A modest proposal on how Republicans can trim the budget and get back to their dreamland of controlled government spending.
Dear Republicans,
Without a doubt, you will hold up Reagan as a symbol of fiscal responsibility. Bush 41 lost on the economy and tax increases, Clinton balanced the budget by working with Republicans, and it’s common knowledge that Bush 43 grew the national budget to epic proportions in his time in office — most of it on Defense spending. And he did nothing to balance the budget — which, of course, you already know, as evidenced by your new House Budget Committee Chairmen’s comment on how the 2006 elections were a “repudiation of Republicans who strayed from their principles and got soft on spending and government.”
A closer look at Reagan’s economic maneuvers reveals the budget deficit in 1980 (his first year in office) was $1 trillion and in 1988 it was $3 trillion. Why? Tax cuts and increased spending. Defense spending. W. followed Reagan’s lead, naturally.
There are several areas in the 2011 Budget Proposal that can be trimmed, but it should seem obvious to anyone with half a mind that the greatest weight, the most repulsive percentage of any annual budget are the dollars allocated to the Department of Defense. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending increased 9% annually from fiscal years 2000 to 2009.
I know it will be tough for you, a party which so loves the idea of a robust and virile military, but the fact of the matter is defense spending needs to be cut. Obama’s proposal is $928.5 billion in Defense spending –approximately 1/4 of the $3.8 trillion in total spending (and about 6% of U.S. GDP). Deficits, in Obama’s proposal, would be nearly $1.3 trillion.
Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) is your new Chairmen of the House Budget Committee, and will be in charge of helping you counter Obama’s proposal. Mr. Ryan, why not halve the $928.5 billion in defense dollars to $464.25 billion. It would trim the projected 2011 deficit by a 1/3 to around $840 billion. The U.S. would still account for 20% of military spending worldwide, with China our nearest competitor at around $100 billion. That’s manly enough, right? You’re outspending the upstart Chinese 4 to 1.
If this is done annually over a decade, the deficit will be cut. Combine that with other cuts in discretionary spending and entitlement programs, and the $464.25 billion in savings will grow. Several groups and individuals have made suggestions on how to cut the budget, and none really go after Defense spending as the suffocating budgetary virus that is in actuality. This would involve telling defense contractors like Raytheon, Boeing, etc., to go trim their own operations a little bit. Surely we could do without the advanced weapons systems that they create on a daily basis to better eviscerate the human body and reconfigure landscapes?
If your Congress and Obama’s administration were to halve Defense spending and take into consideration proposals already floating around, significant progress could be made. For instance, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl thinks he can cut $343 billion annually. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s Bill Galston and Maya MacGuineas put their number at about $400 billion. The National Taxpapers Union believes $600 billion in annual cuts is a realistic number.
Some of those numbers already include cuts in defense expenditures, but not on the level I’m suggesting. Think of how much could be saved if you were to combine $464 billion in defense cuts with the other cuts these organizations are proposing, even if you only get half of what you want in negotiations with House and Senate Democrats.
Of course, I don’t expect you to listen to the modest proposal, as defense spending is its own weapon: to maintain dominance over the world by threat of force. The old Cold War mentality of outspending any perceived enemy in battlefield technology and advanced weapons systems that were formally the province of science fiction, through DARPA, NASA and all of the defense contractors.
You will not cut defense spending because you will find yourselves eliminated from Congress. You will not cut defense spending because you believe in the outmoded idea of the American superpower that imposes its will in global hegemony. You will not cut defense spending because the more fundamentalist Christian wing of your party sees the U.S. military as the great shining sword of Warrior Jesus.
You will not cut defense spending because you will not bite the hand that feeds you.
