NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- President Obama has a peculiar approach to public policy. Listen to what the radical left wants, or political expediency requires, and then make up the facts, twist economics and rewrite the law to suit.
Here are four examples.
Must Read: 8 Stocks George Soros Is Buying in 2014
When the president shaped the Affordable Care Act, the country needed to provide health care coverage for millions of uninsured and bring down costs, which are 50% higher than they are in Europe.
Economics tells us achieving those goals -- dramatically increasing demand by extending coverage and lowering costs -- conflict, unless the supply side is dramatically altered by radically changing delivery systems and how prices are set.
The Germans, Dutch and others with insurance-based payment systems have taken such radical approaches to drug and medical appliance pricing, while still rewarding innovation, but the ACA does not.
A principal architect of the law, economist Jonathan Gruber, has admitted the ACA paid scant attention to cost controls, even as the administration touted it would indeed lower costs. And the White House recruited the Congressional Budget Office to put over the ruse.
Now Medicare's actuaries project the nation's total health care costs will rocket the balance of this decade -- witness the big insurance premium increases for 2015.
- Minimum Wages
Obama wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, but the CBO -- whose words Democrats admonished were sacrosanct during the health care debate -- has concluded that would kill about 500,000 jobs.
White House and liberal think tanks have countered raising the wages of hamburger flippers would miraculously increase demand for their services and gross domestic product, because those who remain employed would have more money to spend forget that Americans would pay more for fast food and have less to spend on everything else.
McDonald's (MCD) would invest in computers to replace order takers and cashiers to sustain some of the value of those displaced, but more folks would bring lunch from home, shrinking the fast-food industry and GDP
Cutting 500,000 people from the workforce, even with more machines, must reduce goods and services produced and slow future jobs creation.