Archives For politics

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) subjects government-imposed burdens on religious exercise to strict scrutiny.  In particular, the Act provides that “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the government can establish that doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering a “compelling government interest.”

So suppose a for-profit corporation’s stock is owned entirely by evangelical Christians with deeply held religious objections to abortion.  May our federal government force the company to provide abortifacients to its employees?  That’s the central issue in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which the Supreme Court will soon decide.  As is so often the case, resolution of the issue turns on a seemingly mundane matter:  Is a for-profit corporation a “person” for purposes of RFRA?

In an amicus brief filed in the case, a group of forty-four corporate and criminal law professors argued that treating corporations as RFRA persons would contradict basic principles of corporate law.  Specifically, they asserted that corporations are distinct legal entities from their shareholders, who enjoy limited liability behind a corporate veil and cannot infect the corporation with their own personal religious views.  The very nature of a corporation, the scholars argued, precludes shareholders from exercising their religion in corporate form.  Thus, for-profit corporations can’t be “persons” for purposes of RFRA.

In what amounts to an epic takedown of the law professor amici, William & Mary law professors Alan Meese and Nathan Oman have published an article explaining why for-profit corporations are, in fact, RFRA persons.  Their piece in the Harvard Law Review Forum responds methodically to the key points made by the law professor amici and to a few other arguments against granting corporations free exercise rights.

Among the arguments that Meese and Oman ably rebut are:

  • Religious freedom applies only to natural persons.

Corporations are simply instrumentalities by which people act in the world, Meese and Oman observe.  Indeed, they are nothing more than nexuses of contracts, provided in standard form but highly tailorable by those utilizing them.  “When individuals act religiously using corporations they are engaged in religious exercise.  When we regulate corporations, we in fact burden the individuals who use the corporate form to pursue their goals.”

  • Given the essence of a corporation, which separates ownership and control, for-profit corporations can’t exercise religion in accordance with the views of their stockholders.

This claim is simply false.  First, it is possible — pretty easy, in fact — to unite ownership and control in a corporation.  Business planners regularly do so using shareholder agreements, and many states, including Delaware, explicitly allow for shareholder management of close corporations.  Second, scads of for-profit corporations engage in religiously motivated behavior — i.e., religious exercise.  Meese and Oman provide a nice litany of examples (with citations omitted here):

A kosher supermarket owned by Orthodox Jews challenged Massachusetts’ Sunday closing laws in 1960.  For seventy years, the Ukrops Supermarket chain in Virginia closed on Sundays, declined to sell alcohol, and encouraged employees to worship weekly.  A small grocery store in Minneapolis with a Muslim owner prepares halal meat and avoids taking loans that require payment of interest prohibited by Islamic law.  Chick-fil-A, whose mission statement promises to “glorify God,” is closed on Sundays.  A deli that complied with the kosher standards of its Conservative Jewish owners challenged the Orthodox definition of kosher found in New York’s kosher food law, echoing a previous challenge by a different corporation of a similar New Jersey law.  Tyson Foods employs more than 120 chaplains as part of its effort to maintain a “faith-friendly” culture.  New York City is home to many Kosher supermarkets that close two hours before sundown on Friday and do not reopen until Sunday.  A fast-food chain prints citations of biblical verses on its packaging and cups.  A Jewish entrepreneur in Brooklyn runs a gas station and coffee shop that serves only Kosher food.  Hobby Lobby closes on Sundays and plays Christian music in its stores.  The company provides employees with free access to chaplains, spiritual counseling, and religiously themed financial advice.  Moreover, the company does not sell shot glasses, refuses to allow its trucks to “backhaul” beer, and lost $3.3 million after declining to lease an empty building to a liquor store.

As these examples illustrate, the assertion by lower courts that “for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise” is just empirically false.

  • Allowing for-profit corporations to have religious beliefs would create intracorporate conflicts that would reduce the social value of the corporate form of business.

The corporate and criminal law professor amici described a parade of horribles that would occur if corporations were deemed RFRA persons.  They insisted, for example, that RFRA protection would inject religion into a corporation in a way that “could make the raising of capital more challenging, recruitment of employees more difficult, and entrepreneurial energy less likely to flourish.”  In addition, they said, RFRA protection “would invite contentious shareholder meetings, disruptive proxy contests, and expensive litigation regarding whether the corporations should adopt a religion and, if so, which one.”

