Obamacare’s Federalist Opportunity

How states can fight back against the health law.

Last month’s Supreme Court ruling was a loss for opponents of Obamacare, which remains mostly intact. But the ruling, in combination with another little-noticed provision governing its exchanges, may pave the way for an unexpected partial victory: the opportunity for a federalist implementation of the law, in which some states can essentially opt out of the bulk of the law’s requirements. It’s not just an opportunity for states to resist the law’s federally designed strictures. It’s a rare opportunity to run a nationwide health policy experiment, testing the health and budgetary outcomes in states that choose to implement the law against those that don’t.

There are two keys to this opportunity, and, like high-security safes, they must be turned simultaneously in order to truly work. The first is the part of the high court’s ruling allowing states to opt out of the health law’s Medicaid expansion without fear of losing their existing federal matching funds.

Technically, Medicaid has always been optional. But under the law’s original language, any state that did not fully comply with the law’s expansion of the program to an estimated 17 million new beneficiaries could lose its entire federal Medicaid match. Given that the federal government already pays for more than half of Medicaid’s cost, and that on average the federal share makes up about 10 percent of state budgets, opting out would have been plainly impossible.

It was meant as an offer that states couldn’t refuse. The risk of losing 10 percent of its annual funding in one fell swoop was not one that any state could reasonably afford to take. The threat was so severe that in his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts described this as “a gun to the head”—and directed the federal government to holster its weapon. States now have the option to decline the expansion, and keep their former Medicaid deal.

The second key is the opportunity presented by the legislative provisions governing the creation of state-based health exchanges, the primary vehicle for the law’s considerable private health insurance subsidies. The law says that states can choose to build and operate their own government-run health insurance marketplaces, subject to federal scrutiny, but does not require states to do so. Because the law gives states a choice, it also provides a backstop should any state decline to run its own exchange: The federal government will step in and create the exchange on its own.

There’s just one problem with the federal backstop: The clear legislative language governing the law’s health insurance subsidies does not allow the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to provide tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance in a federally run exchange.

The IRS has already written a rule that ignores the law’s plain language on this matter and allows subsidies and credits to go toward insurance purchased through federal exchanges. The Obama administration and its allies have referred to the language as a minor glitch, easily papered over in the IRS rulemaking process. But in a recently published working paper, Michael Cannon, the health policy directory at the Cato Institute, and Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, have argued convincingly that the language governing the application of the subsidies was not a drafting error but an intentional inducement to states to create their own exchanges. As Cannon notes, “during congressional consideration of the bill, its lead author, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), acknowledged that he intentionally and purposefully made that bailout conditional on states implementing their own Exchanges.” The law’s congressional masterminds wanted to entice states to create exchanges, and built the language governing the subsidies accordingly.

Because the law’s tax credits and subsidies are tied to a tax on employers, the IRS rule will almost certainly be challenged for imposing a penalty on employers that should be exempt.

Nor is this the only challenge to building federally run exchanges. While the law provides the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to set up federal fallback exchanges, it does not provide funding by which to do so. As John Kingsdale, who is advising the federal government on exchange creation, told Politico last year, the law is “sort of silent” on the issue of federal exchange funding. Which means that HHS may have difficulty setting up any sort of exchange at all.

In conjunction with the Supreme Court’s Medicaid ruling, that gives states an interesting opportunity. If they choose to turn both keys, opting of Medicaid and declining to create their own exchanges, they will be largely exempt from the federal grip of Obamacare. 

How many states will take this opportunity? It’s not yet clear. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has indicated that as many as 30 states could decline to run health exchanges. Some two-dozen states led by Republican governors are currently negotiating the details of the Medicaid expansion. Some may opt out. Others will likely use the threat of opting out as leverage to gain a more favorable deal on the program.

