“Scientific misconduct” within key federal agencies has given rise to regulatory policies that burden an already beleaguered economy and erode the public trust, Sen. David Vitter warns in a letter addressed to the White House.

At issue is a report from the U.S. Department of Interior’s (DOI) Office of Inspector General (OIG) that describes how the agency manipulated and altered a 30-day report from the National Academy of Engineers. Sen. Vitter and several House colleagues, including Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), called for the OIG investigation in response to allegations that officials with Interior had deliberately misrepresented scientific opinion on the merits of the deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.

“We’ve seen facts manipulated and science ignored across the administration while they’ve developed policies with huge negative effects on the economy,” Vitter said. “We want the public to be aware of the administration’s misconduct, but we also want agencies to be transparent and explain their methods.”

The letter from Vitter, co-authored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), is addressed to John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor.

“The IG investigation showed that not only had Interior violated the Information Quality Act (IQA), but there was direct involvement by the White House, specifically Carol Browner, to manipulate the summary documentation in violation of peer-review protocol,” the letter says. “…The investigation revealed blatant political influence, on what should have been an independent scientific assessment, to inaccurately represent the views of a particular team of scientists.”

In response to the explosion of British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20, 2010, Interior declared a moratorium on deepwater drilling, which it extended for six months that following May 27 in tandem with the 30 day report. An engineer who was asked to participate in the peer review process of the report’s recommendations sent a letter to Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Vitter and Sen. Mary Landrieu (R-La.) making it clear that he and his colleagues did not officially endorse the moratorium. The letter was co-signed by other engineers and reads in part as follows:

“A group of those named in the Secretary of Interior’s Report, “INCREASED SAFETY MEASURES FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF” dated May 27, 2010 are concerned that our names are connected with the [deepwater drilling] moratorium as proposed in the executive summary of the report. There is an implication that we have somehow agreed to or “peer reviewed” the main recommendation of that report. This is not the case.” (emphasis is included in the original letter)

Luke Bolar, a spokesman for Vitter, identified White House Climate Change Advisor Carol Browner as a key figure responsible for manipulating and distorting the scientific language.

“Carol Browner is one of the leading voices of junk science,” he said. “She was the one who changed the summary language just hours before the 30 day review was received and added a sentence to make it appear as the engineers endorsed the moratorium when they hadn’t. That’s why we needed the IG investigation.”

Early in his term, Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity” that emphasized the importance of sound science in shaping and directing public policy, Vitter, Inhofe and Issa point out in their letter to the White House.

“Public trust in federal scientific work is waning and the academic community has gone so far as to call the situation a crisis,” the letter says. “Accordingly, we request that you provide us with an accounting of your activities in response to serious questions raised about the quality of science utilized by this Administration.”

The letter concludes with a series of questions put to Holdren.

1.      When this IG report became public, who did you contact at Interior to discuss scientific integrity and allegations that Interior violated peer reviewed protocol?

2.      Did you speak directly with Secretary Salazar or anyone else identified in the IG report?

3.      What was the content of your conversations with the President and Carol Browner, as well as any other White House officials?

4.      What firewalls did you put in place at the White House to prevent future political influence from interfering with an independent scientific report?

5.      What actions were taken at both Interior and the White House, or otherwise government-wide, as a direct result of your efforts following the IG’s findings?

6.      What are your suggestions for strengthening the Information Quality Act in light of this incident specifically?

7.      What are your suggestions for strengthening the Information Quality Act in light of this incident?

Kevin Mooney is the Capitol Bureau Reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached at kmooney@pelicaninstitute.org and followed on Twitter.

         

In a crucial decision for the state’s health care reform agenda, a state district court has overturned an injunction against the awarding of coordinated-care Medicaid contracts to three private providers. Under the program, Making Medicaid Better, three providers – Louisiana Healthcare Connections, Inc., AmeriHealth Mercy of Louisiana, Inc., and AmeriGroup Mercy of Louisiana, Inc.,- will offer coordinated-care to 800,000 state Medicaid patients.

State District Judge William Morvant of the 19^th District Court dismissed the injunction pushed by Aetna, Inc. Aetna has alleged errors in the awarding of funds to providers, leading to the temporary injunction.

