Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was on NPR’s “All Things Considered” Tuesday, interviewed on the topic of the student loan nationalization program that President Obama signed into law earlier that day (as part of the health care reconciliation). In the interview, Duncan elevates government service over private sector employment, a world view that seems to be spreading with serious, negative implications for U.S. innovation and prosperity. From the transcript:

NORRIS: For students who already have guaranteed student loans, the changes will place in 2014, and at that point, students can cap their payments at a rate that’s equal to 10 percent of their discretionary income. That’s slightly lower than the cap right now. How do you prevent banks from trying to use that gap between now and when this new law will take effect to try to maximize their profits?

Sec. DUNCAN: Yeah, I don’t think they can do that, and what this really means, let me take a minute to explain to listeners that historically, there is always phenomenal talent, folks who graduated from college who wanted to go into the public sector, but because they had $60, $80, $100,000 worth of loans, they simply couldn’t follow their heart, couldn’t follow their passion. And so we lost a huge amount of that talent.

Now, across the board, loan repayments will be indexed to 10 percent of income. So it helps remove that barrier. But the thing I’m most excited about this: If you choose to go into the public sector, if you choose to become a teacher obviously I’m very biased there or work for the government or run a legal clinic in an impoverished community or help run a health care clinic if you’re coming out of law school or medical school, after 10 years, any debt you have, any remaining debt, will be absolutely forgiven, will be erased.

So this is a monumental breakthrough. It’s a huge chance for this next generation of, you know, hardworking, committed folks to come into public sector, come into education and make a difference and not have to take other jobs just because they pay more money.

Yes, very biased. It’s a strange idea — familiar in D.C., granted — that the nation is better served by encouraging college students to become government employees than enter the private sector.

In conceptually related news, The Washington Examiner reported Tuesday, “Good times for government workers as pay outpaces private sector.”

USA TODAY reported earlier in the month, “Federal pay ahead of private industry”

New York Times columnist David Brooks, consistently friendly toward the Obama Administration and health care legislation, is as furious as we’ve seen him. From his discussion with Gail Collins, “Is Passing the Health Care Bill Really a Bad Idea?”

Deem and pass? Are you kidding me? Is this what the Revolutionary War was fought for? Is this what the boys on Normandy beach were trying to defend? Is this where we thought we would end up when Obama was speaking so beautifully in Iowa or promising to put away childish things?

Yes, I know Republicans have used the deem and pass technique. It was terrible then. But those were smallish items. This is the largest piece of legislation in a generation and Pelosi wants to pass it without a vote. It’s unbelievable that people even talk about this with a straight face. Do they really think the American people are going to stand for this? Do they think it will really fool anybody if a Democratic House member goes back to his district and says, “I didn’t vote for the bill. I just voted for the amendments.” Do they think all of America is insane?

Investor’s Business Daily editorial, “Health Care Fraud“:

Health Reform: What did it take for Congress to schedule a vote on its awful health care reform package? Not much, just a phony low-ball “score” on what the plan would cost from the Congressional Budget Office.

By presenting the CBO with incomplete, inaccurate and misleading data, the Democrats in Congress were finally able to come up with a cost score they like: $940 billion.

Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, writing at Critical Condition, National Review Online’s health care blog, “A Shell Game of Tax Increases and Medicare Cuts“:

The revisions to the Senate health-overhaul bill released today would require future Congresses to increase taxes and cut Medicare even more deeply than required by the Senate bill if the advertised deficit reduction numbers are to be achieved.

That was the conclusion of four budget experts who talked with journalists on a conference call this afternoon sponsored by the Galen Institute.

“The numbers simply aren’t plausible,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and president of the American Action Forum, during the call.

The CBO estimates that the latest version of health-reform legislation released today would reduce the deficit by about $130 billion over the next ten years. “Even at face value, that is a very small net deficit reduction that amounts to only a few weeks of federal spending at current rates,” Holtz-Eakin said.