A full-scale rebellion is not likely, at least not at first. But a prudent approach to accepting the law’s additional layers of federal strictures is in order. Many of the governors threatening to buck the system so far are Republican, but politics are not the only thing at stake. The Supreme Court’s ruling describes the Medicaid expansion as a “transformation” of the program—“a shift in kind, not merely degree.” States that cautiously choose to hold off on this transformation will not only be following their own interests, but will be providing other observers with testing grounds illustrating what happens when states choose to avoid Washington’s latest power grab. The law may have been written as a gun to the head. But Roberts ruling, paired with the exchange provisions, may provide some ammunition with which to fire back.

Peter Suderman is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tman||

    You remember Pelosi saying she needed to pass it so we could find out what's in it?

    After reading this bit about the IRS credits and Fed sanctioned exchanges, I'm now convinced that a majority of congress persons who voted for this bill have no fucking clue what's in it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    My constitutional amendment would be to force each member of Congress who wanted to vote yea on a bill to first read that bill in its entirety. On the floor. At the time of the vote. Aloud.

  • Ken Shultz||

    My constitutional amendment would force all elections to be held on the same day that taxes are due.

    We should be able to vote on the back of our tax form. And after the first year? I bet doing our taxes would be less complicated than voting, too.

  • some guy||

    I'll agree to that amendment so long as it also does away with withholding, forcing us to pay all our income taxes on tax day.

  • Ken Shultz||

    an unexpected partial victory: the opportunity for a federalist implementation of the law, in which some states can essentially opt out of the bulk of the law’s requirements.

    If opposition to ObamaCare depends on the cause of federalism?

    Then we're dead.

  • Jackand Ace||

    So, just this week we saw a person get shot in Colorado (one of many). Seriously wounded, he gets treated at a hosptial and we find out he has no health insurance. The bill? Expected, for just him, to be between and $1M and $2M.

    Well, thankfully the case has had so much notoriety that the hospital says he will not have to pay for it. If that was just a one-off shooting that happens everyday in this country, you know who would pay that bill? You and me. We may still be paying for it anyway (my guess is we will). And that is just shootings...how about all the other cases of uninsured admitted into the emergency room. And even if you were insured, your insurance could have been capped at the first million.

    So complain away. But what is your alternative to fixing a health care system that is ruining this country's finances? As a small business owner, I can tell you I watch premiums rise dramatically every year, sometimes more than once per year.

    Complaining...its so much easier than doing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you under the mistaken impression that ObamaCare will somehow make healthcare cost less?

    If so, can you tell me why I should believe that?

    I swear, for a lot of people ObamaCare is like tarot cards or palm reading--people look at it, and see whatever they want to see.

    Are you one of those people who thinks ObamaCare is going to help fix the budget deficit?

    LOL

  • Tman||

    I always love this argument. It's so cute.

    "Man 'A' with no insurance has to go to hospital, bill is $1million for services. Who pays? We all do!

    "Man 'B' has socialized health insurance paid for by taxpayers, and has to go to the hospital for the same $1million treatment. Who pays? No one! It's Free! The government pays for it! HOOO RAYYY!!!"

    Yes, Jack and ACes, you sound that stupid.

  • Jackand Ace||

    I'm one of those people who sees health care costs crushing my business. And it has for over 20 years.
    And I'm one of those who finally sees an attempt at fixing this. You don't like the way its structured? Then fix it.
    If you repeal it, you will get nothing in its place. And we all will be back to increasing premiums, extra co-pays, caps, no insurance for pre-existing conditions, and so forth.
    I actually do not believe it is going to decrease health care costs the way it is structured.
    But its a start. And like David Frum warned fellow Republicans before, make it better if you want. I just never liked those children in the playground who took their ball and went home.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 5:24PM|#
    "I'm one of those people who sees health care costs crushing my business. And it has for over 20 years."
    Yes, the government's been fucking with it since the end of WWII.

    "And I'm one of those who finally sees an attempt at fixing this."
    Uh, no. What you see is an attempt to sucker the population. Sucker.

