What Check Is Upon These Champions?

The Liberal state, in the worthy desire to exorcise greed, poverty, and unhappiness, has given birth to a a radical view of the world: that it is the responsibility of the State to protect anyone who may claim to be powerless.  But what check is upon these champions? And what inducement do they possess to refrain, since to refrain is to diminish their power and, so, their livelihoods? Is it not evident that to be accused before the bureaucrats of OSHA, Equal Opportunity Commission, FDA, Consumer Safety Board, and so on, is to be found guilty, for the organization's first and only responsibility is to grow, and, in contrast to the free market, it is not the populace, but the government which characterizes failure and success, and that all government programs must not only expand after success, but expand after failure, in order 'to bring about eventual success.'  Note that all this hocus-pocus is taking place with the money actually earned by hardworking individuals.

Mamet has stated the problem clearly.  Regardless of what the Left is trying to achieve, or the purity of its naive intentions--at least in his eyes--a Leviathan has been created that will either be brought to heel and put on a strict diet, or will become our master.  It lacks a dynamic whereby to rectify itself.

The ever-growing legion of pampered governmental bureaucrats is pretty clear on the concept, as are their enabling protectors in media, academe and the professions.  However, as recent events in Wisconsin and other states evince, "hardworking individuals" who foot the bill for this scam are catching on quickly.  Media demonization of supposedly nefarious tea party bigots--boogie, boogie, boogie--doesn't play well in most of America, even if it does stoke the flames of ignorant prejudice among the putatively well-informed abroad, i.e., CNN viewers.

Noman wonders if there is any reason why the federal government shouldn't be constitutionally limited to 10% of annual national wealth creation (by whatever measure) and have severe limitations placed on its capacity to borrow.  That way, the necessary condition for the government to grow would be for the people's wealth to grow, and the government class could not prosper by siphoning the economic vitality from the people's wallets.  There would be no more Democratic party constituents getting fat on the lamb while the people eat figurative cake, or worse.