This transition is necessary to reduce costs as the state faces an inundation of new Medicaid beneficiaries as a result of President Obama’s health care law, which raises the threshold of eligibility up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

Currently, Medicaid consumes $6.7 billion in annual state spending. Louisiana faces a projected 40 percent increase in Medicaid enrollment with the advent of ObamaCare, something the already overburdened economy cannot handle. Gov. Jindal estimates that transitioning towards coordinated-care will save the state $135 million annually. It would also lead to improved health care quality.

Under a coordinated-care network, patients choose providers and plans according to their costs and needs, which results in increased competition between providers and thus lower costs than under the rigid confines of government-administered Medicaid. It also facilitates preventive care, which alleviates long-term health care costs. This is especially important in Louisiana, which has one of the worst cancer percentages in the nation.

The fiscal challenges and uncertainties facing our state demand new solutions to persisting problems. A transition to coordinated-care networks is an imperative step towards securing a healthier, more efficient future for Louisiana residents.

BATON ROUGE, La. – Two years ago, Governor Bobby Jindal announced a plan to alleviate the state’s Medicaid spending by transitioning to coordinate care networks. This week in the legislature, however, the House unanimously passed a binding resolution to end Jindal’s plan at the end of 2014, unless it receives legislative reauthorization.

These coordinated care plans, to be enacted this fiscal year (July 1^st), will transfer approximately two-thirds of Louisiana’s 1.2 million Medicaid recipients into managed care networks. The networks would be similar to an insurance model run by private companies which contract with the state and negotiate payments with providers.

Jindal’s proposal was an effort to lessen the strain of Louisiana’s health care spending while improving outcomes, especially in regards to Medicaid. As Kevin Mooney of the Pelican Post explains, the proposal would allow enrollees to choose their own plans and providers, in turn reducing Medicaid spending by increased competition. Additionally, the networks would emphasize preventive care which would help to decrease future outlays.

Nonetheless, Jindal’s proposal has faced stiff opposition from both ends of the spectrum. The libertarian Cato Institute criticized the plan for increasing eligibility to the entitlement program and not embracing a true free market based reform.

The state legislature is opposed on procedural grounds, arguing that Jindal bypassed the Legislature by inserting the program’s authorization into an amendment in state budget legislation.

Rep. Brett Geymann (R-Lake Charles) introduced the “sunset provision” when legislators balked at the idea of annulling the Jindal plan outright. Rep. Kay Katz (R-Monroe) commented that one committee should not have the power to discontinue a program of such importance. Nonetheless, lawmakers argued that it is necessary for the legislature to have oversight of a program affecting millions. Rep. John Bel Edwards (D-Amite) remarked, “The ramifications are too large… to not allow for the Legislature to have involvement.”

Jamison Beuerman is a contributing writer and policy analyst at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached via email at jbeuerman@pelicaninstitute.org or followed on twitter @jbeuerman.

An “all out war” on runaway spending is now possible thanks to a new resolution against the use of “one-time” or nonrecurring money for existing expenses. That was the assessment of Rep. Brett Geymann (R-Lake Charles), primary author of HR 27, the day after his proposal passed.

The self-binding resolution passed 60 to 42 in a House vote on Monday and is now in effect. An allocation of “one-time” state dollars to balance the budget now requires a two-thirds majority from House lawmakers.

The House is set to consider a $29.9 billion operating state budget today [Wednesday], but that plan is potentially road blocked by $500 million in non-recurring dollars.

Geymann anticipates a vigorous “push-back” from state agencies and Gov. Bobby Jindal’s office. For this reason, Geymann says conservative activists and Tea Party groups who supported HR 27 need to be in touch with their elected representatives to keep the pressure on against over-spending.

“The legislature has shown it does not have the will power to vote against a budget that has one-time money in it,” Geymann said. So “it was necessary to put a roadblock in place against this kind of spending. Otherwise, we will not see the kind of spending reductions necessary to make us live within our means.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s office counters that it will now take a two-thirds vote to use money we already have, while it still takes only a majority vote to suspend tax cuts for a year. Kyle Plotkin, the governor’s press secretary, said “It’s simply irresponsible to arbitrarily cut health care and higher education when there are other dollars available. All that does is increase the pressure on the Legislature to raise taxes and that’s a mistake.”

