The idea that America needs transforming, and that he is the man to do it, did not start with Barack Obama. The grandiosely named Center for Health Transformation (CHT) was started by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

In 2003, Newt Gingrich wrote Saving Lives & Saving Money: Transforming Health and Healthcare. It does offer some “free market” solutions. But doctors are apparently free only as long as they do what Newt thinks they should.

The backup plan is: “When all else fails, mandate.” Specifically, physicians who “insist on doing it the old way…should simply not be allowed to practice medicine.” As far as I know, even Obama doesn’t go this far.

In developing his plans and strategies, the CHT boasts a lot of allies: along with top leaders in federal and state governments, it includes “key corporations, top hospitals, disease advocacy groups, professional and industry associations, and leading research institutions.” Many if not all of them probably endorsed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”).

Newt has embraced the key fallacy that “the number of uninsured in America is a threat to our civilization.” He thinks that medical errors are “morally unacceptable,” and that they could somehow be prevented by forcing everybody to use the health information technology that his supporters, just coincidentally, happen to sell. He speaks favorably of outgoing CMS director Donald Berwick, an avowed admirer of the British National Health Service’s rationing system. He is convinced that “disease management programs” can” dramatically improve outcomes.”

(more…)

In 2005, Kelo v. City of New London made eminent domain infamous. The widely reviled Supreme Court ruling gave the go ahead for the city of New London to use eminent domain for taking private property in order that it be given to a private company for “economic development.”

The public response was one of outrage. Facing the potential wrath of voters,  politicians across the country moved to add new protections against such abusive seizures. But that wasn’t enough to save the homes of the folks in New London, whose property never would be developed. Pfizer, the intended beneficiary of the land theft, walked away years ago from their development plans.

Now, to add new insult to injury, the vacant lot is a dump. Literally.

Following hurricane Irene, the city designated the site as a place to dump storm debris, and citizens can be seen doing just that in this video on the local paper’s website.

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm inside? The Supreme Court reassured us in Kelo that the government orchestrated theft “would be executed pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan.” What they forgot to mention is that careful consideration from politicians is worth about as much as the city’s new debris dump, which is to say: diddly squat.

(more…)

I, like many others, made light of the President’s recent shocking display of economic ignorance.  In an interview on NBC’s TODAY, the President claimed that productivity, the source of our prosperity, is really a “structural issue” holding back the job creating benefits of his policies.

Hogwash, obviously. But what came later in the interview was perhaps even more disturbing (the transcript at the link wasn’t completely accurate so I cleaned it up):

[T]here are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; You don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy and what we have to do now, and that’s what this job counsel is all about, is identifying where the jobs of the future are going to be, how do we make sure that there’s a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist, how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity.

Obama’s fundamental problem – his fatal conceit, if you will – is that he thinks we need him and his jobs counsel to figure out what the jobs of the future are going to be. We no more need this today than it was necessary for past leaders to identify the jobs of today. This is a task for the private sector, and one which only its vast network of dispersed information and decentralized decision-making is capable of determining.

What does Barack Obama know about the technologies of today, much less the future? Why does he imagine he can direct capital and resources to the right place better than investors? When has history ever shown politicians capable of doing so?

(more…)

Time was when countries believed in strong currencies — strength measured not in the rhetoric of bearded wise men but of bank vaults flush with gold coin.

Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez recently announced that he would be devaluing his currency on New Year’s day.  As the Wall Street Journal reported:

News of the devaluation came just after the central bank said the Venezuelan economy contracted 1.9% in 2010, the second consecutive year of declining output in the oil-rich nation after a 3.3% decline in 2009.

Both pieces of news suggest Mr. Chávez is having an increasingly difficult time balancing his populist policies with economic reality, according to economists. His government’s widespread nationalizations of private industry have sapped economic growth, while public spending has sparked inflation that the government has tried to contain by measures such as price controls.

There are a couple of striking aspects to this news.  First, in the above excerpt one could easily replace Mr. Chávez’s name with Mr. Obama’s.  Nationalizations or de facto nationalizations cripple an economy by replacing functional markets driven by the people with dysfunctional economies driven by central planners and have a secondary effect of chilling entrepreneurship, and thus competition, innovation and capital formation that drive economic growth.

Constantly imposing costs implicit and explicit on the private sector (i.e. those who must survive by providing a product demanded by consumers in quantities, of qualities and for prices willingly paid by these consumers), including the cost of propping up failed businesses and inflating asset prices, disincentivizes people from partaking in mutually beneficial commercial activity.

(more…)