Yours Truly,
D. J. Pangburn
November 04, 2010 at 10:19 pm, abc said:
I'm a conservative for cuts to defense. Many many research projects get bloated budgets, with little chance of coming to fruition. Additionally, I would propose pulling almost all military operations (with the exception of hospitals and maybe maintenance facilities) from Japan, Korea, Germany, etc., unless the countries want to pay to retain the services. The Okinawans don't want us there, (although the Japanese gov. does, particularly with a more aggressive China), so I would propose contracting out our services, at cost, to these countries. If they want us there as a defensive measure, fine, but we should not subsidize the defense of our allies in Europe and Asia, and we don't even know if they want it. So this would be a good referendum, and would save us a lot of money either way. I also believe that Iraq and Afghanistan were/are tremendous wastes of money that have done almost nothing to secure our nation, and don't really think there are many instances in which war actually does. I definitely agree that there's a lot of fat to cut here, and think ultimately our nation would be most secure if we had a moderately sized, advanced military force, and our nuclear subs as an ultimate deterrent against attack. Of course, I'm probably not the average conservative.
November 05, 2010 at 12:16 am, D. J. Pangburn said:
I like your mind.
November 05, 2010 at 1:34 am, AOH said:
DJ- Of all the “bloggers” on D&Tmag, you are probably one of the lesser buffoons, but, let's face it, that makes you basically the valedictorian at clown college.
OK, so let's review your premise:
“There are several areas in the 2011 Budget Proposal that can be trimmed, but it should seem obvious to anyone with half a mind that the greatest weight, the most repulsive percentage of any annual budget are the dollars allocated to the Department of Defense. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending increased 9% annually from fiscal years 2000 to 2009.”
Actually DJ, spending money on defense is not one of the most repulsive component of the budget. It's actually one of the few things that the federal government is responsible for (more on that later). And you know, those defense dollars do everything from keeping the russians out of europe (so that the french can spend their money on retiring at 60), keeping Iran at bay, and, oh yeah, trying to dismantle the entities that not only bombed us on 9/11 but have been trying fruitlessly to do so ever since – you know, the entities that are financing and arming guys like this nutsack-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_bomb
and this poltroon:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_bomb
And who can forget everyone's favorite nuclear powered loons:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/ahmadinejad-koran-burning-will-bring-about-israel-s-annihilation-1.313189
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/world/asia/16korea.html
It's because of the military, DJ that guys like you can be safe at the local starbucks, without a care in the world, other than whether you are going for the frappuccino or the moccaccino.
A lot of money that gets spent on defense also generates new technology that gets used for commercial purposes. Maybe you have heard of some of those technologies. One of the is called the “internet”. (Or did Al Gore just invent that one night in the hot tub?) Here are some others: GPS, weather forecasting, most satellite and communications technology, digital video, M&Ms… I'm sure we could do this all night.
In terms of the increase in defense spending, you are correct. The budget went from about about $300B in 2000 to about $500B not counting the wars.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png
What you must be aware of DJ, is that Congress writes the budget. I'm sure that someone of your intellectual prowess also is well aware that DEMOCRATS controlled congress since 2006, under the superb stewardship than none other than Nancy Pelosi. From 2006 to 2010, if you consult the handy chart, you will see that the defense budget increased by $100B over that time.
So I can't square this with your rants about the US needing to be a superpower and following Jesus and all the rest. Maybe you can help me here.
Here's some ideas that I have, since you asked, most all of which are actually not constitutional– which many people find “repulsive”.
#1 Since Lord and Messiah BHO was crowned God of the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA), federal employment has increased by…. ready…….. 230,000 employees. Read that again. Two Hundred and Thirty Thousand Employees. Added. In a Recession. In two years.
Conservative estimates assume with all the larded up federal employee benefits, that each job costs about $4.7M. That means that his royal excellency has added $1T (that's 1 trillion) dollars to the debt on our kids and grandkids.
Here's some more great ideas that BHO and Nancy Pelosi had ready to go into the hopper before they finally got the bitch slap by the electorate that they so richly deserved–
#2. Obamacare. Now that the lying and distortion is over, it is becoming obvious that this monstrosity is going to be a fiscal nightmare. That's right, the CBO upped the cost to $1T (that's one trillion). Oh yeah, another $115B in “administrative costs” got added to fund another 150,000 to 200,000 federal employees (so lets round up to another trillion).
There's 3 trillion.
