Home The Threat of Government Power
Home The Threat of Government Power

The Threat of Government Power

Time and time again, the liberal defenders of government power have attacked any call for reform as a plot by the wealthy. Even now New York Times editorialists pound their keys about the "Concentration of Wealth", invoking presidents from Andrew Jackson to Theodore Roosevelt. But in our America, the "Concentration of Wealth" is not found in the hands of a few billionaires. It is found in the hands of the government.

The editorialists talk about the income gap and how much wealth is held by the top 1 percent of the country, but they are leaving something out. Their statistics deal with individuals, not institutions. And it is institutions which threaten our liberties, not individuals.

The top 10 wealthiest men and women in America barely have 250 billion dollars between them. That sounds like a lot of money, until you look at annual Federal budgets which run into the trillions of dollars, and the country's national debt which approaches 15 trillion dollars. And that's not taking into account state budgets. Even Rhode Island, the smallest state in the union, with a population of barely a million, has a multi-billion dollar budget.

As the 10th richest man in America, Michael Bloomberg wields a personal fortune of a mere 18 billion dollars, but as the Mayor of the City of New York, he disposes of an annual budget of 63 billion dollars. In a single year, he disposes of three times his own net worth. A sum that would wipe out the net worth of any billionaire in America. That is the difference between the wealth wielded by the 10th wealthiest man in America, and the mayor of a single city. And that is the real concentration of wealth. Not in the hands of individuals, but at every level of government, from the municipal to the state houses to the White House.

While liberal pundits pop on their stovepipe hats, fix their diamond stickpins and cravats, and trade in 19th century rhetoric about the dangers of trusts and monopolies-- the power in 20th century America lies not in the hands of a few industrialists, but with massive monopolistic trust of government, and its network of unions, non-profits, lobbyists and PAC's. The railroads are broken up, offshore drilling is banned, coal mining is in trouble and Ma Bell has a thousand quarreling stepchildren-- now government is the real big business. How big?

The 2008 presidential campaign cost 5.3 billion dollars. Another 1.5 billion for the House and the Senate. And that's not counting another half a billion from the 527's and even shadier fundraising by shadowy political organizations. But that's a small investment when you realize that they were spending billions of dollars to get their hands on trillions of dollars.

Do you know of any company in America where for a mere few billion, you could become the CEO of a company whose shareholders would be forced to sit back and watch for four years while you run up trillion dollar deficits and parcel out billions to your friends? Without going to jail or being marched out in handcuffs. A company that will allow you to indulge yourself, travel anywhere at company expense, live the good life, and only work when you feel like it. That will legally indemnify you against all shareholder lawsuits, while allowing you to dispose not only of their investments, but of their personal property in any way you see fit.  There is only one such company. It's called the United States Government.

It wasn't always this way. There used to be limitations on executive and legislative power. But those limitations are gone along with the top hat and the diamond stickpin. Under an ideological cloak of darkness, politicians act as if they can do anything they want. Public outrage is met with alarmist news stories about the dangers of violence, as if this were the reign of the Bourbon kings,  not a democratic republic whose right of protest is as sacrosanct as its flag and its seal. Instead the republic is dominated by political trusts, party machines, media cartels, public sector unions and a million vermin who have sucked the cow dry and are starting in on its tender meat.

Consider that in 2008, Obama pulled in 20 million from the health care industry. (McCain only 7 million). Afterward, he conspired to pass a law which mandated that every American be forced to buy health insurance from the industry. There is no definite figure for how much money the industry will make from this, but it will be a whole lot more than the mere 20 million they invested in him. During the days of the robber barons, the government never mandated that everyone must buy a product from them. Private companies might have contrived such control over the marketplace, but the IRS was never enlisted to collect their bills for them.

Every New York Times columnist who summons up the ghost of T.R. to mewl about the "concentration of wealth" should hang his head in shame. If Theodore Roosevelt were to come to life and behold such a connivance between the government and the industries it created, at the expense of the people, whether it is HMO's or the mortgage market, is there any real doubt that he would seize his big stick and bust some trusts.

