first by having our own jagadeesh gokhale set forth some of the findings that he has done recently of an empirical sort so you'll have the facts before you before we turn to the lawyers to argue that this aspect of obama care is an unconstitutional and then to simon lazarus to argue that it is constitutional. i'm going to introduce each of our speakers before they speak unlike on the last panel. and we'll start with our jagadeesh gokhale, and you'll get to see a power point presentation, the first one here in the new auditorium using the wonderful facilities we just finished creating. jagadeesh gokhale is a senior fellow here at the cato institute, and he is recognized internationally as an expert on entitlement reform, labor productivity, and composition, u.s. fiscal policy, and the impact of fiscal policy on future generations. he served in 2002 as a consultant to the u.s. department of the treasury, and in 2003 as a visiting scholar of the american enterprise institute. he was a senior economist advisor to the federal reserve bank of cleveland from 1990 to 2003. he holds a ph.d in

do you have anything -- yes, jagadeesh. >> just one point -- there are several points. one point, your emphasis that the federal medicaid expansion is not onerous seems to be based on just a partial understanding of what i presented. i admit that the newly eligible individuals that would enroll into medicaid would be 90% plus funded but the individual mandate is the interaction of medicaid expansion with the individual mandate. and the mandate will induce additional enrollments by -- those were eligible and that cost, that match rate is still 59%, which means a bigger share of the cost must be paid for by the states and that's the source of the vertical line. >> i understand that. i just meant to say that that -- that those -- the now eligibles who will sign up in addition are not relevant to the constitutional issue, jagadeesh. that's all. >> that's not my concern. >> that's not your department. >> they may not be relevant to the constitutional issue, but they are relevant to the structure of the bill, is that not your point, namely it is the mandate that drives these

thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, jagadeesh. we've now heard the effects of obamacare's medicaid aspects upon the states. states that are already stretched thin in their budgets in many, many cases. we're now going to turn to legal aspects and to the question whether congress can compel states to expand their medicaid roles and coverage using the taxing power to do so with the threat if the states do not do so then they will lose all they currently receive from the federal government for medicaid. meanwhile, their taxpayers will have to continue paying federal taxes so that citizens in other states will enjoy medicaid coverage. to argue from the plaintiffs' side the 26 states, we're going we're going to hear first from tim sandefur, and then for defense from simon lazarus. tim is a principle attorney at the pacific legal foundation in sacramento, california. as the lead attorney in the foundation's economic liberty project he works to protect businesses against abusive government regulation. he's the author of two books both pub