safeguard the new revenue stream, the states passed laws protecting Big Tobacco [the four largest retailers] from smaller competitors. Critics have called the MSA, “one of the most effective and destructive cartels in the history of the Nation.”

Many states are now extremely reliant on this tobacco money making; the government and tobacco industry are two peas in a pod.

What the Master Settlement Agreement did was simply cartelize the market. The settlement banned most advertising, which of course favored the big companies with well-known brands. But it also made sure “… that tobacco companies that were never sued, were never accused of wrongdoing, and in some cases didn’t exist when the alleged deception and wrongdoing occurred, and certainly never participated in the settlement would pay the same damages as the Big Tobacco companies…” The economies of scale for larger companies make these costs easier to swallow.

Small companies could get out of these payments if they “… joined the settlement within 90 days of its completion. …” But of course, there was a catch: “… small companies signing on to the MSA were not allowed to grow by more than 25 percent.”

Indeed, it’s hard to think of a better way to cartelize a market.


Big government is not a hedge against big corporations. Generally speaking, they work together against the consumer. While government intervention in healthcare reform, greenhouse emissions, and tobacco could be attempted in a way that didn’t line the pockets of big corporations, it rarely turns out that way. Entrenched interests are the ones with influence, after all. The best way to reduce the power and influence of corporations is to reduce the power and influence of government. Such a reduction would force firms to compete without special favors on the free market. Price and quality would be what sets companies apart, not their ability to influence politicians.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by