I think the analogy is perfectly valid. Regardless of the goals of a policy, its implementation via bureaucracy can still be so hopelessly complicated that it's

I think the analogy is perfectly valid. Regardless of the goals of a policy, its implementation via bureaucracy can still be so hopelessly complicated that it's a net drain on society. It reminds me of a quote I once heard, possibly by Ron Paul (though I am not sure), that went along the lines of "Politicians mention 'tax reform' all the time. But unless they're talking about simplifying the tax code, they're not talking about tax reform." The DHS and Obamacare both tacked on additional rules to an already overcomplicated and opaque set of systems, rather than streamline the underlying systems and their interactions. Our political process makes adding bureaucratic complexity easier than removing it. For under-regulated areas (like anti-trust laws in the early 20th century), this can solve problems. But otherwise it's more likely to make the underlying problems worse.