  • Tman||

    I'm one of those people who sees health care costs crushing my business. And it has for over 20 years.
    So you approve of a system that allows you to dump your employees on to government run healthcare exchanges, how noble.

    And I'm one of those who finally sees an attempt at fixing this. You don't like the way its structured? Then fix it.

    This isn't an attempt to fix anything. It's the government holding a gun to half of the population and saying "Here's the bill, now pay for it."

  • Tman||

    cot'd-

    You don't like the way its structured? Then fix it.

    Libertarians have been trying, but people are easier to convince that the government can give them free shit instead of the fact that things would be cheaper if the government would get out of the way. NUMBER ONE most important step would be to remove government interference in state-to-state insurance markets. NUMBER TWO would be to remove the government from denying insurance companies the ability to offer "catastrophic only" care, which would've helped the shooting victim in your heart tugging story in a way that would be cheaper for everyone. There are more examples.

    If you repeal it, you will get nothing in its place.

    I could only hope.

    And we all will be back to increasing premiums, extra co-pays, caps, no insurance for pre-existing conditions, and so forth.
    The reason premiums have skyrocketed lately is because insurance companies need to get more money to pay for caps, no insurance for pre-existing conditions, and so forth.

    I actually do not believe it is going to decrease health care costs the way it is structured.
    But its a start.

    Well that makes no sense whatsoever.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And I'm one of those who finally sees an attempt at fixing this. You don't like the way its structured? Then fix it.

    Okay.

    Step 1: Stop prohibiting hospitals from refusing to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients.

    There needs to be a private option.

    Step 2: Don't make things worse than they already are.

    The idea that we should implement a system that makes things worse--and more expensive--just in order to "do something" is laughable on its face.

    P.S. If you've been in business for 20 years? healthcare costs haven't been crushing your business for 20 years. And if healthcare costs really are hurting your business, then supporting something like ObamaCare that will make healthcare even more expensive is absurd.

  • Jackand Ace||

    You must not be paying health care premiums for a business to say that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm self-insured, actually.

    And I have a pre-existing condition.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Right, I pay for premiums on a business. I dare say every business owner here will agree with me that the rise in premiums through the DECADES has been onerous.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 6:14PM|#
    "Right, I pay for premiums on a business. I dare say every business owner here will agree with me that the rise in premiums through the DECADES has been onerous."

    Yes, and you can blame the government for that. Logic would suggest you don't add even more government distortions. Logic would do that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh absolutely!

    And the primary reason for that is the explosion of the population on Medicare and Medicaid.

    Hospitals gouge private pay patients to make up for all the money they typically lose on every Medicare and Medicaid patient...

    That's why PPOs try to restrict their clients from going to any hospital they don't already have a contract with. And if you end up being admitted to a hospital they don't have a contract with, they will gouge that PPO through the nose.

    That's why so many hospitals inner city and poor areas are always in financial trouble--because they have so many Medicaid patients in their immediate neighborhoods and relatively fewer private insurance patients to gouge.

    So how does ObamaCare address that problem? By adding millions of new enrollees to Medicaid?! That's not going to solve the problem of high insurance premiums. That's going to make the problem worse.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's going to make the problem worse.

    oh, but don't worry about it!

    It's mostly businesses that'll be forced to pick up the slack--so you probably don't have to worry about that...unless you own a business!

    Or are unemployed, I guess.

  • Carston||

    The way it was handled before hospitals were forced to provide care for everyone who showed up. People get billed, and they go in debt, and find a way to pay for it themselves, with help of friends, family, community, or charity.

    Forcing all to pay for others bad luck or stupid mistakes provides a backdoor for the government to micromanage every aspect of our lives, because everything we do, every breath we take, will somehow effect our health.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Carston, I have listened to Ron Paul say this. Quite honestly, it is looking at the past through rose-colored glasses. Before Medicare, we had most of the elderly population with no insurance, no ability to get insurance, and draining a young families finances who took care of them, if they were lucky.
    That is why Medicare was created. People were not taken care of.

