Closing statements are posted at the Economist debate, “This house believes that Barack Obama is failing.” Currently, Obama leads in the voting by a bit less than the margin by which American voters oppose his health care plan. But there’s still time for a rally! So vote now.

I conclude my closing statement this way:

Has Mr Obama failed? Of course it’s too early to say that. But is he headed that way? Let’s go to the tape: His policies are bad for the country; they expand government, reduce freedom and slow the economic recovery. The policies that he cannot implement by executive order have become bogged down in Congress as public opposition mounts. Since he was elected, his party has lost three elections for governor and senator. Public opinion has shifted so sharply against him that last week pundits began speculating that the Republican Party might take back the Senate. Mere months after an outpouring of articles hailing the end of Reaganism and the return of activist government, he has caused the resurgence of small-government attitudes. He aspired to be a transformational president who would “remake this nation”. He may well be doing so in two ways: giving us a substantially larger government, and simultaneously reviving free-market, limited-government ideology among a broader public.

That doesn’t sound like success.

Since I wrote the statement, a few more items relating to Obama’s political decline: The Marist poll now finds that 57 percent of independents disapprove of his performance, sharply down even from December and a sign of his continuing decline among swing voters. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows voters trust Obama over congressional Republicans by 47 to 42 percent. Not so bad. Better to be five points ahead than five points behind the opposition. But as Byron York notes, “In November, in the same poll, Obama led by 15 points. Last July, he led by 23 points. And last February, he his lead was 55 points. So in the course of a single year, Obama’s lead over Republicans has shrunk from 55 points to five.

Vote here. Vote now. (Click on “Vote now or add your view,” and a voting box should appear. You’ll have to register, though.)

Students: Apply now for 11 weeklong, interdisciplinary seminars on liberty in its various aspects, hosted by the Institute for Humane Studies at locations around the country.

And don’t forget: Students and everyone else are invited to Cato University in beautiful Rancho Bernardo, California, the last week of July.

Learn about liberty! Enjoy beautiful weather! Meet your favorite libertarian thinkers! Make lifelong friends! And all for the low low price of — well, the IHS seminars are free. There’s a charge for Cato University, and some student scholarships are available.

I’ve blogged previously about the tempest that Ezra Klein stirred up in the teapot of the health care debate when he suggested that Sen. Joe Lieberman “seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people” by holding up ObamaCare.

In the latest issue of The Atlantic magazine, Megan McArdle notes that the economic literature doesn’t quite support Klein’s assumption that covering the uninsured would save lives:

Quite possibly, lack of health insurance has no more impact on your health than lack of flood insurance…

Government insurance should have some effect, but if that effect is not large enough to be unequivocally evident in the data we have, it must be small…

[W]e should have had a better handle on the case for expanded coverage—and, more important, the evidence behind it—before we embarked on a year-long debate that divided our house against itself. Certainly, we should have had it before Congress voted on the largest entitlement expansion in 40 years. Unfortunately, most of us forgot to ask a fundamental question, because we were certain we already knew the answer.

Read the whole thing.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder recently convened a “National Summit on Health Care Fraud.” The two-hour event can be viewed at C‑SPAN’s website.

There was a lot of talk about protecting taxpayers, and it was clear that HHS is putting a great amount of resources into the problem. The federal lawyers and accountants speaking at the event who are tasked with rooting out abuse seem to be a very dedicated and intelligent group. But this is one of the sad things about complex big government programs—they need intelligent people to administrate them, and that saps the private economy of intellectual resources.

HHS Secretary Sebelius mentioned that funding for anti-fraud measures would go up 80 percent under the president’s new budget. HHS intends to spend money on technology that would do a better job of sifting through the data to detect potential fraud and abuse. But that’s the Catch 22: more taxpayer money has to be spent to “save” taxpayer money.

On Thursday, the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell (D‑MI) had a telling exchange with Sebelius. From Nextgov​.com:

“I have wrestled with a number of department agencies over the past [about] their adequacy … to upgrade these matters,” Dingell said. “They’ve had good motivation, noble intentions, but the implementation was also lacking, causing substantial waste and confusion.”

When he asked Sebelius whether the $110 million would be a one-time investment, she said, “This is a multiyear strategy to actually build a 21st century information and data system.”