How much money has flowed from the Obama Administration to its friends in the private sector in just the last year alone. And how much of that money was used to secure jobs for its allied unions, money which is then kicked back to liberal politicians running for office. Entire states are going bankrupt because of political trusts formed by politicians and public sector unions which pass money back and forth to each other in the plain sight of God and the American taxpayer.

In response to a suit on the legality of forcing Americans to buy a product from a private company, Judge Gladys Kessler declared that an individual who does not buy a product, falls just as much under the jurisdiction of the the Commerce Clause governing interstate commerce, as one who does buy a product. And can be punished for it. Never mind the powers of the executive and the legislative, the Bill of Rights, the enumerated and the unenumerated-- they have all just been trumped by a clause meant to govern foreign and interstate trade. Forget reading laws into commas, the entire Constitution has just fallen into a single clause that was meant to limit Federal authority to interstate and foreign commerce.

This ruling insures that Obama's 20 million dollars will be paid for with a hundred times that in public money. Judge Kessler, began her career on the National Labor Relations Board, an unconstitutional body created by FDR for the benefit of gangsters and Trotskyists, went on to work for a corrupt Senator who was convicted of taking bribes, and was finally nominated to her current position by Bill Clinton, possibly the nation's most corrupt president. Now the man who is giving him a run for his money, has had a judge rule that people can be punished for not buying a product from some of his biggest donors.

This is not the mere concentration of wealth, but the ruthless concentration of power. The real money isn't coming from that top 1 percent, it's coming from unions, lobbies and companies which use political power to extract public money. And that money goes to the party which is so determined to keep on extracting that money no matter what it takes.

The Tea Party movement brought millions of Americans out into the street, not because they were members of a fraternal organization, a political party or a formal movement. But the advocates of big government have failed to bring out the boots, except as in Wisconsin, when the power and privilege of one of their political trusts is challenged. That is the difference between a reform movement and a counter-reform movement.

The big government left keeps playing the class warfare card, but for all their murmuring, it is not the top 1 percent that robs the middle-class blind and then sends them the bill. Even the worst company in the world isn't as larcenously extortionate as the politicians who spend and kick back, and then raise cry poverty and raise taxes. They shout that we need to raise taxes on the rich, and supposing that we do, where will that money go? Even if we strip that 1 percent of all their wealth and dress them up in barrels, is there anyone who does not believe that those in power will still contrive to spend it all and run up huge deficits anyway.

And still some of the most greediest and most abusive companies, were invariably either created by the government or operate in close partnership with it. HMO's were created by the government. Banks fed off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's subsidized mortgages like vultures. Do we really need to go into insurance companies, defense contractors or Sallie Mae. AT&T is considered one of the worst companies in America, and it's also one of the biggest political donors. Is there a connection there? Only that companies close to the government don't need to worry as much about what the public thinks of them. Hate the airlines? They've both been overregulated and subsidized into incompetence. Airlines have been bailed out and protected from competition too many ways to count, because of the unions riding on their coattails. And those unions are destroying airline after airline, while the non-union airlines prosper.

It's easy enough to go down the list, but why bother. Suffice it to say that American business is looking a lot like Soviet business did, full of companies with contempt for their customers, and an unctuous smile for the government. They know where the money is coming from. And in an era of cut throat price competition, and high labor and regulation costs, it's just easier for them to extract the public's money by going over their heads to the politicians. Don't feel like paying for any of it? As Judge Kessler would tell you, non-participation is the same as participation. It's no longer a free market in which individuals make economic choices, but a collective economy with governments fixing prices and then turning around and taking more of your money to pay back the companies.

Forget the old trusts and the cartoons of moneybags sitting on his gold. The new trusts operate out of Washington D.C. for the benefit of the public. Much like the food markets of Venezuela or the hospitals of Cuba. The money goes back and forth, lobbyists, unions, politicians, consultants, contractors, activists and lunatics huddling together and passing bills that no one has read. And still the defenders of big government treat any calls for reform as a conspiracy of the rich. Yet the two richest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, were holding fundraisers for Obama. And the tenth richest man in America runs one of the biggest bastions of liberalism. And number 14 on the list, George Soros, is the left's sugar daddy.

But this isn't a battle of billionaires. Mere money no longer means what it once did. The billionaire is a dinosaur. The wealthiest men in America can't wait to get rid of their holdings. In the free market, money made you king. But under socialism, money just buys you access and leverage. The leverage to force every man, woman and child to buy your product. The real concentration of wealth is no longer among men, but among institutions. Like electricity passing along copper wire, it jumps among unions, political machines, companies, non-profits and back again. Its function is to provide the motive power for the great beast of government to grind on. And the American taxpayer is left lying flat in the street.  


  1. Anonymous24/2/11

    Superb analysis and I agree with every word. This is going on all over the west too, from South Africa and Zimbabwe to Europe and Great Britain.

    The elite parasites - the politicians, the banks, the industrialists, the unions - have nothing but contempt for the people they leech off.

    The people now exist to serve the elite. It was ever thus though I guess.

    Thanks for the post,

    Proud Brit.

  2. Anonymous24/2/11

    Hi DG,

    Good article. I'd also like to point out that the left always switches their definitions around when it's convenient on this issue, too. For example, when markets are sky high, they'll talk about wealth inequality because the rich own a high percentage of the assets. Then, like in 2008 when the markets plunge, you had the GREATEST DECREASE in the inequality of wealth since the great depression. So, like clockwork, to hide that fact, they move over to income inequality and don't want to talk about wealth inequality any more. They'll switch back and forth depending upon which one looks best for them at the time. If you read articles by them on inequality you see how they've moved from one to the other to justify their case.

    I've got another idea you might like, too, dan. The subject of choice. The left will ask someone on the right if they believe in global warming or whatever the scam of the day is for them. Then, when the person on the right says they don't believe it, the left calls them anti-science. And then when the person on the right says they believe in true science, the left ridicules that by saying that the "consensus" of scientists takes the lefts bogus position. So, here's my point. The left thinks that killing babies by aborting them is a "choice" that every woman has a "right" to. But, when it comes to the scientific edicts of leftard pseudo scientists, we get "NO CHOICE". We must believe what they tell us. No choices here.

    Abortion --choice
    liberal science scams---no choice, must believe

  3. Do you know of any company in America where for a mere few billion, you could become the CEO of a company whose shareholders would be forced to sit back and watch for four years while you run up trillion dollar deficits and parcel out billions to your friends?

    That's the problem in a nutshell. It couldn't be more clear.

  4. Anonymous25/2/11

    The Democrat Party has always been the party of excessive authority and a social order based on compulsory morality and we have been its subjects. Once that morality was racism and slavery, now it socialism, but in the main only the names have changed. Democrats defended slavery. Democrats imposed Jim Crow and miscegenation laws. Democrats decided the price of a coat and prosecuted tailors who knew their own markets. Democrats decided how much wheat should be grown and burned crops of farmers who knew their own fields. Of course Democrats may order who must and must not adopt; how long we should live and when our lives have become devoid of meaning; who we must hire and fire; what products we must buy and what products are forbidden to us. Democrats are better than their subjects; on this their academicts, lawyers and judges agree, and only those voices matter. No Constitution has stood, can stand, or will stand in their way. No Democrat has ever proposed that citizens live their own lives by their own judgments?

  5. Anonymous25/2/11

    Such clever analysis!

  6. Genius, Daniel.

    This is America's (and the world's) problem in a nutshell.

    You should have your own TV channel, 24/7.

    What does it take to make it happen?

  7. proudbrit, they always do. takes hard work to change that

    anonymous, ideologues shift reality to accommodate their ideology. eventually it blows up in their faces

    anonymous 2, collectivists don't tend to respect the individual will

    sheik, a dramatic shift in who runs things at the top

  8. This is a lot to take in at once. The system of extortion and exploitation is so convoluted... I guess it helps those on top to remain hidden from the public's eyes.

    All I ever hear and see from others is "the greedy corporations", or angry fingers pointing at specific rich people. How can one explain that reality isn't as clear-cut, without losing the crowd?

  9. Anonymous28/2/11

    So are we going to start calling them fascists now?

  10. Dan, you nailed it to a tee, this should be required reading for everyone.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like