Good Government: a Hit or a Myth?

Sunday is my day to knock back in the recline-o-matic, sip on a glass of sun tea, and lazily browse the local gazette. All was tranquil until I sipped and reclined my way to an editorial page offering by Neal Gabler (Senior Fellow at the Norman Lear Center at USC) entitled "Mr. Businessman goes to Washington."

That's when I nearly inhaled an ice cube.

There are two great myths about government, asserts the Senior Fellow. Myth one: government is inefficient, bloated and wasteful. Myth two: politicians are more interested in serving themselves than serving the good of the nation.

If these are myths, Hagar the Horrible must be a real live Viking knocked back in a recline-o-matic somewhere reading me.

"Government can be tremendously efficient," he further alleges, and as proof invites us to "consider Medicare."

That's when I snorted sun tea through my nostrils.

Big government, it seems, is a big hit with Neal Gabler. "Alas," he frets from his tea-stained presence in my Sunday paper, "if you subject these myths to even the slightest scrutiny, you realize that neither of them is true."

After wiping my nose and blotting the newsprint with the sleeve of my robe, I decided to accept Mr. Gabler's offer. First, I subjected his claims about Medicare's tremendous efficiency to my slightest scrutiny. Specifically, I slightly scrutinized an essay by Robert Moffit of The Heritage Foundation. The upshot of his commentary is this: when Hagar's Aunt IngibjÖrg qualifies for Medicare she may not qualify for a doctor. That's because ever more doctors are tossing in their sanitary paper towels, refusing to accept new Medicare patients.

Why? Here are some reasons cataloged by Moffit: Medicare's complex pricing system, the need to spend an hour on Medicare paperwork for every four hours of patient care, practically incomprehensible regulations, "a system of central planning and price regulation in which bureaucrats control nearly all aspects of the financing and delivery of medical services," and "mountains of red tape, sluggish and inappropriate payments for services provided, fears of retaliation for even accidental book-keeping mistakes."

Either nobody informed doctors that "government can be tremendously efficient" or Senior Fellow Gabler has never been a doctor with Medicare patients.

But there must be some big government programs that are big hits, right? Not according to a news release from the Libertarian Party, which invites our slightest scrutiny of the following: the Education Department has spent $550 billion since 1980 but student ACT and SAT scores are still lower than in 1970; the Department of Energy was created in 1977 to stabilize prices and promote energy independence from those blankety-blank A-rabs, yet neither has happened; and (shades of Medicare) VA hospitals are so bad that 90 percent of eligible veterans choose private health care instead.

Having refilled my tumbler with tea and ice cubes, I trained my slightest scrutinizing upon the second myth, that our elected ones are more selfish than selfless.

The problem here was trying to whittle down the examples. Like the rampant pork barrel splurging by politicos of both big government parties. Like congressmen repudiating their self-imposed term limit pledges to run yet again for office. As it turns out, this second "myth" is neatly summed up in a single issue, one that the nation's incumbents baptized "Campaign Finance Reform" but which detractors have universally anointed (metaphorically, not with sun tea) "The Incumbent Protection Act."

John Samples of the Cato Institute, the prestigious libertarian think tank, observed (without snorting sun tea through his nostrils) that the champions of campaign finance reform "hit an anti-democratic triple: they made future elections even less competitive, weakened political parties, and ran roughshod over our constitutionally protected freedom of speech."

Eric O'Keefe and Aaron Steelman sum up the ultimate effects of campaign finance reform in Cato Policy Analysis No. 279 thusly: "Congressional leaders have proven themselves adept at pursuing reforms that stifle electoral competition and perpetuate their own rule. Is it, then, a bit naive to expect them to repeal those measures and open up the political system? Yes. The current system serves them well. They have what most rulers only dream of -- immense power with nearly complete protection from competition and accountability."

So now we've created a new paradigm: a myth that isn't a myth is a Neal Gabler myth.

My tranquil Sunday afternoon having been irreparably soured, I've decided to confine future cursory scrutinies to the funny pages. Hagar the Horrible is a myth I can really get into.