Arlington’s proposed ’08 budget includes the creation of a new position in the personnel department who will do nothing but handle health insurance requests (I think the town will save money with this hire – more on this in my next FinCom post.) Why? Because of Medicare Part D and the complexity it creates. Too many calls, too many questions, too many office visits. It’s $40,000 in salary, call it another $75,000 in benefits. Did the writers and approvers of Medicare Part D intend for Arlington to have to hire a new employee? Of course not.

The Netherlands fell in love with palm oil because they believed it was a renewable energy source. But years after implementing government subsidies to run everything from trucks to power plants on palm oil, they’ve come to realize that the farmers of palm oil were driving the generation of even more greenhouse gasses. Did the writers and approvers of the palm oil subsidies intend to contribute to the deforestation of Malaysia and the draining and burning of peat bogs? Of course not.

When I’m discussing my political views with people, I sometimes stumble when trying to explain why I’m skeptical of government’s ability to implement change. The person I’m talking to says something like “A is bad, so the government should do B and that will result in C.” It’s an argument that seems reasonable, but assumes so much. It’s persuasive and hard to poke a hole in. But I still distrust it.

Now, go back in time, and you can hear these two statements:

“The cost of prescription drugs is too high, so the government should implement a prescription drug plan and that will result in lower costs to seniors.”

“Global warming is a threat to our country, so the government should subsidize renewable energy sources like palm oil and that will reduce the threat of global warming.”

Do you see the point I’m making? Government involvement is seductive, but it can be so destructive. The consequences are not always the intended ones.