With the economy in tatters, citizens and politicians alike are becoming increasingly concerned about federal deficits and the resulting debt. As recent as last week, apprehension over the deficit was cited by Republicans as the reason to deny the extension of unemployment benefits. Regardless of the fact that real unemployment still sets at 16.5%, and although the denial of the extension would severely impact those affected, the subsistence income for 2.5 million Americans was simply unaffordable. But Republican principles are complex, and where certain federal programs, like assistance for the unemployed or stimulus to create jobs must be sacrificed in deference to the deficit, other expenditures are the exception.

In a clear showing of priorities, Congress sent a message to the American public yesterday when the House approved a $60 billion war-funding bill. The bill was considered under a suspension of the rules, so it required a two-thirds vote. But even though the $10 billion in state aid to help prevent teacher layoffs was stripped, 148 Democrats joined the 160 Republicans voting in favor, and the opposition fell 30 votes short.

This latest event is sure to leave voters who are actually paying attention to wonder just how important the deficit really is. After all, the deficit is the excess of spending over revenue, yet in spite of the loss in federal revenue, Republicans unanimously support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2%. And now we know that, when it comes to war spending, disregard for the deficit is evidently a rare bipartisan position. This all begs the question of what the criteria actually are for identifying the significance to be placed on the deficit.

Opinions abound when it comes to explaining the discrepancies apparent in the precedence of issues. Republicans contend that the tax cuts will actually pay for themselves. Of course, they do so in conflict with the near unanimous opinion of economists. They also posit that, so long as the cuts are given to the wealthy, they will create jobs — this too flying in the face of expert opinion and all empirical evidence.

But where the Democrats appear to be more versed and committed to common sense when it comes to tax cuts, the majority somehow seems to find funding of the wars to be compelling. This may present a bit of a dichotomy to many anti-war Democrats, but even many representatives who oppose the war find it difficult to vote against appropriations, feeling that, regardless of a person’s position on the wars, we must support the troops.

This position is understandable, even seemingly admirable, but is it really valid?

The Department of Defense budget for 2010 is $685 billion. Add to this the portions of defense spending carried under other departments: nuclear weapons, under the Department of Energy, counter terrorism, under the FBI, International Affairs, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, parts of NASA, and interest on the debt incurred from past wars — and overall defense spending is somewhere around $1 trillion per year. Of this number, the total cost for military personnel is $154 billion.

A closer look at the actual situation in Afghanistan reveals that only $19 billion of the appropriation was slated for “operations,” the bucket that covers the actual costs to deploy military personnel. Recent Pentagon estimates set that price tag at $875,000 per troop. And while military salaries have seen appreciable raises in recent years, it’s obvious that this money is not going to pay the salaries of deployed American military.

In actuality, the costs are just a part of the federal government’s funding of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). A significant portion of the war funds will obviously be used to pay for support services contractors, the costs for which exceeded investments in equipment for the first time in 2007. In fact, where contractors numbered 1 for each 100 personnel on the battlefield during Desert Storm in 1991, they routinely now account for 50% or more and recently accounted for as much as 39% of the cost.

The fact is that the MIC is about big money, and as such has significant power in Washington. Escalated under President Obama, the MIC now consumes approximately 52% of federal tax revenues. There is obviously no bigger industry draw on the federal budget. And defense contractors get what they want from our Congress.

Military spending is actually a bit of a third-rail in American politics. It provides thousands of jobs and billions in profits for defense contractors, and as a result gains support from workers and corporate profiteers alike. But make no mistake about it, while the deficit is being used to squash investment in infrastructure, energy, education and other job creating programs, it being ignored as we continue to increase spending on defense.

The top seven defense contractors are certainly not hurting for the recession. L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., a contractor providing airborne and network communications recently reported an 11% increase in profits for the first quarter. Northrop Grumman, the nation’s third largest defense contractor, reported their profits up by 21%. General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin all are all experiencing similar gains.

So, this much we know: the deficit is a grave concern when spending is in support of those most adversely affected by the recession, but it’s merely an inconvenience when it comes to funding the military industrial complex or providing tax relief for the wealthy. It’s sad to state, but given the anecdotal evidence, an impartial observer might conclude that the degree of concern for the deficit depends less on any real fiscal sensibility and more on who the deficit spending will actually benefit.

Do you trust the federal government? If you’re anything like me, your answer is,  “It depends.” According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, such a response would put you in the minority, or at least amongst the most positive of Americans. With only 22 percent of those surveyed saying they can trust the federal government “always or most of the time,” distrust in government appears to have become as American as apple pie.

Though I doubt it, you may be surprised by these results. Personally, as I read the headlines, my only surprise is that the poll results are actually headlines. With the national unemployment rate around 10 percent, a huge federal debt looming over our collective heads, continuing effects of the big-bank bailout swirling about, and a party-line split that’s stalled any meaningful debate in Congress, is there any wonder? Nobody needed a poll to tell them that our government is broken, and taxpayers are fed up with it.

