Early on in the Clinton Administration, my friend’s father found himself on a Washington/Providence shuttle with Ira Magaziner, architect of Hillary’s failed government health care push. In flight, Magaziner was reading the plan put together by the health care task force. He opened to the first page and saw text, but there was nothing on the second page, text on the third page, but nothing on the fourth, and so on. Frustrated, Magaziner shoved it back into his valise with a shake of his head.
“They wanted to run the health care system, but couldn’t even get the plan to do it printed properly,” my friend’s father later remarked.
Sixteen years on and little has changed–except, of course, for the cost. According to Reuters, the stimulus spent $246,436 for every job it created. Health care insurance providers are sharply increasing premiums, and credit is more expensive and less prevalent for the average consumer. In other words, every major initiative’s outcome (thus far) has been the opposite of what was intended. Or has it?
The recession of 1981 and 1982 was close to what we’re experiencing now (not quite as bad, but close). We came out of it relatively quickly and entered the longest period of economic growth in the nation’s history. So if we really want recovery, why not mimic the policies of the past? Our salty White House chief of staff let it slip, “You never let a crisis go to waste.” It’s not about recovery, it’s about proving the superiority of Lord Keynes over that of Friedman. The consequences are perfectly intended. They want a “fairer” system through more centralized control, and they’ll sacrifice the country’s economy, and its competitive edge, in order to achieve it.