But actual experience suggests there’s no reason to worry about such speculative harms.  As Meese and Oman observe, we’ve had lots of experience with this sort of thing:  Federal and state laws already allow for-profit corporations to decline to perform or pay for certain medical procedures if they have religious or moral objections.  From the Supreme Court’s 1963 Sherbert decision to its 1990 Smith decision, strict scrutiny applied to governmental infringements on corporations’ religious exercise.  A number of states have enacted their own versions of RFRA, most of which apply to corporations.   Thus, “[f]or over half a century, … there has been no per se bar to free exercise claims by for-profit corporations, and the parade of horribles envisioned by the [law professor amici] has simply not materialized.”  Indeed, “the scholars do not cite a single example of a corporate governance dispute connected to [corporate] decisions [related to religious exercise].”

  • Permitting for-profit corporations to claim protection under RFRA will lead to all sorts of false claims of religious belief in an attempt to evade government regulation.

The law professor amici suggest that affording RFRA protection to for-profit corporations may allow such companies to evade regulatory requirements by manufacturing a religious identity.  They argue that “[c]ompanies suffering a competitive disadvantage [because of a government regulation] will simply claim a ‘Road to Damascus’ conversion.  A company will adopt a board resolution asserting a religious belief inconsistent with whatever regulation they find obnoxious . . . .”

As Meese and Oman explain, however, this problem is not unique to for-profit corporations.  Natural persons may also assert insincere religious claims, and courts may need to assess sincerity to determine if free exercise rights are being violated.  The law professor amici contend that it would be unprecedented for courts to assess whether religious beliefs are asserted in “good faith.”  But the Supreme Court decision the amici cite in support of that proposition, Meese and Oman note, held only that courts lack competence to evaluate the truth of theological assertions or the accuracy of a particular litigant’s interpretation of his faith.  “This task is entirely separate … from the question of whether a litigant’s asserted religious beliefs are sincerely held.  Courts applying RFRA have not infrequently evaluated such sincerity.”

***

In addition to rebutting the foregoing arguments (and several others) against treating for-profit corporations as RFRA persons, Meese and Oman set forth a convincing affirmative argument based on the plain text of the statute and the Dictionary Act.  I’ll let you read that one on your own.

I’ll also point interested readers to Steve Bainbridge’s fantastic work on this issue.  Here is his critique of the corporate and criminal law professors’  amicus brief.  Here is his proposal for using the corporate law doctrine of reverse veil piercing to assess a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs.

Read it all before SCOTUS rules!

Mike Sykuta and I, both proud Missourians, recently took to the opinion section of the Kansas City Star to discuss pending state legislation that would bar automobile manufacturers from operating their own retail outlets in the Show Me state.  The immediate target of the bill is Tesla, but the bigger concern of the auto dealers, who drafted the statutory language we criticize, is that the big carmakers will bypass independent dealers and start running their own retail outlets.

The arguments in our op-ed will be familiar to TOTM readers.  We begin with three fundamental points:  (1) Distribution is an “input” for carmakers.  (2) Producers, if left to their own devices, will choose the more efficient option when deciding whether to “buy” the distribution input (i.e., to sell through independent dealers, who pay a discounted wholesale price) or “make” it (i.e., to operate their own retail outlets and charge the higher retail price).  (3) Consumers — who ultimately pay all input costs, including the cost of distribution — will benefit if the most efficient option is selected.  In short, the interests of carmakers and consumers are aligned here: both benefit from implementation of the most efficient distribution scheme.

We then rebut the arguments that a direct distribution ban is needed to break up monopoly power, to assure adequate aftermarket servicing of vehicles, or to encourage appropriate safety recalls.  (On these points, we draw heavily from International Center for Law & Economics’ letter to Gov. Chris Christie regarding New Jersey’s proposed anti-Tesla legislation.)

Go read the whole thing.

Our TOTM colleague Dan Crane has written a few posts here over the past year or so about attempts by the automobile dealers lobby (and General Motors itself) to restrict the ability of Tesla Motors to sell its vehicles directly to consumers (see here, here and here). Following New Jersey’s adoption of an anti-Tesla direct distribution ban, more than 70 lawyers and economists–including yours truly and several here at TOTM–submitted an open letter to Gov. Chris Christie explaining why the ban is bad policy.

