By Daniel Greenfield

With great fanfare, Michelle Obama kicked off a national anti-obesity campaign, which if it goes half as well as her toxic vegetable garden, will be forgotten in a week or two. But the problem is that we do need an anti-obesity campaign, just not against people who enjoy an extra hamburger during lunch, but against the politicians in Washington D.C. who have shown no ability to control the rate at which they consume public funds.

Anyone who tripled their weight within one year, would probably be a target of Michelle Obama's finger wagging-- but what about her hubby, who tripled the national deficit in only one year? Someone who eats more than average is only consuming his own food, by contrast Barry Hussein has thrown a party for himself and all his backers, and they've gorged themselves like mad on the United States Treasury.

Obama's new budget has over 46 trillion dollars in spending over the next decade. And we're not done yet. Meanwhile Obama's phony promise of a spending freeze would apply to less than 13 percent, is the equivalent of a diet that cuts out the candy bars, while bulking up on everything else in a five course meal. Moody’s Investors Service is warning that US Treasury Bonds may no longer be AAA rated unless the deficit gets cut. Which will inhibit Washington D.C.'s ability to borrow more money to fund their spending spree.

For all the talk about the dangers of obesity, even the heaviest person is only eating the food that he himself pays for. By contrast the Federal Government is rapidly consuming our "food". As the size of the government increases, so does its spending, and as its spending grows, the productive sector of the economy is consumed in order to fund the growing size of government. Just as a parasite eventually consumes its host, Obama and the Democrats have shown how radical government spending can consume the American economy, through the visible burden of taxation and the invisible burdens of debt.

With the bank and auto company bailouts, with union entanglements and entire new government divisions and positions; the Year of Obama has shown us a vision of a much vaster and all-encompassing government. One that will sink so far into debt as to turn Americans into a sharecropper society, working to pay off government debt. A government debt that requires such high taxation that it squashes any possibility of economic recovery by burdening small businesses and larger companies with its debt.

Since the size of potential Federal spending is virtually unlimited, the size of the debt is only limited to the willingness of China to hold our debt. Because of the inefficiency of Federal spending, which multiplies with each level of complexity, the expansion of the size of the government also automatically increases the inefficiency of its spending, which multiplies expenditures further. The expanding size of government then does not simply cost more money because of its own expenses, but because the expansion itself makes government run less efficiently, and increases the size of existing expenditures.

If we are to go back to Michelle Obama's obesity metaphor, the Federal government is not just gorging itself, because each ton that it adds is actually like adding two tons or three tons. Because the inefficiency turns it into its own multiplier. And by turning unions and companies into another arm of the government infrastructure, the multiplier effect kicks in on the added layers of complexity as well. And what you wind up with is a multilayered system in which one arm of the government bounces money to organizations that redistribute the money, then collect it back again, and pass it along.

Government then becomes a Vertical Monopoly. Nationalized Health Care was an attempt to create a Vertical Cartel in which the government and the various affiliates of the left would control the supply of health care services in America. But this has already happened in other areas. Vertical integration in which the Federal government, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and various interests and banks connected to left wing financiers such as Soros, including Countrywide Mortgage, played a key role in the economic downturn and the mortgage bubble. Their goal was to provide cheap housing for their constituents with government backing, while their debt was rolled in to provide Wall Street profits that would in turn be rolled back into many of the same left wing groups agitating for "Housing Justice".

The entire thing fell apart very conveniently in time to help Obama into the White House. But all that mess was only a minor harbinger of what's to come. Look at the economic chaos in the European Union, where most of the budget simply vanishes without any available explanation, and you can see what kind of bureaucratic nightmare is being modeled by Obama's people.

Here's a small taste. The EU budget is essentially meant to take money from member governments and then redistribute the money back. It has gone from 4 billion in 1970 to over a 140 billion today. Yet the majority of the EU budget cannot be accounted for. For a decade and a half, the European Court of Auditors, whose role is to audit the EU, has refused to sign off on the EU budget. This is the model that many Democrats would have us embrace.

Obama's first year was meant to implement the vertical integration of government and the Democratic party's unions and business backers into a monopoly on many services and forms of employment. What that would do in practice is centralize everything from medical care to many forms of employment, that would require mandatory union membership, and various industries, through bailouts, and cap and trade, into a government-union-corporate complex run out of the White House.

While he has suffered some setbacks in that regard, the outrageous amounts of money he spent were not simply about corruption and greed, but about power. The reconstruction of America was and is part of a grand plan to create a tightly managed society, in which seemingly civilian non-profits, unions, corporations and government agencies would combine to create one vast infrastructure harnessing the public for its revenues and maintaining total political control over the country.

And that is why Washington D.C. needs to be put on a diet. Not simply because its wasteful spending risks destroying the American economy. Not simply because if the government continues its free spending ways, free enterprise in America will be doomed. But because the money is not simply being spent, it's being redistributed in a larger scheme aimed at overseeing the transformation of America. The FDR analogies that Obama's media friends were so fond of, were an illustration of his larger aims. To use an economic crisis to enforce a new hegemony over America.

Now just like Lenin's New Economic Policy, which relied on taking two steps backward and one step forward, Obama is prepared to do his own two steps back and one step forward. So long as his ultimate aims proceed on schedule. The same essential faith in a centrally planned economy, and the belief that those who worked to implement it should reap the spoils, that we saw at work in the USSR and in Latin American Marxist dictatorships, is at work here behind the scenes.

We have a government of people who have never worked for a living, except as agitators and lawyers, lecturing Americans on eating too much-- even as they're gorging themselves on America's productivity, jobs and future. Now it's time to put them on a diet.

SOURCE: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/02/put-washington-dc-on-diet.h...

Views: 8


You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Nathan on February 20, 2010 at 8:20am
This is a great place to start: shadowstats.com
[ I'll look through my files, somewhere I have one dealing specifically with the supposed balanced budget/budget surplus.]
There is alot of info to be found at shadowstats and is worth spending some time searching through their site.
Comment by Bill Thomas on February 20, 2010 at 7:08am
I use the NG/BC balanced budget as an example of how Bi-partisanship can work for the good of the country. Talk to me about the accounting trick so I can be better informed. Thanks.
Comment by Nathan on February 19, 2010 at 9:08pm
I did not write this piece, I only posted it. It would be impossible for me to over-rate someone who has accomplished nothing that could be rated.
I do agree with you wholeheartedly regarding Dems. & Repubs. but disagree with your assertion that the budget was balanced ala BC and NG. That was an accounting trick.

All my best to you and yours,
Comment by Bill Thomas on February 19, 2010 at 11:36am
The problem we have is no one delivers. Be it Democrate or Republican.

Ronald Regan ran on a fiscally conservative platform yet the budget balloned under his leadership. George Bush the first raised taxes and had huge deficits by the standards of the day . The budget under George Bush Two was out of control with record deficits. Tax cuts are great (I've enjoyed mine) but without offsetting budget cuts the debt goes up.

Its time we started electing folks whether Democrate or Republican that can balance the budget.

The only time in my life time that the budget was balanced was in the late 1990's when Bill Clinton jumped on the Newt Gingrich Contract with America band wagon and the budget was balanced.

By the way, you are over rating OBAMA and his policies. He give a moving speech but that is about all. He's been very ineffective except in Bush carry over areas: Fully funding the Bush Bailouts and the surge in Afganistan. I'm not aware of any significant legislation that has passed both houses under his watch.

Tea Party Nation is a social network

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service