Under the radar last week was President Obama’s executive order for a wide review of government regulations, in hope of showing that bigger government isn’t bad news for economic growth and business.

Of course, the president didn’t word it that way. In his op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Obama wrote that he just wanted to “make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation.”

That sounds like such a great idea, doesn’t it?

First problem, don’t be bamboozled by wording. As cotton candy terminology can do, phrases like “avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation” are candy-coated sales pitches.

You know how that works. Say one thing – mean other? We did it often as kids. Remember, when your parents asked if you were going to Johnny’s house, where they’ve restricted you to go, and you replied, “No, I’m going to Dave’s house,” knowing full well that Johnny was going to be there, too?

Despite that Obama’s intentions sound so admirable, what the president really means is: “I’m putting together a study in hope you will believe that I’m tough on government regulations, when in fact I’ve expanded government regulations so much that I’m not sure it’s hurting the U.S. economy and job market.”

Second, not surprisingly, this federal government review is to be carried out by the federal government and excludes any independent (auditing) agencies; for example, like how major financial regulators are using most of 2010’s Dodd-Frank reforms for Wall Street and the banking industry.

But isn’t the federal government review or audit of itself a little like the Mexican drug mafias reviewing illegal border crossings?

Third, since when is more government regulations and bigger government business, which monopolizes and directs the flow of money to itself, good for small businesses on Main Street?

As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”

Actually, President Obama answered the question, if his policies were good for Main Street, in his WSJ op-ed piece, when he labeled government’s already-existing regulations as “unreasonable burdens on business – burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.”

Business leaders have been telling the White House for a long time that bigger government and more government regulations, including those for financial reform and health care, will not help job creation.

A few months back, the majority of the “Top 100 Most Influential People in Accounting” concluded that such government expansion is and will continue to be detrimental to the economy. Even some of the president’s corporate allies have turned on Mr. Obama, like the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of many of the largest U.S. corporations, who compiled a 54-page critical report of the White House’s regulatory and tax policies.

The WSJ reported just last week, “Business leaders say an explosion in new regulations stemming from the president’s health-care and financial regulatory overhauls has, along with the sluggish economy, made them reluctant to spend on expanding and hiring. Companies are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash and liquid assets, the most since World War II.”

Fourth, don’t ever forget that Obama’s call for a review of government regulations is coming from a White House that has expanded the federal government more than any administration since Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Fifth, does anyone find it peculiar that the president is, essentially, ordering a review of the productivity of government expansion, after he’s already been in the two-year process of greatly expanding government? Isn’t that something like chicken roadkill asking itself if it should cross the road?

For example, how can the president “make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation” when he has pushed aside the broken and bankrupt health-care programs of Medicare and Medicaid and created Obamacare? Or is three socialized health-care systems not “excessive, inconsistent and redundant”?

Is the president saying by conducting this review that he is willing and open to change course, if the results of his review yield that government expansion is ramming a sword through an already dying economy? I don’t think so, Homer.

Ed Mills, an analyst at investment firm FBR Capital Markets, captured the true motivation behind the president’s executive order to review government regulations, when he said: “This is all about political protection.” And it’s obvious what that “protection” is all about: Obama’s fear that his plan is failing.

Bottom line, if business execs across the country agree that this White House has created an “explosion in new regulations” and Obama is ordering a review of them, in short, the president has just ordered a study supporting and proving the efficacy of socialism in the U.S.

Of course, we’re not supposed to believe that, despite that the feds are abandoning the constitutional limits of their power, seeking ultimate power to shut down the Internet (in the name of “Homeland Security”) and, even last week, seeking to enforce a government-issued Internet ID card for all Americans. First, you had Obamacare, now you have ObamaNet!

But what do I know? I suppose the feds are caring for me and you by needing control over our Internet and IDs, and so I’ll think they’re heroes when they enact reviews of those regulations too, right?

President Obama has a quintessential and systemic problem with his view of government. As he stated during his presidential campaign, he is convinced that “only government” is our savior. That is the fundamental flaw with this administration – and it is symptomatic of an entire generation that has been conditioned to believe the government is the solution to just about every societal problem.

If we are ever to restore the fiscal and leadership sanity to our government and economy, and reawaken the republic America’s founders envisioned, we need not to reinvent the Great Depression wheel of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Our economy can’t add or handle another version of President Johnson’s Great Society.

I suggest that, if the president considers himself wise, he could save the taxpayers’ monies conducting another government review and study and simply open the pages of Proverbs in the Jewish Scriptures, which admonish, “Let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance. …”

So, Mr. President, open your ears and listen to your predecessor Ronald Reagan, who hit the proverbial nail on the head when he said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

And if Reagan seems too partisan for Obama, then he should heed the wisdom of our founders, like James Madison, who said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.”

And, again, Thomas Jefferson, “Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It [the Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”

(To understand the eight major problems ruining our nation and the solutions to those problems as prescribed by the founders of our republic, please read my New York Times best-seller, “Blackbelt Patriotism,” now available in a 100-page paperback expanded version.)

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.