Now it seems my own state of Missouri is getting caught up in the auto dealers’ ploy to thwart pro-consumer innovation and competition. Legislation (HB1124) that was intended to simply update statutes governing the definition, licensing and use of off-road and utility vehicles got co-opted at the last minute in the state Senate. Language was inserted to redefine the term “franchisor” to include any automobile manufacturer, regardless whether they have any franchise agreements–in direct contradiction to the definition used throughout the rest of the surrounding statues. The bill defines a “franchisor” as:

“any manufacturer of new motor vehicles which establishes any business location or facility within the state of Missouri, when such facilities are used by the manufacturer to inform, entice, or otherwise market to potential customers, or where customer orders for the manufacturer’s new motor vehicles are placed, received, or processed, whether or not any sales of such vehicles are finally consummated, and whether or not any such vehicles are actually delivered to the retail customer, at such business location or facility.”

In other words, it defines a franchisor as a company that chooses to open it’s own facility and not franchise. The bill then goes on to define any facility or business location meeting the above criteria as a “new motor vehicle dealership,” even though no sales or even distribution may actually take place there. Since “franchisors” are already forbidden from owning a “new motor vehicle dealership” in Missouri (a dubious restriction in itself), these perverted definitions effectively ban a company like Tesla from selling directly to consumers.

The bill still needs to go back to the Missouri House of Representatives, where it started out as addressing “laws regarding ‘all-terrain vehicles,’ ‘recreational off-highway vehicles,’ and ‘utility vehicles’.”

This is classic rent-seeking regulation at its finest, using contrived and contorted legislation–not to mention last-minute, underhanded legislative tactics–to prevent competition and innovation that, as General Motors itself pointed out, is based on a more economically efficient model of distribution that benefits consumers. Hopefully the State House…or the Governor…won’t be asleep at the wheel as this legislation speeds through the final days of the session.

Once again, my constitutional law professor has embarrassed me with his gross misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution.  First, he insisted that it would be “unprecedented” for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a statute enacted by a “democratically elected Congress.”  Seventh-grade Civics students know that’s not right, but Mr. Obama’s misstatement did have its intended effect:  It sent a clear signal that the President and his lackeys would call into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court should it invalidate the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Duly warned, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote in NFIB v. Sebelius to save the Court from whatever institutional damage Mr. Obama would have inflicted.

Now President Obama – who chastised his predecessor for offending the constitutional order and insisted that he, a former constitutional law professor, would never stoop so low – has both violated his oath of office and flouted a key constitutional feature, the separation of powers.  I’m speaking of the President’s “administrative fix” to the ACA.  That “fix” consists of a presidential order not to enforce the Act’s minimum coverage provisions, a move that President Obama says will allow insurance companies to continue offering ACA non-compliant policies to those previously enrolled in them if the companies wish to do so and are able to obtain permission at the state level.

This is, of course, nothing more than a transparent attempt to shift blame for the millions of recently canceled policies.  Having priced their more generous ACA-compliant policies on the assumption that there would be an influx of healthy customers now covered by high-deductible, non-compliant policies, insurance companies would shoot themselves in the foot by accepting Mr. Obama’s generous “offer.”  Moreover, state insurance commissioners, aware of the adverse selection likely to result from this last-minute rule change, are unlikely to give their blessing.  (Indeed, several have balked – including the D.C. insurance commissioner, who was promptly fired.)

But putting aside the fact that the administrative fix won’t work, the main problem with it is that it is blatantly unconstitutional.  The Constitution divides power between the three branches of government.  Article I grants to the Congress “all legislative Powers,” including “Power to lay and collect Taxes.”  Article II then directs the President to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed.” With his administrative fix, President Obama has essentially said, “I promise not to execute the law Congress passed.”

