The Definition of Insanity

Is Barack Obama losing his mind?

Aside from ignoring the best opportunity to help foment a fantastic pro-freedom revolution in Iran-- the worst instigator of international terrorism and therefore the greatest threat to US security? Timidity in the present historical context is tantamount to a total abnegation of Presidential responsibility. But let’s disregard that little matter for now. Someone once said that the definition of insanity was repeating the same behavior over and over while expecting different results.

President Barack Obama’s call for the creation of a new office within the federal government — a Consumer Financial Protection Agency—is based on the theory that If only someone in government had been looking out for consumers, the subprime mortgage mess might never have happened. We must take action to reverse the “culture of irresponsibility” that led to the current financial crisis.

The new agency would have the power to make rules for the industry and to enforce them. Obama said that the power to lay out new rules is essential, “so that the bad practices that led to the home mortgage crisis will be stamped out.”

“Most critically in the run-up to the financial crisis, mortgage companies and others outside the purview of bank regulation exploited that lack of clear accountability by selling mortgages and other products that were overly complicated and unsuited to borrowers’ financial situation,” the Obama administration says. “Banks and thrifts followed suit, with disastrous results for consumers and the financial system…”

Could Obama possibly not know that it was government intervention that directly led to the mortgage meltdown? Could he be ignorant of the fact federal legislation spawned agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the purpose of promoting sub-prime mortgages—i.e., mortgages for people who could not afford them on the free market? The “culture of irresponsibility” was a Frankenstein monster deliberately brought to life by the federal government. Without the government offering to stand behind subprime loans, the mortgage crisis could never have happened. Financial institutions would never have made the bad loans.

Obama’s solution? More government intervention.

Insanity? The solution is to return to the free market’s built-in rule for survival: the fundamental responsibility imposed by the need to make responsible business decisions out of rational self-interest.

And then there was President Obama's speech to the American Medical Association last Monday. He used the occasion to promote his proposal for national health care--the largest expansion of federal intervention into U.S. health care since the creation of Medicare in 1965. Obama is determined to reshape the entire medical industry and change how Americans receive and pay for healthcare. We must act now to “control the spiraling cost of health care in America.”
Apparently the amount of cost imposed on taxpayers counts for nothing. Another measly trillion dollars. Big deal.

He ignores so much of the reality staring him in the face that you start to wonder about the man’s grip on reality. When did medical costs begin to spiral out of control in this country? With the advent of Medicare. It was then that the federal government, with all its cumbersome incompetence and lack of free market self-discipline, became a primary player in the healthcare field. Doctors and hospitals began charging fees that would never have been paid if tax funds were not covering the cost. Suddenly the Pentagon’s infamous approach to expenditure control (remember the $2000 toilet seat?) was extended to doctor visits and hospital stays. All hell broke loose.

Obama expressed awareness of all the alleged problems that other nations who have nationalized healthcare have encountered. . All this talk of services denied or seriously delayed, turning elder citizens away from care altogether, serious declines in health care quality, huge strains on the budget and economy, and America as the last bastion of healthcare quality and innovation. Etc. Etc. Baloney. “We have heard it all before,” he says. We cannot use such alleged ‘facts’ as an excuse for inaction.

He offered no evidence that any of those facts were inaccurate. Instead, he stoked fears about the fiscal disaster that awaits us if we do nothing, using General Motors as an example: "If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke." Except that medicine, unlike the auto industry, isn’t being dragged into bankruptcy by exorbitant, government-backed union contracts. As already explained, medicine is being destroyed, in large part, by an existing government program: Medicare.

Now Obama’s solution for achieving universal healthcare is to “slash health care costs” by creating a Medicare-style government insurance plan open to everyone. Note: Medicare’s projected unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years are about $36 trillion. If current trends persist, the cost of Medicare will be 19% of gross domestic product by then.

Now imagine the cost of expanding that program to cover everyone, not just the elderly and indigent. The mind boggles.

Unlike his predecessor in the Oval Office, Obama does not hve the luxury of being perceived as stupid. (I do not know if Bush is, in fact, stupid, just that he was often perceived that way. ) Obama is perceived as intelligent. So if he is behaving foolishly, we are left with two alternatives: (1) ulterior motives, or (2) insanity. Advocates of the first hypothesis suggest that his agenda calls for destroying capitalism and the capitalist ethic (i.e., self-interest) in the name of Marxism and collectivism. Socialists often elevate their warped moral ideals over practical reality. If ulterior motives are at work here, Obama's tenure as president will prove to be devoted to dismantling the American way of life. My hypothesis is somewhat more charitable.

So let me just say that I am genuinely concerned about our President. Anybody know a good psychiatrist?