#3. The stimulus. ~$800B. That was for all the shovel ready jobs. That was going to bring down unemployment to 8%. Well, turns out the “shovel ready jobs” were just another lie.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019468-503544.html
But the good news is that that money got spent on really important things like:
$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaking ship.
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings.
$850 million for Amtrak.
• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service. I love that one. “paid volunteers”. That's like the chuckle when I hear government employees talking about their jobs as “public service”.
I won't even start touching other parts of the government like:
the corporation for public broadcasting (unnecessary): $420M
Dept of Education (unnecessary): $63B
Dept. of Agriculture (unnecessary): $19B
Dept. of Labor (unnecessary): $12B
Amtrak (privatize and close all of it down other than the northeast corridor) $6B
Medicare and Social Security – Subject for another post, but the term “ponzi schemes” springs to mind.
Look DJ, could the defense department use a haircut? Probably. Is there waste? Sure. What's irritating about self absorbed and pompous blowhards like yourself is that you are filled with contempt for the United States. You grew up in times of peace, you have no knowledge of history, and your whole world view was shaped by your liberal college professors (secure in their tenure, after they wasted their formative years smoking bongs and dreaming of “sharing the land”), the Daily Show, and maybe a discussion or two with your other unemployed friends while you were playing hackysack during an Obama rally. Here's an idea. Take a trip to eastern europe and ask about their view of the US military– particularly people who were alive in WWII. Have the military made mistakes? sure. Have we done more harm than good sometimes. Yes. But by and large, the united states has been a force for freedom in the world. OK, well not when Obama wouldn't stand up for the Iranian freedom fighters, or when he was backslapping with Hugo Chavez, or when he bowed down so low before the oppressive king of Saudi Arabia that I thought he was going to throw out his back.
DJ, if you hate America so much, if we are really so evil, why not just pack up and leave. Please. Go to the socialist paradise of Cuba or Venezuela. Go to Uganda or Somalia where you can really get back to the basics. Do a few years in Vietnam or the backwoods of China. Maybe that would give you some perspective…
AOH
November 05, 2010 at 3:32 am, D. J. Pangburn said:
AOH-
That's quite a dissertation. I appreciate you taking the time to read my article, as well as taking the time to type up a response. You, in turn, deserve a response. As a favor, I would hope that you take the sort of enthusiasm you've leveled against my article and me personally (in your ad hominem attacks) and turn it against those who really deserve it: the corporations, the elected officials and the bureaucrats who do not care about you in the least bit. Never have. Never will.
However, I've hardly the time to address each and everyone one of your points tonight. I have other work to do.
For now, just know that I'm no fan of Obama, Pelosi or the Democrats in general, especially what they've done since 2006. If you want to know more about my point of view on them and elected officials and the monied interests in this country, in general (and in the specific), feel free to read my other articles. Just click on my name at the top of the piece.
I will, however–before I leave you–address your second to last paragraph. If you knew anything about me and my college experience, you'd realize that I spent a great deal of time reading books that I wanted to read while attending lecture, not those assigned. And I rarely listened to my professors. In many classes, I just didn't go at all and managed good grades anyway. I took what Mark Twain said to heart: I never let school interfere with my real education. I don't know you; please don't assume you know me.
You really are a joker: I've never been to a rally in my life. I don't really enjoy listening to political rhetoric.
In WWII, Russians gave their lives in higher numbers than Americans. A point conveniently forgotten by most people, especially those raised in America where it's not taught to students for obvious reasons. For that matter, a lot of history is glossed over, distorted or completely ignored. It's to someone's advantage–I'll let you consider the who and the why of it.
I don't believe a nearly $1 trillion in defense spending is necessary. I think it's obscene. Bloated. And while I will grant you that America has done some good things for freedom abroad, the American government (as an instrument of wealth and power) has engaged in some absolutely sinister behavior both covert and overt for what can only be seen as imperialistic aims.
Back to work.
November 05, 2010 at 1:59 pm, AOH said:
Gosh DJ- Thanks for the response. You're no fan of the Democrats? Then why is the whole point of your article that Republicans (not politicians, not congress, but Republicans) are somehow pumping up the military because they love killing people and ruling the world?