Moreover, the President went further to say, “I promise not to collect a tax the Congress imposed.”  Remember that the penalty for failure to carry ACA-compliant insurance is, for constitutional purposes, a tax.  That was the central holding of last summer’s Obamacare decision, NFIB v. Sebelius.  When the President assured victims of insurance cancellations that he would turn a blind eye to the law and allow their insurers to continue to offer canceled policies, he also implied that he would order his administration not to collect the taxes owed by those in ACA-noncompliant policies.  Indeed, this matter was clarified in the letter the Department of Health and Human Services sent to state insurance commissioners notifying them of the Obama Administration’s decision not to enforce the law as written.  That letter stated that the Department of the Treasury, which is charged (through the IRS) with collecting the ACA’s penalties/taxes, “concur[red] with the transitional relief afforded in this document.”  That means the IRS, pursuant to the President’s order, is promising not to collect a tax the Congress has imposed.

This, my friends, is a major disruption of the constitutional order.  If the President of the United States may simply decide not to collect taxes imposed by the branch of government that has been given exclusive “Power to lay and collect Taxes,” the whole Constitution is thrown off-kilter.  Any time a president wanted to favor some individuals, firms, or industries, he wouldn’t need to go to Congress for approval.  No, he could just order his IRS not to collect taxes from those folks.  Can’t get Congress to approve subsidies for green technologies?  No worries.  Just order your IRS not to collect taxes from firms in that sector.  Or maybe even order a refundable tax credit.  You think Congress has enacted job-killing regulations on an industry?  Just invoke your enforcement discretion and ignore those rules.  Whew!  This sure makes things easier.

President Obama twice promised, under oath, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Unfortunately, he also rammed through a terrible law.  Our Constitution now gives him the option to enforce the enacted law and pay the political price, or seek Congress’s assistance to change the law.  On the particular matter at issue here, Congress is willing to help the President out.  On Friday, the House of Representatives voted to amend the law to allow insurance companies to continue to offer ACA non-compliant policies.  Mr. Obama doesn’t like some details of the legislative fix he’s been offered.  Unfortunately for him, though, he’s not a king.  He has to work within the constitutional order.

At least, that’s what I thought I learned in constitutional law.

Like most libertarians I’m concerned about government abuse of power. Certainly the secrecy and seeming reach of the NSA’s information gathering programs is worrying. But we can’t and shouldn’t pretend like there are no countervailing concerns (as Gordon Crovitz points out). And we certainly shouldn’t allow the fervent ire of the most radical voices — those who view the issue solely from one side — to impel technology companies to take matters into their own hands. At least not yet.

Rather, the issue is inherently political. And while the political process is far from perfect, I’m almost as uncomfortable with the radical voices calling for corporations to “do something,” without evincing any nuanced understanding of the issues involved.

Frankly, I see this as of a piece with much of the privacy debate that points the finger at corporations for collecting data (and ignores the value of their collection of data) while identifying government use of the data they collect as the actual problem. Typically most of my cyber-libertarian friends are with me on this: If the problem is the government’s use of data, then attack that problem; don’t hamstring corporations and the benefits they confer on consumers for the sake of a problem that is not of their making and without regard to the enormous costs such a solution imposes.

Verizon, unlike just about every other technology company, seems to get this. In a recent speech, John Stratton, head of Verizon’s Enterprise Solutions unit, had this to say:

“This is not a question that will be answered by a telecom executive, this is not a question that will be answered by an IT executive. This is a question that must be answered by societies themselves.”

“I believe this is a bigger issue, and press releases and fizzy statements don’t get at the issue; it needs to be solved by society.

Stratton said that as a company, Verizon follows the law, and those laws are set by governments.

“The laws are not set by Verizon, they are set by the governments in which we operate. I think its important for us to recognise that we participate in debate, as citizens, but as a company I have obligations that I am going to follow.

I completely agree. There may be a problem, but before we deputize corporations in the service of even well-meaning activism, shouldn’t we address this as the political issue it is first?

I’ve been making a version of this point for a long time. As I said back in 2006:

I find it interesting that the “blame” for privacy incursions by the government is being laid at Google’s feet. Google isn’t doing the . . . incursioning, and we wouldn’t have to saddle Google with any costs of protection (perhaps even lessening functionality) if we just nipped the problem in the bud. Importantly, the implication here is that government should not have access to the information in question–a decision that sounds inherently political to me. I’m just a little surprised to hear anyone (other than me) saying that corporations should take it upon themselves to “fix” government policy by, in effect, destroying records.