  • Sevo||

    "That is why Medicare was created. People were not taken care of."

    I see I fell for a troll.
    Courtesy C-.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Troll=different opinion

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 5:33PM|#
    "Troll=different opinion"

    Nope.
    Troll = repeating lefty bullshit.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Don't let me, or my opinion, frighten you, Sevo.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 5:59PM|#
    "Don't let me, or my opinion, frighten you, Sevo."

    I've read crap like yours for many, many years. Frightening it is only in that the ninnies who repeat it vote.
    Sad is a better description; it's a shame that supposedly intelligent people ignore history.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Why so angry?

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 6:05PM|#
    "Why so angry?"

    Why so defensive?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Oh, I don't know. "Crap like yours," "sucker," "logic and you are not real close," maybe that had something to do with it. Don't want to be defensive.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 6:12PM|#
    "Oh, I don't know. "Crap like yours," "sucker," "logic and you are not real close," maybe that had something to do with it. Don't want to be defensive."

    An admitted failure of mine; see bullshit posted, call bullshit.
    I'm real tired of propaganda.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony and Jackand Ace should go bowling.

  • Sevo||

    Ken Shultz|7.26.12 @ 6:36PM|#
    "Tony and Jackand Ace should go bowling."

    Jackand Ace shows up at a libertarian site, defending Obamacare.
    S/he didn't come here to learn what libertarians think; s/he came here to proselytize.
    Ditto shithead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Any time now, Ace is going to out himself as the leftist he truly is.

  • Butler||

    I remain confused about how people are better taken care of with government intervention. If we can't afford to take care of the elderly withouth Medicare/Obamacare/etc., then how can we afford to take care of them WITH these programs? Does government make medical care out of thin air? Of course not. We STILL pay for the medical care, but in the least efficient way possible (i.e. through goverment). It would take a hell of a lot less money to care for the elderly on our own that it does through taxation and waste by government.

  • Jackand Ace||

    I would disagree with you. Of course we pay for it, so it is a misnomer to say it is a free ride.
    If you don't think people have been better taken care of in their later years because of Medicare, you would be one of the few. I have family members and friends who would strongly disagree, as they have had serious problems taken care of through Medicare.

  • Butler||

    Ah, but here's your incorrect logic -- my friends were taken care of by MEdicare, therefore only Medicare could take care of my friends. Maybe if your friends hadn't had 12.4% of their pay robbed from them, they could have saved enough for their own retirement (including healthcare) and still had money left over to leave to their kids.

    At least you recognize that it's not a free ride, so the big picture qeustion is, how do we make healthcare, which currently consumes nearly 17% of the economy, cost less (maintaining quality, of course). You seem to think that by having our healthcare dollars taken by the federal gov't, then filtered through a bureaucracy (thereby spending or wasting some), then being spent on our healthcare as the gov't sees fit, that it will cost less than if we just spent the dollars ourselves. I think basic math and logic disagrees with you.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Well, I think history disagrees with you. Too bad for all of us that human nature never plans in complete adequacy for catastrophic events, or even normal events. I wish the free market was in fact taking care of the elderly, but it did not.
    You seem to think that the absolute free market will take care of all this, and I disagree. If you could point to one example where it has in health care, I would be glad to consider it.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 5:48PM|#
    "Well, I think history disagrees with you."
    I think you don't have a clue

    "Too bad for all of us that human nature never plans in complete adequacy for catastrophic events, or even normal events."
    If you want less of an activity, don't reward it.

    "I wish the free market was in fact taking care of the elderly, but it did not."
    Cite curiously absent.

  • Carston||

    Ahh, thanks for reminding me of the leaky bucket.

    When it comes to public vs private sectors, public sector is the most wasteful, because they make political decisions rather than business decisions, and are not directly connected to their consumer, providing an inferior product.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 5:38PM|#
    "If you don't think people have been better taken care of in their later years because of Medicare, you would be one of the few."