So in college you didn't do the assigned reading and didn't listen to your professors. I would say – time and money well spent. Or was it taxpayer money (grants, subsidized loans) or mom and dad's money? I seriously doubt you would have plunked down your own cash, only to “not read” the assigned books and “not listen” to the professors that you are paying to teach you.
Let's see what you got in terms of education from your self-directed study. Russians “gave their lives”? Indeed they did. Before the war, they had been busy invading countries left and right: Finland in 1939, the baltic states in 1940, followed by romania, poland and the rest who would suffer under cruel communism for a generation. All this under the hand of Communist leader Joseph Stalin, who imposed communism on his people with an iron fist, executing russians and conquered people equally (in the millions), spreading famine and misery for over a generation. In contrast, the United states came to the aid of England, France (cowering in fear at the time), and much of Europe. The work was finally completed with the crushing of the USSR under Reagan, where countries still enslaved by the soviet union (including east germany) were finally freed. Ask an east german, romanian, hungarian or other eastern european about it when you get the chance. Visit the WWII memorial in washington DC, sometime and see people in tears. Not taught in classrooms? I agree. let's get the whole story of WWII told in classrooms. I couldn't agree more.
You think $1T in defense spending is obscene? Here's a list of things that I think are far more obscene:
1. The first lady taking a plush 5 star vacation in Spain with huge entourage.
2. The president calling his ideological opponents “enemies”
3. Unchecked and unconstitutional growth of the federal government
4. Unionized government workers voting in their own bosses (politically connected politicians).
5. Taxpayer bailouts of GM to reward union backers of the president.
6. 250,000 more federal employees in the last 2 years.
7. Seeing the president of the US shilling a commercial for “Lopez tonight”.
8. The President “dishing with the girls” on “the view”.
9. The President bowing to the king of saudi arabia.
10. The president telling his head of NASA that the purpose of that government entity is to reach out to the muslim world and make them feel good about how much they have done for math and science.
11. The President shooting his mouth off about police “acting stupid” when he has no facts.
12. The unconstitutional takeover of healthcare in direct opposition to the will of the people, and the stealth appointment of a quasi-marxist to lead the new multi-hundred thousand government behemoth.
13. Cap and Trade.
14. Social Security. A system that is indistinguishable from a ponzi scheme.
15. Teachers unions striking to get more and more generous benefits paid for by their struggling neighbors and pension liabilities heaped on to future generations.
16. Debasement of capitalism, business and hard work by those who expect everything to be handed to them. I find this ideology most often held by those who have been least productive, never taken a risk, and never saved money by living below their means. Usually this attitude is espoused by those who believed that “doing what they loved doing” meant that if they loved reading Proust, or playing Xbox, or being a film studies major, then, by gosh, the world owed them a living.
AOH
November 05, 2010 at 3:07 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
AOH-
I'm going to give you the easy answer. But first I'm going to say you really need to move beyond the ad hominem attacks. It does nothing for your argument. My life is none of your business, unless you are a friend or a family member.
Take all of this aggression and enthusiasm and direct it at the elite players behind Republicans and Democrats alike. I wrote the article as a bit of sarcasm for the incoming Republican congress. You really need to read my other articles. Step out of the political party blinders for a bit and read carefully what I'm about to say:
I don't like either party. I'm no fan of electoral politics as it stands right now. We don't have a democracy, we have a republic that is essentially a stock market. Corporations and the wealthy throw money at either party for access and that is the long and the short of it.
And the Citizens United vs FEC ruling has laid bare this truth for anyone willing to see it.
Put that aggression where it belongs: at both parties which are beholden to banks, investors and other elites.
Good day to you, Sir.
November 05, 2010 at 3:26 pm, AOH said:
DJ- I think we can agree on the idea of a more representative government (by the people and for the people), and I can give you a simple and easy way to make government less corrupt, less money in politics, less “corporate” money and more power to the people.
Have. The. Government. Do. Less. Much. Less.