HR 27 could work against Gov. Jindal’s plan to alleviate health care costs with one-time revenue from the sale of state prisons to private firms.

A new study from the Reason Foundation does show that the use of private prisons can generate taxpayer savings. However, House Speaker Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) has said that Jindal does not have enough support for his prison sale plan. Regardless, the governor is pressing ahead.

Robin Edwards, who helped found the Louisiana Tea Party Federation, said HR 27 will open up a long-overdue discussion regarding where to make real spending cuts, as opposed to “budgetary gimmicks.”

“I’m certain this will complicate Gov. Jindal’s plans,” she said. “But the upside is this will help to get spending under control, and we need to put an end to this practice of using one-time money to fill holes.”

State Treasurer John Kennedy credited Rep. Geymann and his co-author Rep. Jim Morris (R-Oil City) for pressing ahead in the face of stiff opposition.

“These gentlemen struck a victory for the taxpayers of Louisiana,” Kennedy said. “This is a very good resolution. Any sixth grader knows you should not spend money you don’t have, and the governor knows this. It took courage for both of these individuals to move forward with this legislation and I give them tremendous credit.”

Kennedy also said the opposition building against HR 27 from various state agencies is not unexpected and points to the need for greater activism on the part of concerned citizens.

“Of course agency heads are going to be against this,” he observed. “But when was the last time agency head came to a government committee and said I’ve got enough money, I don’t need any more. We are talking about a beast with a belly that can’t be filled up.”

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached at kmooney@pelicaninstitute.org. Follow him on Twitter.

NEW ORLEANS, La.- Several states, including Louisiana, are stepping up the fight against the latest designer drugs – synthetic cannabinoids and bath salts – in the wake of high call volumes to poison control centers in recent years.

House Bill 12 would classify synthetic cannabinoids and substituted cathinones (bath salts) as Schedule I substances in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substance Law, placing them next to heroin and MDMA (ecstasy) at the top of the restrictive drug pyramid.

Rep. Ricky Templet (R – Gretna), the bill’s primary author, claims HB 12 is an emphatic boost to last year’s HB 173, which amended the state’s then marijuana laws so synthetic cannabinoids would command fines and criminal penalties similar to traditional cannabis.

In addition to placing bath salts under state regulation, HB 12 provides a more comprehensive definition of what compounds are outlawed. The intent is to stop producers from distributing derivatives of essentially the same substance and side-stepping regulations.

The American Association for Poison Control Centers has received more than 4,500 calls since 2010 concerning the use of synthetic cannabinoid. And in January, Governor Jindal declared his intention to classify these substances under a Schedule I ban. Several other states have announced similar intentions, including Florida, Alabama, Utah, and Kentucky.

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration is equally concerned with synthetic cannabinoids, and it has initiated a year-long emergency ban on five chemicals used to create synthetic cannabinoids. They claim this will protect public health and safety until they discern whether the chemicals warrant permanent regulation.

Previous attempts at prohibition have been unsuccessful, since manufacturers no longer able to sell synthetic cannabinoids as herbal incense started labeling the drug as aromatic potpourri. They also added a warning label stating the product is “not for human consumption.”

According to Dan D’Amico, an economics professor at Loyola University New Orleans, the behavior of such firms operating in a legal grey area is hardly surprising.

“Whereas traditional legitimate market producers compete against other producers on quality margins as they are perceived in the mind’s eyes of consumers, black market producers compete on being stealth and/or complying with regulations primarily and consumer perceived quality secondarily. Consumers are the real folks who suffer most.”

In an attempt to mimic the high experienced with traditional marijuana, producers of synthetic cannabinoids spray a blend of herbs and spices with compounds whose chemical structures are reportedly similar to THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in traditional marijuana. Originally developed to determine marijuana’s effects on different receptors in laboratory animals, this drug has the unintended effects of speeding heart rates, raising blood pressure, and inciting nausea.

Dan Francis of the Retail Compliance Association (RCA), claims synthetic cannabinoids first appeared on the market approximately eleven years ago in Europe. The RCA is a group of American retailers who defend the rights of stores to sell synthetic cannabinoids.

