Posted by
Laura L. Hollis, JD on Monday, August 17, 2009 9:22:28 AM
Ok, here's a lovely coincidence. If you read my column today, you will note that I said this:
The only thing tempering insatiable human demand is the fact that the person providing the wanted item expects something of value in exchange – usually money. As much as liberals love to denounce the profit motive, it is precisely the insistence upon an exchange of value that keeps what would otherwise be limitless human demand in check.
Government purports to be “above” mere money-grubbing profit motives, and people assume this is an improvement. But it is actually the problem ... Without the checks and balances inherent in the “my-wants-versus-your-profit-motive” dynamic, demand will skyrocket, supplies will shrink, and shortages will occur. Why must supplies shrink? Because the government cannot command doctors to work more than 24 hours in a day. It cannot command that complex surgeries take less time. It cannot command the chemical reactions in pharmaceutical manufacturing to occur faster. All it can do is ration what there is.
And here's an excerpt from Deroy Murdock's article online at National Review today:
What triggers these cost overruns? The Joint Economic Committee’s report explains that “initial public estimates appear simply to have underestimated the level of demand for the proposed new benefits, perhaps due to insufficient data or a lack of experience administering benefits of that sort.”
Also, government lacks the profit motive, which generally forces private-sector managers to control costs, lest they get fired. Private supervisors also have incentives to boost profits: bonuses, corner offices, stock options, and promotions. In government, carefully stewarding taxpayer dollars might advance one’s career. But because bureaucrats rarely earn bonuses, and there are no stocks to option in public agencies, government workers lack the accountability that pay-for-performance brings. And they rarely get sacked.
Criminy, are they kidding? "Insufficient data?" "A lack of experience administering benefits of that sort?" While some of us shout it from the rooftops?