But at the same time, it makes some sense to look to Google to ameliorate these costs. Google is, after all, responsive to market forces, and (once in a while) I’m sure markets respond to consumer preferences more quickly and effectively than politicians do. And if Google perceives that offering more protection for its customers can be more cheaply done by restraining the government than by curtailing its own practices, then Dan [Solove]’s suggestion that Google take the lead in lobbying for greater legislative protections of personal information may come to pass. Of course we’re still left with the problem of Google and not the politicians bearing the cost of their folly (if it is folly).

As I said then, there may be a role for tech companies to take the lead in lobbying for changes. And perhaps that’s what’s happening. But the impetus behind it — the implicit threats from civil liberties groups, the position that there can be no countervailing benefits from the government’s use of this data, the consistent view that corporations should be forced to deal with these political problems, and the predictable capitulation (and subsequent grandstanding, as Stratton calls it) by these companies is not the right way to go.

I applaud Verizon’s stance here. Perhaps as a society we should come out against some or all of the NSA’s programs. But ideological moralizing and corporate bludgeoning aren’t the way to get there.

Over at the blog for the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Richard Epstein has posted a lengthy essay that critiques the Obama Administration’s decision this past August 3 to veto the exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in the Samsung v. Apple dispute filed there (ITC Investigation No. 794).  In his essay, The Dangerous Adventurism of the United States Trade Representative: Lifting the Ban against Apple Products Unnecessarily Opens a Can of Worms in Patent Law, Epstein rightly identifies how the 3-page letter issued to the ITC creates tremendous institutional and legal troubles in the name an unverified theory about “patent holdup” invoked in the name of an equally overgeneralized and vague belief in the “public interest.”

Here’s a taste:

The choice in question here thus boils down to whether the low rate of voluntary failure justifies the introduction of an expensive and error-filled judicial process that gives all parties the incentive to posture before a public agency that has more business than it can possibly handle. It is on this matter critical to remember that all standards issues are not the same as this particularly nasty, high-stake dispute between two behemoths whose vital interests make this a highly atypical standard-setting dispute. Yet at no point in the Trade Representative’s report is there any mention of how this mega-dispute might be an outlier. Indeed, without so much as a single reference to its own limited institutional role, the decision uses a short three-page document to set out a dogmatic position on issues on which there is, as I have argued elsewhere, good reason to be suspicious of the overwrought claims of the White House on a point that is, to say the least, fraught with political intrigue

Ironically, there was, moreover a way to write this opinion that could have narrowed the dispute and exposed for public deliberation a point that does require serious consideration. The thoughtful dissenting opinion of Commissioner Pinkert pointed the way. Commissioner Pinkert contended that the key factor weighing against granting Samsung an exclusion order is that Samsung in its FRAND negotiations demanded from Apple rights to use certain non standard-essential patents as part of the overall deal. In this view, the introduction of nonprice terms on nonstandard patterns represents an abuse of the FRAND standard. Assume for the moment that this contention is indeed correct, and the magnitude of the problem is cut a hundred or a thousand fold. This particular objection is easy to police and companies will know that they cannot introduce collateral matters into their negotiations over standards, at which point the massive and pointless overkill of the Trade Representative’s order is largely eliminated. No longer do we have to treat as gospel truth the highly dubious assertions about the behavior of key parties to standard-setting disputes.

But is Pinkert correct? On the one side, it is possible to invoke a monopoly leverage theory similar to that used in some tie-in cases to block this extension. But those theories are themselves tricky to apply, and the counter argument could well be that the addition of new terms expands the bargaining space and thus increases the likelihood of an agreement. To answer that question to my mind requires some close attention to the actual and customary dynamics of these negotiations, which could easily vary across different standards. I would want to reserve judgment on a question this complex, and I think that the Trade Representative would have done everyone a great service if he had addressed the hard question. But what we have instead is a grand political overgeneralization that reflects a simple-minded and erroneous view of current practices.

You can read the essay at CPIP’s blog here, or you can download a PDF of the white paper version here (please feel free to distribute digitally or in hardcopy).

 

The ridiculousness currently emanating from ICANN and the NTIA (see these excellent posts from Milton Mueller and Eli Dourado on the issue) over .AMAZON, .PATAGONIA and other “geographic”/commercial TLDs is precisely why ICANN (and, apparently, the NTIA) is a problematic entity as a regulator.