Since spreading to the US, the synthetic cannabinoids industry has quickly blossomed into a $5 billion per year industry, despite persistent regulatory backlash.

In a congressional address earlier this month, Mr. Francis explained that lawmakers and the media alike are ignorant to the important scientific distinctions between marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids.

“These compounds are for the most part very simple compounds, that have nothing whatsoever to do
with natural cannabis or THC… The very basis of many lawmakers negative opinions is simply that the name is similar to cannabis.”

Francis considers HB 12 and other similar legislation to be ill-conceived, over-reactions on the behalf of legislators, who advocate a more thorough understanding of the products before allowing them to be sold on the open market.

“We don’t disagree that we need to study them, but these are incredible things that could lead to potential cures and therapies,” says Dan Francis, RCA’s executive director.

Francis also warns that the unintended consequences of prohibition could cause more harm than good.

“Cartels and drug lords who would be the ones that replaced the legitimate businesses if a ban is passed.”

Although adamant defenders of retailers that sell synthetic cannabinoids, RCA has yet to defend the market for substituted cathinones, more commonly known as “bath salts”.

Unlike synthetic cannabinoids, bath salts have developed a reputation as powerful stimulants. An experience taking bath salts is meant to reflect a high similar to cocaine or MDMA, though recently medical professions have drawn a more direct comparison to methamphetamine and even PCP.

According to Mark Ryan, Director of the Louisiana Poison Center, the effects of bath salts are some of worst he has witnessed in two decades.

Last year, Louisiana centers responded to at least 85 instances, more than 54% of the national total. In 2011, there are have already been ten times number as many cases nationwide.

“These products create a very severe paranoia that we believe could cause users to harm themselves or others,” he said.

House Bill 12 will be heard on Wednesday, May 11th by the Criminal Justice Committee.

Justin Spittler is a research assistant with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. Spittler studies economics at Loyola University in New Orleans, and you can follow him on twitter.

One of the great tragedies of modern discourse and argumentation has been the devaluation of meanings to words. Those trying to gain rhetorical advantage use words in ways to convey some intended impression that does not comport with their actual definitions. A reporter’s recent opinion piece reviews – and to some degree echoes – the phenomenon as it relates to debate over Louisiana’s budget for next fiscal year.

For differing reasons, participants in the policy-making process as diverse as liberal Democrats to conservative commentators have a desperate need it seems to make it appear Gov. Bobby Jindal lacks fidelity on his pledge not to raise “taxes” in any form and plays word games related to the concept. Thus, they claim one or both of increasing fees and increasing tuition at public colleges constitutes a “tax increase,” and/or removing an existing tax exemption is not a “tax increase.”

To assess these claims, we first must understand the terms involved in their uncorrupted forms. A “tax” is a charge levied by government upon a certain active or passive behavior for the purpose of funding government activity. For example, in Louisiana when a sale of goods or service occurs, under most conditions the state levies a four percent surcharge of the value of the sale. The state also charges 20 cents per gallon on gasoline sold at retail, and local governments charge varying millage rates for the passive activity of holding property, subject to some exemptions.

By contrast, a “fee” is a charge for the performance of a specific service by government to a specific user who pays it where the fee’s basis is reasonably related to the cost of the service involved. For example, annually vehicles face inspection, in most parishes costing $10. This presumably covers the costs to the entity, in most parishes done by the private sector, for performing the specific service for that individual. “Tuition” is a special form of a fee, where the state educational agency contracts with students to perform a service over a period of time, with varying costs depending upon the amount contracted for by the client.

Two obvious differences between a tax and a fee emerge from a proper understanding of these terms. First, taxes are involuntary as opposed to fees. Nobody is putting a gun to the head of students to make them pay tuition and fees to attend a Louisiana public college, especially as they have choices to attend private and proprietary schools in state, or to go out of state, to have this service performed for them. Neither does the state compel you to own a vehicle that you must have inspected yearly; nor does local government force you to own property. Accessing these state services is not compulsory under law; you don’t have to attend higher education institutions in the state, nor do you have to own a car in the state that you wish to operate.

