Pixel Tracker

Friday, March 22 , 2019, 3:38 am | Fair 47º

 
 
 
 

Mona Charen: Obama’s Delusions of Competence

President blames 'politics' for getting in the way of implementing his ideas

“Washington, We Have a Problem,” Vanity Fair magazine proclaims. In an eerie echo of the verdicts passed during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, namely that the presidency was “too big for one man,” Vanity Fair now declares, “The evidence that Washington cannot function — that it’s ‘broken,’ as Vice President Joe Biden has said — is all around.”

Mona Charen
Mona Charen

The Vanity Fair piece is a long apologia for President Barack Obama’s perceived ineffectiveness, and reflects — no surprise here — the Obama interpretation of events.

“The GOP,” Todd Purdum writes, “has spent most of the period since the inauguration in near lockstep refusal to give the president votes for any of his major initiatives, from the economic-stimulus bill to health-care reform.”

This is Obama’s constant plaint — although it rings hollow for someone who took office with comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress.

But in the course of documenting the difficulty of governing, Vanity Fair does make a conservative point. Government is too big. Purdum quotes from just one day’s Federal Register:

“The edition for this ordinary Wednesday comes in at 350 pages of dense, dark type. It is unimaginably varied: You’ll find rules for the importation of Chinese honey; proposed conservation standards for home furnaces; permitting procedures for the experimental use of pesticides; announcements concerning the awarding of new radio and TV licenses; and hundreds of other items.”

Obama himself doesn’t at all concede that government is attempting to do too much (and failing at most of it). On the contrary, his vanity (and it is a common one for left-wingers) is that his particular ideas on business investment, medical procedures, housing and thousands of other matters are the solutions to our woes, but “politics” keeps getting in the way.

We’ve seen Obama’s delusions of expertise on display before. Without any trial period, demonstration project or peer-reviewed study, the federal government dictated that medical records be digitized and extracted $19 billion from taxpayers to fund the transition. The new systems, Obama insisted, would prevent errors, reduce costs and improve patient care.

But as The Wall Street Journal reported, “a 2009 study in the American Journal of Medicine found that hospitals with more advanced electronic systems fared no better than other hospitals on measures of administrative costs. ... Meanwhile, many doctors and nurses say they’re frustrated with the technology. While some say electronic records have improved the way they practice medicine, many others say the systems are time-consuming distractions that take away from patient care.”

Digitized medical records would certainly have evolved with time — just as paper books and newspapers are rapidly losing ground to their electronic competitors. But without government intrusion, the programs would have developed organically, adjusting to user feedback and actual experience — and costing the taxpayers nothing.

At his Sept. 10 news conference, Obama announced another “common sense” idea: We must stop “giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.” A familiar trope from the 2008 campaign, this “idea” is really another tax increase.

Obama’s refrain notwithstanding, there is no section of the U.S. tax code that rewards companies for outsourcing American jobs. American firms pay taxes on their worldwide income. Our corporate tax rate, the highest in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, according to a Cato Institute study, puts our companies at a competitive disadvantage abroad. The tax code accordingly does permit U.S. multinationals to “defer” taxes on income earned abroad that is reinvested abroad. They pay taxes on that income only when they repatriate the earnings to the United States.

But eliminating the “deferral” would simply increase corporate rates still further, undercutting the profitability of American companies with overseas operations. As Cato’s Daniel Griswold explains, “There is no evidence that expanding employment at U.S.-owned affiliates comes at the expense of overall employment by parent companies back home in the United States. In fact, the evidence and experience of U.S. multinational companies points in the opposite direction: Foreign and domestic operations tend to compliment each other and expand together. ... More activity and sales abroad often require the hiring of more managers, accountants, lawyers, engineers and production workers at the parent company.”

Reducing the rate of corporate taxation would make American companies more competitive overseas while also attracting more foreign investment here.

But reducing taxes, like reducing regulation, or permitting the market to shape digital medical records, offends Obama’s preference for top-down decision making. He isn’t deciding, Carter-like, who should use the White House tennis courts, but he is attempting to do pretty much everything else — with similar results.

Mona Charen writes for Creators Syndicate. Click here for more information or to contact her.

Support Noozhawk Today!

Our professional journalists work tirelessly to report on local news so you can be more informed and engaged in your community. This quality, local reporting is free for you to read and share, but it's not free to produce.

You count on us to deliver timely, relevant local news, 24/7. Can we count on you to invest in our newsroom and help secure its future?

We provide special member benefits to show how much we appreciate your support.

Email
I would like give...
Great! You're joining as a Red-Tailed Hawk!
  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.