The less meddling the government does, the less need for that dirty “corporate” money, the less value of lobbying, the less need for money. Result? More power to the people. We can agree on that.
Microsoft never used to spend a penny on lobbying. Now they have offices in Washington and are active in the political world. Ditto Google. If Government makes fewer laws, if it stops becoming the arbiter of winners and losers though meddling in the economy, bailouts, healthcare, cap and trade, pensions, unions etc., there is less need for money because elections are no longer nearly as critical to people's livelihoods.
Washington should go back to the basics. Just defend the country and enforce the rule of law. Abide by the limited constitutional powers. Do that and there is no motivation for money in the election process.
AOH
November 05, 2010 at 3:51 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
AOH,
We agree in principle. You are sensible.
And while I agree with the idea of less government (more than you can even imagine), I firmly believe (and the proof is manifest) that there are forces at work that use the government for their own ends and use the two-party system to dazzle our senses–a diversionary tactic, if you will. A mass illusion that very few people can manage to break out of, which is very sad.
The founding fathers thought they could stop it from happening, but they couldn't. The will of power and wealth is too overwhelming.
Jefferson was right.
November 05, 2010 at 3:10 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Read this, my friend, and you will enter the looking glass:
http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-money-fights-hard-and-it-fights-dirty64766
November 05, 2010 at 5:25 pm, AOH said:
DJ- This is hardly an eye opening view. The idea that Bill Moyers would deliver a slobbering ode to Howard Zinn is only an epiphany for people who haven't observed him suckling from the NPR teat and turning the taxpayer funded public television documentaries into money making spinoffs over the years.
Some of the points in this speech are beyond vapid. Let's look at a few.
“If this were a functioning democracy, our financial institutions would be helping everyday Americans and businesses get the mortgages and loans – the capital – they need to keep going; they’re not, even as the financiers are reaping robust awards.”
Huh? First of all, what does a democracy (government elected by the people) have to do with whether or not banks make mortgages? And secondly, wasn't the whole problem with the housing bust that there were TOO MANY MORTGAGES BEING GIVEN OUT!!!! People were getting mortgages with no income, no assets, no job, terrible credit. Money was flowing like doobies at a Phish concert! Can you really make a credible case that somehow “fatcat bankers” weren't lending money?
The other rubbish in here is the standard communist carping and envy of “rich people”. I have news for you DJ, if you want to see the richest and most insulated class, and the poorest and most destitute people, take a look at EVERYWHERE COMMUNISM HAS BEEN TRIED. For easy reference, let's use Russia, China, and Cuba as examples (but feel free to input the communist country of choice).
Average Income in the US (capitalist imperialists of the world): $46,000
Average Income in the communist paradise of China: $865 (not a typo)
Average Income in the socialist paradise of Russia: $1,764 (not a typo)
Average Income in the communist paradise of Cuba: $216 (not a typo)
everywhere you look, even our poorest would have a lifestyle that would make them live like kings in any of these “workers paradises”. Cuba and China have reluctantly started moving towards capitalism (well, crony capitalism) as the only way to stave off disaster. And let's not even talk about the wonders of North Korea.
Before you go off on another rant, consider this-
Thanks to the beauty of capitalism,
2/3 of America's “poor” have satellite or cable TV. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions. He has a VCR, a DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. The expenditures of today's lowest 20% of the population is equal to the median household from 1970.
DJ– I humbly ask this. Instead of just posting your pseudo-communists rantings, insulting your country, religion, and your fellow citizens, how about spending some time challenging your own firmly held beliefs. Maybe do some of the self-study that you are so expert at. Check out some actual “facts”, and then see if you can respond to this with a little more reason.
AOH
November 06, 2010 at 11:28 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
AOH-
There you go making assumptions again. How exactly did you get it in your head that I'm somehow a supporter of Communist countries? I really don't get it. You making amazing (nay, dazzling) leaps in logic, which surely entertains anyone who happens to read the comment section.
I'm no fan of the Chinese, Russian or Cuban communist regimes. So, that ends that argument.
On to the next.
