Friday, June 14, 2013 Are you getting our podcast -- a 20-minute rundown on the latest in news about liberty? Are you on our email list -- a weekly roundup of links that tell you what you need to know about politics and policy?
If not, why not?
Go here to find out about our podcasts -- and to get on our mailing list, just type your name in the box at left.
Thursday, April 18, 2013 
Under the Affordable Care Act, Arkansas must either establish a state health insurance exchange or allow the federal government to do so: each exchange will accept and process citizen enrollment in health insurance plans. Two-thirds of the states have declined to establish state exchanges, thus leaving exchange creation to the federal government; given the 33-state rejection of health care exchanges, it is a bit of a mystery why HB1508 – which establishes a state exchange – passed the House and is on the Senate floor today. The Beebe administration has worked tirelessly to establish a state exchange for years; following are five reasons why the state Senate should decline Governor Beebe’s invitation to create a new insurance bureaucracy.
1. A state exchange will not increase local policymakers' control over insurance providers or create better customer service.
2. A state exchange will burden state taxpayers and state budgeters.
3. A state exchange will load political accountability onto state officials for federal Obamacare problems.
To read the other two reasons and an in-depth analysis, read our full paper.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 
Despite a failed vote yesterday on HB 1219, Arkansas House members are likely to have another bite at the apple today on funding the “private option.” Lawmakers have spent a substantial amount of time this session creating and designing this particular version of Medicaid expansion, which would funnel Medicaid payments through private insurance companies. Legislators who must choose whether to fund Medicaid expansion (whether it is labeled the private option or not) should understand that a central argument made in expansion’s favor is groundlessly overconfident.
More precisely, the advocates of the private option version of Medicaid expansion have explained that, if their plan does not work as expected (if, for instance, the federal government fails to make good on its future commitments), then Arkansas can always exit the expansion and return to the previous status quo. Unfortunately, private-option advocates have ignored both statutes and case law when explaining that Arkansas can always check out of the private option if the federal government fails to meet its funding commitments. Advocates of the private option therefore make a fundamental mistake when they explain that Medicaid expansion can risklessly be explored or casually exited; in fact, there is substantial reason to believe that when a state chooses Medicaid expansion, it is something like a decision to go down a one-way street.
To read our latest policy paper, click here.
Monday, April 15, 2013 
Several Arkansas lawmakers have spent a substantial amount of time this session creating and designing their preferred version of Medicaid expansion: they call it the “private option,” because it would funnel Medicaid payments through private insurance companies. Legislators who must choose whether to fund Medicaid expansion (whether it is labeled the “private option” or not) should understand the economic catastrophe that such expansion will trigger: namely, the retarding of economic growth and the trapping of clients into low-wage jobs.
To read our complete paper, click here.
Monday, April 8, 2013 
Voters see Medicaid as flawed program, rife with fraud & abuse
A new survey conducted by Magellan Strategies for the Advance Arkansas Institute and The Liberty Foundation of America shows a plurality of Arkansans are less likely to support the Medicaid “private option” than traditional Medicaid expansion as set forth in the Affordable Care Act.
Dan Greenberg, AAI President, said the results are indicative of a disconnect between voters and their legislators: “In 2012, voters sent a new conservative majority of lawmakers to the legislature -- based in part on a platform of opposing Obamacare and Medicaid expansion. Now, they’re trying to rebrand expansion and pass it under a different name. This poll shows a clear desire from conservative Arkansans to see the Medicaid program reformed, not expanded. The legislature should slow down and gather more information before rushing through a new law in the final days of the legislative session that will entrench Obamacare in Arkansas and create gigantic new liabilities for taxpayers.”
Matt Mayer, President of Opportunity Ohio and Advisor to The Liberty Foundation, said the results show an enormous partisan split on Medicaid expansion: “A majority of Republicans and unaffiliated voters see Medicaid as a flawed program. 75% of Republicans and 50% of unaffiliated voters oppose expansion given the variance in new enrollees. Additionally, these voters do no support expansion because the program contains so much waste, fraud, and abuse, and there is little belief that the federal government will actually keep it promises to fund the majority of the program.”
When Arkansans were given the state cost of expansion, a near majority oppose both private and traditional expansion.
This poll was conducted with a sample size of 845 Arkansans and a margin of error of +/- 3.35%. To read more results from the poll and to see the methodology, click the links below.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013 
Today, AAI is proud to announce five town hall meetings that will be held next week across the state. The meetings will feature national policy experts and focus on the coming changes in the state's Medicaid program.
Policy experts will include Christie Herrera, Vice President of the Foundation for Government Accountability, and Ed Haislmaier, Senior Research Fellow in Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. The panel discussions will be moderated by our very own President Dan Greenberg.
April 8:
April 9:
We look forward to seeing you all around the state!
Monday, March 25, 2013 
The state Senate will vote on SB 821 today: if passed into law, this bill would create a cumbersome and expensive new government program for registration, training, and tracking citizens who are paid to circulate petitions to place initiatives and referendums on the ballot. SB 821, sponsored by state Senator Keith Ingram, would place extremely heavy burdens on Arkansas’s initiative and referendum process – indeed, the bill almost seems designed to make it difficult or impossible for citizens to run successful ballot campaigns.
You can read "How SB 821 Endangers the First Amendment," AAI's newest paper, here.
Monday, March 11, 2013 
Friday, we released our latest policy brief titled, “Why Arkansas’s Anti-Scalping Laws Should Be Repealed.”
The paper, authored by Alex Cartwright, makes the case that anti-scalping laws encourage counterfeiting, encourage fraud, and create consumer confusion. Rather than protect the consumer, anti-scalping laws encourage underground-market activity and restrict the public’s access to events.
HB1404 by Rep. Doug House addresses many of these concerns and was voted down by the House on Friday, but can be brought back up for consideration before the end of session.
You can read the full paper here.
Monday, February 25, 2013 
HB 1412, which is on today’s House calendar, would remove partisan considerations from prosecutorial races; it would end Arkansas’s practice of partisan campaigns by the state’s prosecuting attorneys. As a general matter, removing party labels from prosecutor candidates is sound public policy: there is good reason to believe that public confidence in the fair and neutral administration of justice will be better justified in a system stripped of open partisanship. To read our latest paper -- "Removing Partisanship from Prosecutors Is In the Public Interest" -- click here.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 
Last week, a majority of legislators on the Senate State Agencies committee passed a voter ID bill for the first time in Arkansas history. SB 2, sponsored by Sen. Bryan King, would require voters at the polling place either to present an identification document or to cast a provisional ballot; it also provides that the very small percentage of voters who cannot afford to pay for an ID can obtain one for free. The bill, in addition to extinguishing in-person voter impersonation, would stop double-voting by dual-state registrants, voting by illegal aliens, and voting under fictitious registrations: this policy makes it easy to vote, but hard to cheat. Voter ID is a common-sense reform to stop vote fraud that is supported by large majorities of Americans, but opponents of voter ID continue to oppose this policy with defective arguments.
Nonetheless, the opponents of voter ID continue to provide flawed legal arguments, groundless statistics, and manufactured facts. The Institute's latest paper, "Arguments Against Voter ID: An Autopsy," is a sure cure for their misinformation.