Results as the Opposite of Intentions

So the recent studies show that an increase in the minimum wage results in the rise in unemployment of minimum wage workers. Subsidizing the mortgages of homeowners results in the rise of bankruptcies and loss of homes. Attempts to pacify countries result in an increase in armed resistance. Programs that underwrite food expenses for hungry children results in an increase in the number of hungry children. The federal support of ethanol as a petroleum fuel substitute results in an increase in petroleum use. Taxes to stimulate jobs growth cause a decrease in gross domestic product. And how's the war on drugs going? Is it doing as well as the war on poverty?

Anybody see a pattern here? Is it true that our interference stimulates the problem we are trying to fix? Or are we seeing the bad administration of a good plan? Either way, it's a heck of a lot worse than Heisenberg interference which, at least, is neutral.

The debate over the proper role of government will never end. A new approach might be: What can government do right? One of the axioms of government seems to be that a program will never go away once started regardless of its effectiveness or success. How about the creation of a bureau that does nothing but analyze the effectiveness of governmental programs. Then we can analyse the role of government in the framework of its capabilities.

Probably wouldn't work.