    That would be one of the few who were interested in facts rather than claims.

  • Carston||

    We are already being drained, this stack of paper called the PPACA will only make things worse, such as creating more wasteful administrative overhead.

    I would rather it be me voluntarily helping my elderly parents, than have money stolen from me to pay for other peoples' parents.

    And if you are an old person without kids, well you better have saved some of that money you never spent on the kids you didn't have, because you are responsible for yourself and your decisions.

  • Jackand Ace||

    OK...point taken

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 5:10PM|#
    "So complain away. But what is your alternative to fixing a health care system that is ruining this country's finances"

    Repealing Obamacare for starters.
    In case you missed the memo, it has done nothing other than raise the costs, and the additional money is going to bureaucrats, not medical care.
    You may have shifted your costs elsewhere, but that just means you're one of the lucky ones. So far.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Yeah, thats a memo I have no interest in reading because it is hyperbole. CBO just said that repeal of Obamacare will increase the deficit. I read that memo.

  • Butler||

    Link? Last I read the CBO was heading in the opposite direction. But, regardless of what the captive CBO says, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that adding more people to the insurance rolls will increase demand, thereby increasing costs. Whether those costs are borne by us directly or indirectly through taxation, it's still borne by us.

  • Jackand Ace||

  • Butler||

    You should read the first comment. That report is apparently only considering the implications of the repeal of the tax increases contained in the PPACA, assuming constant spending.

    "No, they said if the growth in federal government spending stayed static and tax increases with Obama care kick in than there will be a reduction in the deficit."

    "Who thinks the growth in federal government spending will stay static? If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you not just in Brooklyn anywhere."

  • Jackand Ace||

    Yes, Danni is the renowned expert on health care costs.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 5:50PM|#
    "Yes, Danni is the renowned expert on health care costs."

    And an article on Drudge is supposed to prove, well, what?

  • Jackand Ace||

    What the CBO said.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 6:00PM|#
    "What the CBO said."

    What did the CBO say?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Click on link

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 6:10PM|#
    "Click on link"

    Link goes to Drudge Report.

  • Butler||

    Read the study then, and let us know if he/she is right. I suspect he/she is.

  • Butler||

    And, on this same topic, the Libertarian solution would be a repeal of all government programs that interfere with the operation of the market, including Medicare and PPACA, which drive up medical care demand, but also including licensing laws and regulations that burden consumer choice and limit the supply of medical care. Collectively, such changes would bring down the cost of medical care for everyone, greatly diminishing the need for charity care. Thus, any safety net would be much smaller and less onerous for everyone.

  • Jackand Ace||

    OK, on that we disagree. But show me the example where that has happened and I would be glad to consider it.

  • Butler||

    The Singapore Model would be a good place to start looking. Citizens have major medical (what we would call high deductible healthcare plans) intended to socialize only unexpectedly high medical expenses. Then, citizens are required to save for medical expenses in special accounts. Patients generally hire and pay for their own doctors, services, etc. -- that whole supply and demand thing. Singaporeans pay less than 4% of GDP for healthcare. We pay nearly 17%. Inflation outpaces medical care costs in Singapore. Our medical costs greatly outpace inflation.

    I'm having trouble getting a link to take, but please Google it.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks, Butler, I will look into it.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 5:51PM|#
    'the government screwed it up and we can't get the government out, so let's add even more!'

    Got it.
    Logic and you aren't real close, right?

  • Ken Shultz||

    CBO just said that repeal of Obamacare will increase the deficit. I read that memo.

    a) Just because the CBO said it doesn't mean it's true.

    b) Just because the CBO is supposed to be nonpartisan doesn't mean it's right.

    c) When they said repealing ObamaCare would increase the deficit, didn't they say that because they expect the brunt of those costs to be borne by individuals and...ahem...business owners under ObamaCare?

    I thought healthcare costs were destroying your business! Aren't you worried about your business?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Yeah, very. CBO iw the one independent group that analyzes costs for all of us. I just don't believe they are part of the global conspiracy.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 6:13PM|#
    "I just don't believe they are part of the global conspiracy."