According to Pew, 56 percent of us are frustrated with the federal government. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m certainly in that group. Interestingly, this number is at roughly the same level it was in 1997, but something else has changed quite significantly — the number of Americans who are “angry.” Of course, the complete disregard for the American people evidenced by Congress is part of the problem; with both parties working diligently to repay their debts to their big-money contributors, some anger is bound to ensue . . . but an increase from 8 percent in 2001 to the current 21 percent?

Something is at work beyond a normal souring of public opinion, even that which occurs in a recession. Along with the drastic increase in anger, the Pew Poll revealed a whopping 47 percent of Americans who believe the federal government to be a threat to their personal rights and freedom. The poll also shows increasing support for smaller government, a negative opinion of the national news media, and a desire for reduced regulation. If these tenets sound at all familiar to you, there’s good reason: this is Tea Party 101, and it’s rapidly becoming the central theme of Republicans in general.

Only in politics, can you preach that the organization you represent is completely ineffective and then leverage that sentiment to promote doing nothing about it. It’s crazy, but it’s exactly what the Republicans have been doing ever since President Obama took office. Their message is not only that the federal government is absurdly inefficient and completely incapable of productive activity, but that it also threatens the very principles of our founding. Using whatever heated rhetoric they deem needed, the Republicans are beating hard on the anti-government drum, and their efforts are reflected in the polling.

Asked for their preference between bigger government with more services, and smaller government with fewer services, the percentage of Americans who want smaller government has been increasing steadily since the 2008 election. During this period, demand for smaller government climbed from 42 to 50 percent. Can it be that this is just coincidence? Couple this trend with the 14 percent drop, from 54 percent in support of government control of the economy in March 2009 to just 40 percent this April, and it sure becomes difficult to separate these changes in opinion from the relentless barrage of anti-government rhetoric spewing from the Republican leadership.

These are the same Republicans who were at the front of the line calling for bailouts when the banks crashed, yet as soon as the conversation turned to providing services for average Americans, their banter changed. Overnight, they went from support of big-government to a mind-numbing campaign to ridicule anything the Democrats propose. The facts suggest that Republicans in Congress are in favor of big government, but only when it serves the wealthy. Somehow, they position themselves as the patriotic party, yet their patriotism is little more than a veneer over their undying devotion to big business. The truly amazing aspect of this duplicity is that loyal, hard-working Americans actually buy into the lie against their own best interest.

Of course, as pointed out by Dave Johnson on his “Seeing the Forest” blog, the Republican agenda is ardently supported through a “well-funded anti-government” effort. If Fox News didn’t create the Tea Party, they certainly funded its media promotion. Together, in spite of the fact that too little government is what caused our current recession, this “patriotic” duo has successfully waged a campaign of fear to convince voters that they’ll benefit from less government.

As the Pew Poll indicates, the Fox, Tea Party, Republican triad has been successful thus far. They’ve managed to distort the truth, instill fear of government, and somehow sell the notion that by doing nothing, they’re actually helping the average American. Don’t you believe it. The federal government was established to “promote the general Welfare.” It was designed to protect the citizenry from both foreign enemies and the unbridled power of the rich. The federal government belongs to YOU and me. It exists to serve The People, but it’s presently broken, and it won’t get repaired by doing nothing. So, the next time some politician tells you how inefficient it is, don’t let him off the hook — demand that he tell you how he’s going to fix it.

The entire Pew Research Center poll is available here.

Disclosure of lobby contacts might effect some marginal improvement in government accountability to voters, but it’s not a solution. Far from it. It’s a bit like diagnosing the patient (American government) with a chronic, incurable condition, rendering the only legitimate prescription to be pain management. We don’t have to accept that diagnosis.

What we need to do is address the core issue, which is corruption of the system: business exists to make money, but government exists to secure the rights of the governed. Business serves its shareholders, and indirectly its customers. Government is supposed to serve The People. When business spends millions of dollars to buy influence in Washington, it’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. It’s playing by the rules, as currently defined, to maximize  profits for its investors. In contrast, when government creates rules that favor business over “the general Welfare,” it is not serving its purpose. When it does so in exchange for money or favors, it has become corrupted.

The fact of the matter is that the voice of The People has been silenced in Washington. Congress no longer serves The People but rather the money making interests of the business lobbies. Lobby control of government is the natural outcome of a system that allows private money to drive the election process. Remove private money from elections and you will restore power to The People.

American government is in desperate need of a “lobbyectomy.” The patient is operable, and the prognosis is complete restoration of the voice of The People. The problem is that the surgery is elective, and consent for the operation depends on Congress.