I am convinced that Robert Levy was a very effective attorney. In three recent contexts — a joint presentation we made to a political science class at Sandhills Community College, his ­comments on President Obama’s first year in office and his Jan. 31 column in The Pilot — he has consistently railed against the socialistic policies of the current administration and Congress that, in his view, represent a government takeover of our economy and key industries.

It’s as though if he keeps saying it enough, it will be accepted as truth. However, to paraphrase Obama, there is a big gap between this rhetoric and reality.

Wikipedia defines socialism as ­“public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.” Anyone with some understanding of business and economics knows there is a big difference between investing and direct ownership and administration.

The actions taken by the Obama administration regarding the financial and automotive industry sectors are more akin to an investor providing bridge funding to assist a struggling business overcome temporary financial difficulties and/or make investments needed to ensure future success. It is clear that the administration prefers that these “loans” be repaid versus being a springboard to ownership and control of the means of production.

Regarding health care, Levy presents a four-point plan, two of which are tort reform. I agree with the need for tort reform, but there is little evidence that it will significantly reduce health-care costs (estimates range from 1 percent to 10 percent). Coverage for pre-existing conditions is agreed to by all parties.

His last point, interstate sale of ­insurance, is interesting but does not address the fundamental causes of high insurance costs: the number of uninsured who access health care through emergency rooms and the weak leverage of small pools of insureds.

Brian Deaton

Pinehurst

Editor’s Note: The writer is a former chairman of the Moore County Democratic Party.