I'm not concerned with Moyers points on Howard Zinn in the slightest . I've never even had occasion to read any Zinn, so what interested me was the points didn't relate to Zinn at all; which dealt with the influence of corporate money in politics and elections, in general (which occupied the majority of the essay, in case you didn't read it). Most of the corporations and banks are doing pretty damned well in this economy while small businesses are suffering. Wall Street is doing pretty well, Main Street isn't (to borrow some political metaphors). That's because corporations are global and small business is not (in most cases). That ends that debate.
On to the next.
You ask: “First of all, what does a democracy (government elected by the people) have to do with whether or not banks make mortgages? And secondly, wasn't the whole problem with the housing bust that there were TOO MANY MORTGAGES BEING GIVEN OUT!!!! People were getting mortgages with no income, no assets, no job, terrible credit. Money was flowing like doobies at a Phish concert! Can you really make a credible case that somehow “fatcat bankers” weren't lending money?”
AOH, I'm 100% certain you misinterpreted or misunderstood this quote. He wasn't talking about the banks lending money before the real estate implosion. Moyer was referring to the bailout funds given to banks after the implosion, which they, in turn, were supposed to lend to homeowners, small businesses, etc., to jump start the economy–which they mostly haven't done. Instead, the money by and large has gone to other banking and business ventures.
Constitutionally, the democracy (well, the republic) is not in the business of mortgages, as you say. I realize that mortgages were being given out to people who couldn't manage them. Both parties are to blame. On top of that, I'd also add the Federal Reserve as an accessory to this idiocy, or criminally negligent behavior. They were floating the cheap money to banks and encouraging them to lend, which led to the credit default swap nonsense.
But, Moyer was speaking of the bailout funds not being distributed to homeowners and small businesses as the Obama administration proclaimed it would. Whether they were honest in that proclamation or not is a matter for another debate.
I realize that Communist regimes create insulated upper classes. Do you think me a nincompoop? It's evident to anyone who looks–you're not in possession of some explosive inside communist information.
I'm no admirer of communism either, so can we cut the anti-communist ranting, please? It's as old and dead as Ayn Rand and Joseph McCarthy.
That average income of $46,000 annually is skewed because of all the millionaires and billionaires, AOH. That's basic statistics. I'll admit the American standard of living is better than most countries, but it's no better really than Europe, Australia, Japan, etc., and most other industrialized and technologically-advanced nations. That said, since when is one's salary the ultimate indicator of happiness? I've known many people with very little and they're perfectly happy.
Which leads me to my next point: I wasn't aware the mark of a society's political, social and economic health was measured by the amount of appliances accumulated. In other words, you're foolish to measure the so-called 'beauty of capitalism' by such things as the government definition of who owns a car, an air conditioner, a fridge, a microwave, washer and drier, television, VCR, DVD, stereo, and on and on and on ad infinitum (into the very farthest reaches of possessions that don't really give great meaning to one's life).
I don't have a religio, so I can't, in fact, insult it.
I don't insult my country, I only ask that it attempt to be a land that has a government and economy that isn't manipulated by corporate interests. There are many good corporations, but they don't have the same effect on government and the economy as the more cynical and politically active ones do.
Go on trumpeting the statistics of your beautiful vision of capitalism as it exists now, with corporations doing quite well while the rest of the country slogs through the great recession. I'm sure the CEOs of Chase Manhattan and Bank of America think about your quality of life every day and other such humanitarian pursuits.
There's all the reason you need, AOH.
DJ
November 05, 2010 at 10:26 am, New LCD Soundsytem Video Peers Into a Conspiratorial Netherworld | Death and Taxes said:
[...] The idea with the video was to make it more of a short film featuring the music of LCD Soundsystem — a re-definition of the music video, if you will. The proper title for the video, in fact, is “Anna Kendrick Featuring LCD Soundsystem’s ‘Pow Wow’ — Directed by David Ayer.” And to Ayer’s credit, it taps into the more mystical strains of the conspiratorial mindset and paranoia manifesting itself in American culture these days, especially in government. [...]