The NTIA’s response to ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee’s (GAC) objection to Amazon’s application for the .AMAZON TLD (along with similar applications from other businesses for other TLDs) is particularly troubling, as Mueller notes:

In other words, the US statement basically says “we think that the GAC is going to do the wrong thing; its most likely course of action has no basis in international law and is contrary to vital policy principles the US is supposed to uphold. But who cares? We are letting everyone know that we will refuse to use the main tool we have that could either stop GAC from doing the wrong thing or provide it with an incentive to moderate its stance.”

Competition/antitrust issues don’t seem to be the focus of this latest chapter in the gTLD story, but it is instructive on this score nonetheless. As Berin Szoka and I wrote in ICLE’s comment to ICANN on gTLDS:

Among the greatest threats to this new “land rush” of innovation is the idea that ICANN should become a competition regulator, deciding whether to approve a TLD application based on its own competition analysis. But ICANN is not a regulator. It is a coordinator. ICANN should exercise its coordinating function by applying the same sort of analysis that it already does in coordinating other applications for TLDs.

* * *

Moreover, the practical difficulties in enforcing different rules for generic TLDs as opposed to brand TLDs likely render any competition pre-clearance mechanism unworkable. ICANN has already determined that .brand TLDs can and should be operated as closed domains for obvious and good reasons. But differentiating between, say .amazon the brand and .amazon the generic or .delta the brand and .delta the generic will necessarily result in arbitrary decisions and costly errors.

Of most obvious salience: implicit in the GAC’s recommendation is the notion that somehow Amazon.com is sufficiently different than .AMAZON to deny Amazon’s ownership of the latter. But as Berin and I point out:

While closed gTLDs might seem to some to limit competition, that limitation would occur only within a particular, closed TLD. But it has every potential to be outweighed by the dramatic opening of competition among gTLDs, including, importantly, competition with .com.

In short, the market for TLDs and domain name registrations do not present particular competitive risks, and there is no a priori reason for ICANN to intervene prospectively.

In other words, treating Amazon.com and .AMAZON as different products, in different relevant markets, is a mistake. No doubt Amazon.com would, even if .AMAZON were owned by Amazon, remain for the foreseeable future the more relevant site. If Latin American governments are concerned with cultural and national identity protection, they should (not that I’m recommending this) focus their objections on Amazon.com. But the reality is that Amazon.com doesn’t compromise cultural identity, and neither would Amazon’s ownership of .AMAZON. Rather, the wide availability of new TLDs opens up an enormous range of new competitive TLD and SLD constraints on existing, dominant .COM SLDs, any number of which could be effective in promoting and preserving cultural and national identities.

By the way – Amazonia.com, Amazonbasin.com and Amazonrainforest.com, presumably among many others, look to be unused and probably available for purchase. Perhaps opponents of Amazon’s ownership of .AMAZON should set their sights on those or other SLDs and avoid engaging in the sort of politicking that will ultimately ruin the Internet.

Has a piece of legislation ever been subject to as much cynicism-inspiring manipulation as the Affordable Care Act?  It was rammed through Congress, on a totally partisan basis, via an unprecedented use of the reconciliation process.  Its passage required blatant vote-buying with such unjust goodies as the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase.  Its proponents sold it with bald-face lies that nobody with any sense believes (e.g., “It will reduce the deficit.”), and they credit it with successes for which it is obviously not responsible.

Now the Obama Administration has decided to delay a key, but unpopular, provision of the Act—the so-called “Employer Mandate” that fines firms with 50 or more employers if they fail to provide qualifying insurance to employees working at least 30 hours per week—until after the mid-term elections.  Never mind that the Act itself doesn’t permit the Administration to waive these requirements.  This is “Obamacare,” after all, and that means The Big Guy gets to decide how it’s implemented.  He sure as heck doesn’t want it generating a bunch of lay-offs and hours-reductions right before mid-term elections!

Many in the business community are cheering the one-year delay.  It does, after all, hold off a provision that has been causing firms to reduce workers’ hours, thereby raising the  administrative costs of keeping businesses properly staffed.  But this delay is going to cause huge problems for implementation of the ACA and does nothing to address the biggest problem inherent in the Employer Mandate scheme.

IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS

The reporting system connected to (and delayed along with) the Employer Mandate is integral to the ACA’s subsidized health exchanges.  As Michael Cannon has explained, it’s hard to see how the exchanges could possibly work without the reporting system:

. . . Obamacare offers tax credits and subsidies to certain workers who don’t receive an offer of acceptable coverage from an employer. The law requires employers to report information to the IRS on their coverage offerings, both to determine whether the employer will be subject to penalties and whether its employees will be eligible for credits and subsidies.

The IRS both delayed the imposition of penalties and “suspend[ed] reporting for 2014.” As the American Enterprise Institute’s Tom Miller observes, without that information on employers’ health benefits offerings, the federal government simply cannot determine who will be eligible for credits and subsidies. Without the credits and subsidies, the “rate shock” that workers experience will be much greater and/or many more workers will qualify for the unaffordability exemption from the individual mandate. Either way, fewer workers will purchase health insurance and premiums will rise further, which could ultimately end in an adverse selection death spiral. The administration can’t exactly solve this problem by offering credits and subsidies to everyone who applies either. Not only would this increase the cost of the law, but it would also lead to a backlash in 2015 when some people have their subsidies revoked.

Now, the IRS hasn’t yet released its “formal guidance” detailing how the Employer Mandate/reporting system delay will operate.  It’s possible that regulators have come up with some way to offer selective subsidies absent the reporting system.  But given ACA proponents’ heretofore lack of concern about the practicability of the health care law, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

IGNORING THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THE MANDATE/SUBSIDY SCHEME

Putting aside the apparent political motivation for and practical difficulties created by the Employer Mandate delay, the main problem with the delay is that it simply ignores the huge problem created by the ACA’s mandate/subsidy scheme.

The Employer Mandate ostensibly aims to increase employer-provided health insurance coverage by encouraging employers to provide such coverage as an element of their employees’ compensation.  If a covered employer fails to do so, it faces a $2,000 annual penalty for each of its employees who purchases insurance on a subsidized exchange.  When implemented along with the rest of the ACA, however, the Employer Mandate is unlikely to enhance health insurance coverage for lower-income employees.  Here’s why:

  • The ACA subsidizes purchases on the insurance exchanges by individuals whose employers do not offer qualifying insurance at an affordable rate.  The subsidies are inversely related to income.  They are quite generous at lower income levels and reduce to zero once income exceeds four times the federal poverty level.
  • The only subsidy for employer-provided insurance, by contrast, is an implicit tax subsidy resulting from the fact that compensation paid in the form of insurance benefits, rather than wages, is tax-free.  The dollar value of that implicit tax subsidy for any individual is the sum of her marginal tax rate and the payroll tax rate, times the price of the policy.  (For most lower-income workers, the effective subsidy will be 22.65% * the policy price. That assumes a 7.65% payroll tax (1.45% Medicare + 6.2% Social Security) and a marginal income tax rate of 15%.)
  • Absent the penalty provision of the Employer Mandate, the best outcome from the worker’s standpoint would be for the employer to provide health insurance only if the effective subsidy from getting the insurance benefit tax-free exceeds the subsidy the worker would receive if she purchased her own insurance on a subsidized exchange.  Because lower income workers (1) are subject to lower tax rates and therefore receive a smaller tax subsidy from employer provided insurance, and (2) are eligible for large subsidies on the insurance exchanges, they would typically be better off if their employers dropped coverage and thereby enabled them to access the subsidized exchanges.
  • The penalty provision of the Employer Mandate alters this calculus.  Because an employer that fails to provide health insurance must pay $2,000 per year for each employee that purchases insurance on an exchange, a covered employer that cut its health insurance would be willing to raise its employee’s salary by only the amount the employer would have paid for the policy (the price it doesn’t have to pay) minus $2,000 (the amount of penalty it now has to pay).  Thus, in the face of the Employer Mandate, an employee would prefer that its employer provide health insurance coverage only if the effective tax subsidy from getting insurance tax-free exceeds the subsidy available to the employee on an exchange less $2,000.
  • Because the subsidies available to lower-income workers on the insurance exchanges far exceed — by way more than $2,000 — the effective tax subsidy from employer provided health insurance, most lower-income workers will prefer that their employers drop insurance coverage, pay them more in cash, and allow them to take advantage of taxpayer-financed subsidies on the insurance exchanges.