    You should learn what it is and what it can do before you blather on.

  • Jackand Ace||

    There is one? Please share.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 6:20PM|#
    "There is one? Please share."

    Sorry; "it" = CBO

  • Jackand Ace||

    No problem, I do that all the time too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.

    The cost of healthcare system wide isn't about to go down becasue of ObamaCare.

    What private insurers pay plus what the taxpayer pays plus what individuals pay out of pocket? That total isn't going down becasue of ObamaCare.

    IF IF IF the CBO says repealing ObamaCare will save the taxpayers money, then doesn't that mean people will be paying more by way of private insurance and out of pocket?

    That isn't a conspiracy. That's a simple sources and uses analysis.

    If you own a business, then you've seen a sources and uses analysis once or twice, right?

    The baby boomers are getting older; who thinks total healthcare costs are going down--the CBO?!

    You're the one making the CBO sound stupid.

  • Sevo||

    Ken Shultz|7.26.12 @ 6:08PM|#
    "CBO just said that repeal of Obamacare will increase the deficit. I read that memo.
    a) Just because the CBO said it doesn't mean it's true."

    The CBO does *not* examine reality. It is charged with analyzing the economic effects of the lies handed to it by Congress.
    For instance, Congress may well condition a CBO report with statements such as 'examine the effects if Obamacare were repealed, assuming Obamacare will not exceed the predicted expenditures'.
    The CBO, by its charter, is not allowed to call bullshit.

  • ant1sthenes||

    How much do you actually think it costs to treat a gunshot wound? I'm talking parts and labor, here, plus a well-cleaned hotel room for a few days and rental of medical equipment.

    Take the difference between that and $1.5 million dollars, that is what needs to be done about it. Tort reform is part of the picture. Reducing red tape is another. Creating a system where consumers are price-conscious is also better -- government favors complete insurance, but catastrophic would be better for society.

  • Ken Shultz||

    government favors complete insurance, but catastrophic would be better for society.

    Hear, hear!

  • ||

    Itemized bill?

  • Faithkills||

    The problem is what was done will increase costs.

    It is easy to reduce costs. Nothing in the bill reduces costs. You reduce costs by allowing competition. Everything in the bill restricts competition even more than it already is restricted.

    Provider competition is restricted by statute, insurance competition is restricted by statute, hospital competition is restricted by statute. Coverage is mandated further increasing costs.

    Obamacare does everything to increase costs.

    'doing nothing' would have been far, far preferable. to Obamacare.

    Anyone with any understanding of economics at all understands this.

    Put simply you cannot subsidize or regulate anything without increasing costs. That is their economic function. That is what they do.

  • fish||

    Why the fuck are democratic politicians and their appointed lackeys always shown POINTING AT THEIR LOSER SUPPORTERS IN THE AUDIENCE???

  • ant1sthenes||

    They're picking out which ones to eat later.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Time to check out (keep applause down!). Its been spirited to say the least. I will say this, then. If Obamacare is in fact repealed, then I hope you all get your wish and health care in this country goes completely to free market. Completely. No Medicare, no Medicaid, no anything. Going back to what existed is untenable though.
    But get ready for lots of screaming and yelling, from some of you own family members too.
    Peace to all.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|7.26.12 @ 6:33PM|#
    "I will say this, then. If Obamacare is in fact repealed, then I hope you all get your wish and health care in this country goes completely to free market. Completely. No Medicare, no Medicaid, no anything. Going back to what existed is untenable though.
    But get ready for lots of screaming and yelling, from some of you own family members too."

    Leaving a steaming pile of bullshit behind.

  • juris imprudent||

    Alt-text: "I've got a waiver over here, and I see you have another over there."

  • Sevo||

    Or:
    "This waiver is going for 50,000 votes; do I hear 60,000? Yes, 60,000 over there!"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement