Let’s do more of the new “spending”

Recently The Barack gave a speech where he said the reason we have such record deficits is because of government overspending. At last, something he and I can agree on. What I would like to report is after that he went on to say in order to cut the deficit and put the United States back on a sound financial footing he was announcing the abolishment of a large number of federal bureaucracies, starting with the Department of Education. Unfortunately, for U.S. citizens, his speech took a slightly different turn.In the normal, that is nongovernmental, world we think of spending as the outlay of money. Basically, if you purchase a service or some goods, the vendor you received those services or goods from expects to receive some money from you. Until that transaction happens, you still have your money, and the business you haven't bought products from doesn't feel you owe them anything.This exchange of goods and services for money is such a simple and basic part of life that even young children (despite the best efforts of the Department of Education) can understand it. However; apparently, The Barack has missed a few things while growing up. One of those things evidently was math. Say, do you suppose the Department of Education has a picture of him in every one of their offices that's titled, "Our Goal Reached"?According to The Barack, spending is not just the exchange of money for goods and services, at least as it pertains to the federal government. What he is trying to "sell" (in this case he wants to exchange his ideas for another term in office. Are you buying?) right now is that tax revenue the government doesn't collect is "spending". Not only that, but since his predecessors (mainly George Bush) didn't collect enough tax revenues from you and I, well, they drastically under collected and created our present financial problems. So you see, according to him, the reason that the federal debt under The Barack has increased to fifteen or sixteen trillion dollars is because none of the past Presidents (but specifically George Bush) were willing to confiscate enough property and money from citizens of the United States. The Barack, on the other hand, stands ready, willing, and able to correct this "under collection" problem.You know, if you just listen to what The Barack says, it sure does make it hard to believe he went to school, anywhere. Just a few short weeks ago he stood in front of cameras and microphones and expressed ignorance about the function of the United States Supreme Court as it has to do with determining whether or not a law is constitutional. Since he claims to have gone to law school and later actually taught law, I find it a little hard to believe he doesn't know better. Now he has "graduated" from feigned ignorance of the law to displaying an "Alice in Wonderland" view of economics. I don't care how much dope he smoked during his high school career, there's no way he is as ignorant of how the world and our society works as he seems to want us to believe. I hesitate to use the word logic when I'm discussing The Barack's statements and policies but in this case (and again, be cautious about applying normal logic) redefining spending is just a first step. The next "logical" extension of his "not taxing is spending by another name" oratory is almost certainly going to be something along the lines of telling us that if only his predecessors had taxed us at a higher rate life in the United States would be nearly perfect. It will of course be phrased as if only they, but mostly George Bush, hadn't overspent by under taxing there would be little or no deficit, and all federal programs would be fully funded. I would say that all of the talk (I can't say discussion because frankly in this instance The Barack is telling us, not soliciting our opinion or advice) will further lead to a call from him to raise taxes, but that particular train left the station long ago. The Barack has made it clear from day one he wants to raise taxes. No big secret there. The only thing that he hasn't been real open about is exactly who he wants to raise taxes on. He clothes that particular facet of his program in an attack on the "wealthy". The definition of wealthy as given by the administration seems to shift around pretty conveniently depending on where and when the term is used. Many pundits and interviewers have tried to pin this down precisely, but since the answer can change from hour to hour, none of them have had a lot of luck. I on the other hand think I have it figured out. Where most people are trying to assign an amount of net worth to the word wealthy, I took a little different look at it and came up with an entirely different definition of the word wealthy.Before I give the answer, I want to remind everybody I'm looking at it from an Obama administration point of view, not a logical, or real world take on it. After all, if we weren't talking about government, it would be simplicity itself to say "For the purposes of this discussion if you own a certain amount of assets, you are wealthy." All we would have to do is firmly define that amount and move on with our business. Just to be clear, I'm not for defining a particular group of Americans and raising taxes on them specifically, but I'm talking about the Obama regime here, not what I would do (or not do). I think in the instance of The Barack wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy, by the word wealthy, he means first, or the first group. He so badly wants, or at least appears to want to raise taxes that there is no way he would stop with just the "wealthy" whatever amount of assets that means. As soon as he can confiscate more money from one individual group, those people will be replaced with another targeted part of the population that will be the second group, although they will be known by some other buzzword. Maybe they will be called the idle rich, or how about upper management employees (implying that they get paid a lot but don't sweat for it), or maybe it will be upper white collar workers, or some other such meaningless phrase, which oddly will be poorly defined. However they would be called, I think the best and most specific name for them would be "next". Sooner or later, be it in the first, second, third, or tenth groups of "the next ones", they will get to your group.While I'm confident The Barack really, seriously, intends to raise taxes just as he says, I think all of the talk about overspending by under taxing is really meant to shift attention from his own record of real overspending. By real, I mean real dollars went out of the federal treasury, although in this instance I'm having a hard time seeing that we actually got anything for them. He simply is trying to surround the term overspending with smoke and mirrors and cloud the issue of the trillions of dollars that he has squandered and the servitude that he is dooming us, our children, and our grandchildren to if he is not stopped.While there are plenty of people who will argue back and forth whether Barack Obama is ignorant or not, I personally think he is a very astute political manipulator. Be that as it may, his latest definition of the word overspending shows that while he may or may not very bright, he certainly has a low opinion of the intelligence of the American voting public.Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.