Second, taxes do not involve activities that are a reasonably direct trade of payment for specific service. Most of them are applied to general activities of government that bear no relationship at all to the behavior being taxed, and even where there is some tenuous connection there is no direct exchange of fee for service. For example, four cents of the gasoline tax is supposed to be spent on 16 major projects, 14 of which directly address surface transportation, but its charging does not grant any service at all, much less any dealing with vehicles, directly to the payers.

Thus, an increase in tuition is not a tax increase. But an increase in tobacco taxes is, because it is levied on an activity – sale of tobacco products – where the state provides no service in return to the payer and the payer has no choice but to pay it.

Where obfuscators try to confuse the issue is in refusing to acknowledge that the activity – the purchase of cigarettes – has nothing to do with an activity performed by government. Nor does it involve any exchange of a service for that surcharge directly to the purchaser.

While you may “choose” to buy cigarettes as you “choose” to go to college, the crucial distinction is in the provision of direct service. Without that provision, the surcharge by government becomes involuntary because it has nothing to do with the actual activity, much less delivering a specific service to a specific person.

By the same logic, removing a tax exemption is a tax increase. If a behavior is being used to draw revenues into government under the definition above, those entities impacted by the removal of an exemption have clearly suffered a tax increase.

Jindal is entirely correct when he states he will resist yanking any such exemptions because this would be a tax increase. He is also correct when he states he has been and will continue to be against tax increases generally, while making no such pledges regarding fees.

Of course, one can use all the reason and logic in the world on some individuals, and they will continue to pervert rhetoric for their own political purposes. When they claim Jindal acts dishonestly on the “taxes” issue and ought to know better, they should instead look in a mirror.

Jeffrey Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University, Shreveport. The original version of this article first appeared on Sadow’s blog, “Between the Lines.”

In their guest column of April 9 (“Cigarette tax increase is good public policy”), Edward Ashworth and Andrew Muhl argue in favor of increasing the state’s cigarette tax. The authors claim that this tax hike would be overwhelmingly popular, but Gov. Jindal opposes it for reasons of political expediency. These claims appear contradictory, but the problems with their argument do not end there.

The authors allege that our budget crisis is driven by a lack of revenue. In fact, Louisiana’s government spending increased by approximately 150 percent between 1987 and 2007, on a per capita basis and adjusted for inflation. Not only is such growth unsustainable, but it has failed to deliver benefits commensurate with the costs.

At some point, we are forced to confront reality. To borrow from Margaret Thatcher, “Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.” Putting the squeeze on smokers might delay the inevitable, though it is worth noting that revenue projections for cigarette taxes tend to be extremely optimistic. In any event, to blame Louisiana’s problems on tax cuts overlooks the massive increase in government spending.

The authors tout the wonders that another $250 million would bring. Several of the items in their grab bag are of dubious value, but perhaps we should start with a simple question: Does anyone believe we are getting enough for the $25 billion we are already spending? Health care and education outcomes simply do not support the case for throwing more money at problems that have resisted the best efforts of central planners. To say nothing of the fact that we would have a more robust economy if less money was taken from the private sector. Given these facts, voter skepticism to higher taxes and more spending is understandable.

It is notable that the areas where we have seen real improvement, such as charter schools in New Orleans, do not owe their success to increased spending. Instead, innovators have been given the freedom to operate with fewer bureaucratic obstacles. Applying these lessons to other failing programs would do more good for our state than relying on revenues from a dwindling demographic.

This article originally appeared in the Times-Picayune on April 29th, 2011

Kevin P. Kane is president of the Pelican Institute for Public Policy in New Orleans.

This week, Republican State Representatives Brett Geymann and Jim Morris introduced a bill (HB 189) that would require two-thirds of both houses of the legislature to approve the use of one-time revenues for recurring expenses.

As the name implies, one-time dollars are those only set to materialize a single time. And according to the bill, one-time dollars would include profits from “court settlements, the sale of state facilities [such as prisons], and the privatization of state operations.”

Geymann and Morris say their bill is a reaction to Gov. Jindals’s use of $474 million in one-time revenues from the proposed sale of three state prisons in his tentative $24.9 billion state operating budget for this fiscal year beginning July 1st.

