Libertarian law professor Richard Epstein's latest column is about "an Obama administration whose main agenda tracks Roosevelt's early one: Vilify the rich as unproductive ciphers of society and work toward a progressive tax rate structure; be hostile toward the growth of international trade by denouncing firms that outsource jobs as the enemies of domestic labor; continue to work in favor of extensive agricultural subsidies for ethanol and other farm crops, no matter how great of a disruption these impose on domestic and foreign food markets; and insist upon a rich set of unsustainable healthcare benefits through Medicare and Medicaid."
It's another example of how the criticism of Obama on health care comes from both sides. Professor Epstein's criticism is that Obama is insisting on Medicare benefits that are so extravagant that they are unsustainable. Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is out with an email and Web advertising campaign claiming, "Seniors will be hit with higher costs and fewer benefits because of Obamacare's Medicare cuts." Is Obama's Medicare policy too extravagant, or too stingy? Take your pick.
I link to Professor Epstein's column pretty much every week. I thought this one was particularly edifying, not so much for its view of Obama (though I have no complaint about that part of it) but for its view of FDR.