“In January, the CDC cut the number of recommended childhood vaccines from 16 to 10 by essentially adopting Denmark’s schedule. This change was not based on any evidence that the six targeted vaccines were unsafe or ineffective. Furthermore, Denmark’s reduced schedule is an outlier when compared to those of other developed countries. In response to the CDC’s cuts, American Academy of Pediatrics President (AAP) Andrew Racine stated, ‘Today’s announcement by federal health officials to arbitrarily stop recommending numerous routine childhood immunizations is dangerous and unnecessary.’ The AAP reaffirmed and recommended the original evidence-based immunization schedule. Now, the American Medical Association (AMA) is teaming up with the Vaccine Integrity Project at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota to privately evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines targeting three viral illnesses for the upcoming 2026–2027 respiratory virus season.” (02/11/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Artis Shepherd
“It seems the housing market is destined to be the target of yet another administration’s clumsy tinkering. In another quiet-part-out-loud incident at the White House recently, the president was asked whether he would declare a national emergency in order to act on housing affordability. Trump responded that he doesn’t want house prices to go down because home valuations are such a large part of the ‘net worth’ of homeowners, especially those in ‘their later years.’ The exchange is worth watching. Note the collectivist premises underlying both the reporter’s question and the president’s answer.” (02/11/26)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Angelo Monaco
“While we see in some states a move to allow greater choice among public schools it generally does not resolve the failings of public education. The promotion of school vouchers still involves government collection and redistribution of wealth and keeps the government-school system in existence. We need to go well beyond that idea. Entirely dismantling the tax-supported government K-12 school system would not only eliminate the immense overhead and regulatory costs associated with public schools, it would also improve the overall quality of education through free-market competition, especially for those in underserved communities. As for our colleges and universities, what will make things better is to withdraw all government support, which would force each school to shed the protections that are provided through politics and lobbying.” (02/11/26)
“Conservatives should oppose the SAVE America Act for the same reason many of us spent years opposing Democratic efforts to nationalize election administration: because elections in the United States are run by the states. That principle didn’t disappear just because Republicans are now the ones pushing the bill. If anything, this is exactly the kind of legislation conservatives used to warn about — federal mandates, national standards, and Washington inserting itself into decisions that have traditionally been made at the state and local level. For years, conservatives argued — correctly — that sweeping federal election laws undermine federalism, weaken local accountability, and create tools that will inevitably be abused by a future administration.” (02/10/26)
“The more economic democracy we have then the more it is politics that determines who is allowed to do what. Access to that decision making process thus has a higher value, more cash is offered for it. More simply, the more politicians decide the more valuable paying politicians is. Humans do more of things that are more valuable — economic democracy thus means more political corruption. The method of beating this is to make bribing — sorry, paying cash for access to — politicians not worth the game. Less politics in economic decision making that is.” (02/11/26)
“I could defend open borders by appealing to economics, pointing to trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk. We need immigrants to fill jobs native-born Americans cannot or will no longer perform. Or I could talk about how immigrants contribute to economic growth and contribute more over time to the public fisc than they take out. I could fixate on the terrible plight of refugees, and how it’s a humanitarian imperative to take in the needy stranger. … These are all true, and they are solid reasons to favor liberal immigration. But for my part, we should welcome the foreigner, and embrace them as a friend and potential American for the simple reason that migration is the pursuit of freedom and happiness by one’s own lights.” (02/11/26)
“If you believe the best solution to any problem, real or imagined, is to give government more control, you’re off base. The government-created issue of ‘immigration’ illustrates this perfectly. … Typically, you have people on one side who want government to ignore the Constitution and ‘control immigration’ pitted against people on the other side who want government to import every basket case from every third-world country, and then support them for the rest of their lives on tax money stolen from the productive residents. I want government out of the game altogether. Live where you want; make it on your own.” (02/11/26)
“President Donald Trump’s call to nationalize elections ahead of November has rightfully garnered plenty of opposition from Democrats, with many sounding the alarm for an authoritarian plot aimed at artificially boosting Republicans’ prospects. Democrats are rightly concerned with the federal government administering elections, which are a constitutional responsibility of the states. Thankfully, it won’t likely happen, but the response reveals something about this debate. Trump has wreaked havoc on the separation of powers and abused the power of his office. This is exacerbated by an increasingly powerful federal government and presidency. So I want to ask Democrats, progressives and anyone else to my left who have criticized the conservative views of limited government, federalism and separation of powers for years: Are you convinced yet?” (02/11/26)
Source: The Hill
by Kim A Snyder & Audrey Wilson-Youngblood
“Political strategists and commentators are looking at Democrat Taylor Rehmet’s stunning special election victory in Texas state Senate District 9 to forecast electoral shifts ahead of 2026’s midterms. But those trying to understand this election’s surprise outcome also need to consider the local politics at play. Rehmet’s opponent was Republican Leigh Wambsganss, chief communications officer of conservative media company Patriot Mobile. She has been a primary architect behind the movement to populate North Texas school boards with candidates willing to orchestrate an extreme, right-wing takeover of public schools. These school board takeovers resulted in unprecedented book bans and attacks on residents’ right to read.” (02/11/26)
Source: The American Prospect
by Olivia Webb Kosloff & Emma Freer
“During back-to-back congressional hearings last month, lawmakers grilled the CEOs of five major health insurers about their vertically integrated business models. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called for breakup legislation modeled on the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which structurally separated commercial and investment banking. The idea of bank-style regulation for health insurers isn’t as far off as it sounds. As Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-OR) pointed out, insurance companies take in premiums and invest that money (known as ‘float’) before having to pay it out in claims. ‘That, of course, is what leads to people calling insurers banks, doing a side business as health care,’ Bentz explained. ‘[Y]ou charge the premium, you collect the money, you put the money in the bank, it earns interest, and then you pay it out.'” (02/11/25)