“Should we anticipate that you will be coming back up here to continue to move toward adequate resources to sustain this project over the years?” Dingell asked.

Sebelius said she would see the project through and later added the department has a new information officer, who is not directly connected to CMS, who is assisting with project supervision. She assured Dingell that HHS would provide proper oversight of vendors and federal employees working on the project.

Dingell’s candor is refreshing, and it serves as a reminder that government officials always promise to “fix” problems if they just get new technology and more money. Instead, the “fix” often ends up getting bogged down in bureaucracy and cost overruns due to poor oversight of contractors.

The fundamental problem with giant government healthcare programs is simple: when you have a giant pot of honey, you attract ants. And when that honey is guarded by someone who didn’t pay for the honey, there’s little incentive for that person to guard it as it were their own.

This difference in incentives was evident when the CEO of a private insurer spoke at the summit. The CEO, James Roosevelt of Tufts Health Plan, pointed out that the chief priority for Medicare/​Medicaid is to pay claims as quickly as possible. Public programs lack the capabilities of their private sector counterparts to not only stop improper payments from being made, but also detecting such payments after the fact. Moreover, private insurers aren’t encumbered by the massive bureaucracy and congressional meddling that inhibits the government’s ability to adapt and react to ever evolving fraud schemes.

See this essay for more on fraud and abuse in government programs. See here for recent examples of fraud and abuse in government healthcare programs.

Today, the Cato Institute released “Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy,” by George Avery of Purdue University.

Avery points to a troubling provision of the Senate-passed health care bill that Democrats are trying to get through the House:

In a section creating a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to conduct comparative-effectiveness research, the bill allows the withholding of funding to any institution where a researcher publishes findings not “within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence,” a vague authorization that creates a tremendous tool that can be used to ensure self-censorship and conformity with bureaucratic preferences.…As AcademyHealth notes, “Such language to restrict scientific freedom is unprecedented and likely unconstitutional.”

He warns that government bureaucrats aren’t likely to let that power go unused.

In July 2007, AcademyHealth, a professional association of health services and health policy researchers, published results of a study of sponsor restrictions on the publication of research results. Surprisingly, the results revealed that more than three times as many researchers had experienced problems with government funders related to prior review, editing, approval, and dissemination of research results. In addition, a higher percentage of respondents had turned down government sponsorship opportunities due to restrictions than had done the same with industrial funding. Much of the problem was linked to an “increasing government custom and culture of controlling the flow of even non-classified information.”

Avery observes that such power enables bureaucrats to engage in “data manipulation to cover inconvenient findings,” much as the scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia appear to have done. Indeed, he points to evidence of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials suppressing an, ahem, inconvenient internal debate.

Somehow I was reminded of this cartoon today.

I previously blogged about the NRA’s misbegotten motion, which the Supreme Court granted, to carve 10 minutes of oral argument time away from the petitioners in McDonald v. Chicago. Essentially, there was no discernable reason for the motion other than to ensure that the NRA could claim some credit for the eventual victory, and thus boost its fundraising.

Well, having argued that petitioners’ counsel Alan Gura insufficiently covered the argument that the Second Amendment should be “incorporated” against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the NRA has now filed a brief that fails even to reference the four biggest cases regarding incorporation and substantive due process. That is, the NRA reply brief contains no mention of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), Benton v. Maryland (1969), Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), or Palko v. Connecticut (1937). (The NRA did cite those cases in its opening brief.) What is more, it also lacks a discussion of Judge O’Scannlain’s magisterial Ninth Circuit opinion in Nordyke v. King (2009), which the Supreme Court might as well cut and paste regardless of which constitutional provision it uses to extend the right to keep and bear arms to the states!

I should add that the petitioners’ reply brief does cite all of those aforementioned cases (as well as the “Keeping Pandora’s Box Sealed” law review article I co-authored with Josh Blackman). I leave it to the reader to determine whether it is Alan Gura or the NRA who is better positioned to argue substantive due process — or any other part of the McDonald case.

For more on the rift between the McDonald petitioners and the NRA, see this story in today’s Washington Post (in which I’m quoted, full disclosure, after a lengthy interview I gave the reporter last week).

(Full disclosure again: Alan Gura is a friend of mine and of Cato, and I suppose I should also say that I’ve participated in NRA-sponsored events in the past.)