Obama on the Role of Government

Ezra Klein quotes Obama as follows:

When I meet with Obama in his office, it becomes clear that his study of foreign policy has only deepened his belief in the potential of American power. "In Africa, you often see that the difference between a village where everybody eats and a village where people starve is government," he tells me. "One has a functioning government, and the other does not. Which is why it bothers me when I hear Grover Norquist or someone say that government is the enemy. They don't understand the fundamental role that government plays."

I'm not sure the issue is quote so simple. In Zimbabwe, for example, there's a "functioning government" that is starving its people through its policies.

It's not surprising to hear Obama slam Norquist. That can only help with liberals. But I hope he can at least appreciate that government is not always the answer.

The Problem of "Big" Government

As summarized by Ethan Leib at Prawfsblawg:

Gar Alperovitz had a very provocative and thoughtful op-ed in yesterday's NYT. The central point was that this country is getting too big for centralized government and that it should come as no surprise that big states and regions are getting bolder in efforts at self-governance. California and its ambitions to address health care, trade, and global warming issues might be seen as exemplary.

I've had similar thoughts, but never tried to flesh them out. Makes sense instinctively, though.

George Will on the Minimum Wage

George Will has this to say about the minimum wage:

"But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly."

Well said, I think, on the minimum wage. But I wonder why George seems to accept delivering the mail as a government task? It seems to me that this is also something Washington does poorly.

A Gallon of Overpriced Milk, Please

The Washington Post has an excellent piece on an Arizona milk producer treated unfairly by the federal government's regulatory regime for milk. Briefly, he was initally able to avoid the regime entirely by bottling milk from his own cows, thus allowing him to sell much more cheaply than his competitors who participated in the regime. Not surprisingly, his competitors didn't like this, and eventually succeeded in lobbying Congress to enact legislation forcing him to be part of the regime. It's a great illustration of how government can be used work on behalf of the powerful against the weak: Big producers win, while smaller producers and consumers lose.

He has has now brought suit to have the legislation declared unconstitutional as a bill of attainder. More background here and here.

The NY Trans Fat Ban

Plenty of criticism has already been made regarding the ban on trans fat just passed by New York city. Should the government really be micromanaging people's lives in this way? Are the alternatives that will be used any healthier? But an additional concern just struck me. Reading the NY Times piece on the ban, I came across this sentence:

New York’s Board of Health, made up mostly of physicians and health professionals appointed by the mayor, can adopt regulations without approval by any other agency.

Really? A group of unelected public officals can establish these regulations entirely on their own? Maybe there's something more to the process than I'm aware of, but if the Times' description is accurate, that seems like a bad way to make laws.