Gov. Jindal wants to appropriate money from the sale of Louisiana prisons in Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Parishes towards the state’s health care expenses.

Other opponents of this strategy such as Rep. Eddie Lambert (R-Prarieville) argue that “we’ve got to quit doing this… we need to start living within our means.” According to them, using one-time revenues for recurring expenses like health care will impede such fiscal progress. Their opposition also extends to using money from the state’s “rainy day” fund towards spending bills during last year’s session, which Jindal advocated.

Instead, Geymann, Morris, Lambert, and others propose spending cuts to permanently balance the budget. HB 189, if passed, would not apply to Gov. Jindal’s budget for this year, but would affect future budget resolutions as well.

According to House Speaker Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown), a two-thirds vote would essentially make it impossible for the state government to allocate one-time money towards recurring expenses. He believes the legislature should allow more “flexibility” in future situations.

With one of his recent blog posts, Jeffrey Sadow explains the constraints of this inflexibility in his opposition to HB 189. In his view, the recurring versus one-time is not so clear cut, and that this legislation categorizes revenue as one-time “just because analysts and politicians failed to see it coming.”

Sadow also takes issue with the inclusion of privatization under the definition of one-time money, arguing that the economic benefits of privatization extend for many years. To this end, Sadow contests, HB 189 could inadvertently dissuade attempts at privatization and streamlining in the future.

Jamison Beuerman is a contributing writer and policy analyst at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at jbeuerman@pelicaninstitute.org or followed on Twitter @jbeuerman.

Do not wait for the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is the central message free market health care policy analysts have for state officials who agree with recent court decisions against the new federal health care law. Although federal judges in Florida and Virginia have both ruled that the insurance mandate provision violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, analysts say state lawmakers should act now to expand consumer choice and reduce costs.

Christopher Jaarda, president of the American Health Care Education Coalition (AHEC), supports a tax deduction for individuals who purchase insurance, as companies already receive. He also recommends reforming Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance for low-income children, pregnant women, senior citizens and the disabled. The idea here would be to use the program to help cover the premiums, the fees people pay to receive medical care.

“First, [individually purchased insurance] would make consumers more cost conscious of premium costs and the cost of medical care (co-pays, deductibles, etc.) which would in turn lead to better consumer choices,” Jaarda explains.  He believes health care inflation would finally be restrained or even reversed, as has occurred with lasik eye surgery and other procedures for which clients pay out-of-pocket.

“Second, it would be the most efficient way to eliminate concerns over denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.  Once an individual had insurance, they would take it with them and continue their coverage even if they switched jobs.”

These policy changes would also benefit people on the verge of Medicaid eligibility and would help to ensure continuity of care, Jaarda continues.

“When someone’s income falls so that they move from non-eligible to Medicaid-eligible, they often lose access to the doctor of their choice, including many specialists, because many doctors don’t accept Medicaid… We could eliminate the problems associated with moving in and out of Medicaid eligibility. People would continue with the same insurance regardless of whether their incomes rises or falls.”

Louisiana’s health officials are already set to experiment with Medicaid funded Coordinated Care Networks (CCNs), which they say will provide consumers with greater autonomy and decision making authority.

“More than a quarter of the state’s population receives health care coverage through Medicaid, and coordinating care will improve these enrollees’ health and lead to a higher quality of life. The state has submitted a notice of intent as the official rule to implement CCNs for Medicaid, and expects the first recipients to enroll with CCNs early next year.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal also recently announced that the state will decline to set up the exchange system that would enable new federal insurance regulations. The exchanges would create new state level bureaucracies that serve as a conduit for the purchase of insurance. They would create a new framework to expand coverage and to enforce federal standards for participating plans.

Other states should follow Jindal’s lead and resist setting up the exchanges. Otherwise, the ObamaCare regulations will begin to take root.

“Ultimately, we believe that ObamaCare will fail,” Jaarda said.  “It will be struck down by the Supreme Court, it will collapse of its own weight and budget impact, or Congress will repeal it. ObamaCare is attempting to get states hooked on the federal law early so that ObamaCare becomes `too big to fail.’”

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached at kmooney@pelicaninstitute.org. Follow him on Twitter.