Space

The Obama administration has had few significant successes during its eight years in power, but there is one success that is worthy of note. Obama eased the way for private enterprise to take the lead in our efforts in space, allowing companies like Space-X to take over some of the heretofore major responsibilities of the government bureaucracy that we have long known as NASA. The result was faster technology innovation, much reduced expenditures, and the driving force that capitalists call competition. It's all for the good.

As Glen Reynolds writes in USA Today:

The good news is that, as I’ve noted before, space — at least the burgeoning commercial space industry — has been one of the Obama Administration’s notable policy successes. Where not long ago the United States was looking at an aging fleet of increasingly dangerous space shuttles, we now have a flourishing collection of private companies providing transportation into earth orbit, from SpaceX, to Blue Origin, to Virgin Galactic, to a number of smaller companies ...

The good news is that, as I’ve noted before, space — at least the burgeoning commercial space industry — has been one of the Obama Administration’s notable policy successes. Where not long ago the United States was looking at an aging fleet of increasingly dangerous space shuttles, we now have a flourishing collection of private companies providing transportation into earth orbit, from SpaceX, to Blue Origin, to Virgin Galactic, to a number of smaller companies.

The Trump administration should learn from this. It should continue and expand private sector involvement and competition in Space. allowing a downsized NASA to be an administrator, rather than an developer.

But far more important, Trump should expand private sector involvement into many other government domains—infrastructure development in which development and construction costs are borne by private companies, who then get an attractive return on investment via per-use payments for use of new roads, bridges, airports and ports. But that's not all. It might be possible to do everything from tax collection to food stamps using out-of-the-box private enterprise solutions. If customer service and the resulting profit were motivating factors for private sector players, fraud and abuse would drop dramatically, services would likely improve because of competition, the government work force would be reduced (via attrition or more aggressive reductions), and demands on taxpayers would be reduced. And instead of focusing on flower deliveries or Uber 3.0 functions, the dot.com geniuses around the country who keep claiming that they want to "change the world" might focus their skills and innovative thinking for government services. If they are allowed to unleash their development powers, good things just might begin to happen. After all, the current Big Intrusive Government approach is a mess. What have we—the taxpayers—got to lose?