An example may help here.  Suppose an employer wishes to provide $40,000 in total compensation to a 40 year-old employee who is the head of a four-person household.  If the employer were to purchase a family policy for the employee (approximate cost $12,000/year), she would pay the employee $28,0000/year in cash.  The employee would pay no payroll or income tax on the component of his compensation provided as health insurance, so he would receive an effective federal subsidy of $2,718 (22.65% * $12,000).  If the employer were to drop health care coverage and thus drive the employee to an exchange, the employer would have to pay $2,000 and would therefore reduce to $38,000 the total amount she would pay the employee.  The employee would then receive all his compensation — all $38,000 — as take-home pay.  On the $12,000 that otherwise would have been paid as benefits, he’d have to pay $2,718 in tax, but he would now be eligible to purchase insurance on his own at a heavily subsidized rate. The ACA would limit his out-of-pocket insurance expense to 4.52% of annual income ($1,718), which means he would receive a whopping $10,282 subsidy on the $12,000 family policy.  This employee is $5,564 better off if his employer drops coverage (costing him $4,718:  $2,718 in foregone tax subsidy plus a penalty-induced compensation reduction of $2,000) and allows him to access the more generous subsidies available on state exchanges (benefiting him by $10,282).

This is the huge problem with the ACA’s Employer Mandate/subsidy scheme:  The scheme as a whole creates incentives to dump lower-income employees on the subsidized exchanges.  The Obama Administration’s politically expedient delay in implementation of the Employer Mandate does nothing to alleviate this difficulty.  But it might help Nancy Pelosi get her old job back.

Over at the blog for the Center for the Protection for Intellectual Property, Wayne Sobon, the Vice President and General Counsel of Inventergy, has posted an important essay that criticizes the slew of congressional bills that have been proposed in Congress in recent months. 

In A Line in the Sand on the Calls for New Patent Legislation, Mr. Sobon responds to the heavy-handed rhetoric and emotionalism that dominates the debate today over patent licensing and litigation. He calls for a return to the real first principles of the patent system in discussions about patent licensing, as well as for more measured thinking and analysis about the costs of uncertainty created by never-ending systemic changes from legislation produced by heavy lobbying by interested parties.  Here’s a small taste:

One genius of our patent system has been an implicit recognition that since its underlying subject matter, innovation, remains by definition in constant flux, the scaffolding of our system and the ability of all stakeholders to make reasonably consistent, prudent and socially efficient choices, should remain as stable as possible.  But now these latest moves, demanding yet further significant changes to our patent laws, threaten that stability.  And it is in fact systemic instability, from whatever source, that allows the very parasitic behaviors we have termed “troll”-like, to flourish.

It is silly and blindly ahistoric to lump anyone who seeks to license or enforce a patent right, but who does not themselves make a corresponding product, as a “troll.” 

Read the whole thing here. Mr. Sobon’s essay reflects similar concerns expressed by Commissioner Joshua Wright this past April on the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation of what the FTC identifies as “patent assertion entities.”

If we’ve learned anything from the pending IRS scandal, it’s that bureaucrats matter.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell apparently thinks so.  According to a recent National Review article, McConnell, unlike most minority leaders, has put a great deal of effort into recommending highly qualified individuals for spots on the more than 100 bipartisan agencies and commissions in the federal bureaucracy.  He views his role in recommending appointees as a way to combat regulatory overreach and equip a “farm team” that will be poised to take over the reins of agencies the next time there’s a Republican in the White House.

The article reports that while most minority leaders have made recommendations to reward patronage and keep party operatives happy, McConnell acts more systematically.  His adviser charged with identifying potential nominees looks at five criteria:

First, [a]re the nominees competent in the subject matter? Second, [a]re they philosophically compatible with Senator McConnell? Third, d[o] they possess high character and integrity? Fourth, [a]re they tough? Fifth, [a]re they team players?

In light of these criteria, it’s not surprising that one of the McConnell recommendations highlighted in the article is TOTM co-founder, now FTC Commissioner, Josh Wright.  As the article observes (correctly, IMHO), Wright is “widely considered his generation’s greatest mind on antitrust law.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean Wright’s always right.  More about that to come….