That is what it’s going to take, literally, to fund all the programs the present administration and future administration have plans for. The newest scheme?  More foreign aid.

Besides the $700 billion bailout and the planned repeat of an economic stimulus package, plus all the other pork routinely inserted into congressional bills on top of the obscene price tag of the Iraqi War that also includes much squandering of monies, the top political movers and shakers want taxpayers to increase spending for foreign aid.

President Bush wants Americans to commit to the world’s most vulnerable, which as patriotic citizens we might reasonably define as our families, neighbors, and other Americans. But President Bush meant foreigners (how charitable of him, committing other people’s money to third world countries), who have already messed up their economies or who suffer from wars or the indignity of interference from other countries and international bodies like the UN. It might be that actually minding our own business here at home would suffice as something of a relief for those abroad. Not so, says the president.

"This would be a serious mistake. America is committed, and America must stay committed, to international development for reasons that remain true regardless of the ebb and flow of the markets," said Bush at a White House summit on international development. His Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chimed in with, "Some will ask the inevitable question in these troubled times: 'How can we afford it?' " she said. "I would ask instead, 'How can we not afford it?' "

Despite their protestations that foreign aid is good for us, such a position is radically divorced from reality. With the economy in trouble because of inflationary monetary policy and over zealous fiscal policies, the best thing governement could do would be to reduce spending radically and stop flooding the money supply with new paper.

Yet, the two major U.S. presidential candidates, McCain and Obama, have suggested that the financial crisis would not curtail their ambitions for foreign aid in the least. Obama has vowed to more than double the annual outlay for international aid, to $50 billion, up from the 2007 level of $21, while McCain says that he will focus on reforming the bureaucracy that doles out U.S. assistance. But he cautions: "we are also a generous country." His lack of explicit details is scary, but easy to figure out. In any case, it is far too easy for the government to be generous with money fleeced from taxpayers.

Moreover, that monies intended for the poor rarely reach the poor is common knowledge. The UN is quite filled with corruption and tales of misappropriation and the squandering of funds. And Bush’s Millennium Challenge Corporation is a dismal failure, having disbursed less than 10 percent of it’s $6.3 billion allotment. John Danilovich, the director of the agency thinks the global financial crisis makes it “even more important” to hand out free money to third world countries, but perhaps less haphazardly....

Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Japan have slashed their foreign aid programs from 40 to 60 percent, and more. (Not including debt forgiveness but considering direct aid only, the world’s richest 22 countries contributed $94 billion in 2007 to foreign aid. The United States contributed, then, almost 25 percent of that.)

But U.S. government leaders are determined to redistribute what little money Americans have left after taxes and survival needs to agencies and governments that historically are not accountable or honorable. One could surmise that the economic politices of our political leaders are being carried out with the intention of running this country into the ground, and making its citizens slaves in the service of the state — and the world.