If the federal government spent money just on what the Constitution authorizes, no one would have ever heard the name Jack Abramoff. But because the federal government will spend about $2.6 trillion this year, there are thousands of Jack Abramoffs running around Washington looking for their piece. They're not going to jail with him. Abramoff-style lobbyists manipulate officeholders through fair means and foul--campaign contributions, free trips, perks, outright bribes--to give subsidies, or tax breaks, to their clients. The client reaps a small fortune, the lobbyist gets rich, and the legislator receives a relative pittance. We get ripped off. A smaller, decentralized, less powerful government wouldn't eliminate corruption. It would be the best method of curtailing it.

Agreed, Dan, but I gave up any hope of that ever happening quite some time ago. I had thought (wrongly) that the Libertarian Party had the answer to that problem, but, as it turns out, their hodge-podge platform, which includes agendas of the left, never had a chance of getting anywhere near the White House (which is a good thing). No one else is pushing the minimal government objective, and conservatives only pay it lip service. The mistake was in letting the "domestic welfare" clause into the constitution. The federal government has been expanding its power and scope ever since.

BUT, here's something to ponder. If our government had remained small, serving only those legitimate functions it should, what would the world of 2006 look like? Would the United States have ever become the world's leader? Bear in mind that even after WWI, we were not yet viewed as the leader of the free world and certainly not to the degree we are now. So, what nation would be leading the world today, had the U.S. government remained so small that it was barely noticed in the day-to-day lives of most Americans, much less in the affairs of other nations? What kind of world would it be?

We need a new Constitution. The Federalists were wrong about a lot of things.

I also agree with Dan but Gary, pure and simple, it has been our economic power that has made us the envy and leader of the free world. On balance, big government is a roadblock to our growth and I believe that the voters will be giving a large "thumbs down" to big government at all levels.

P.S. Dan, Still waiting. Chris

I don't disagree with you, re: big government, Chris. I'm simply saying the liklihood that the federal government is going to downsize itself voluntarily is nil. We've already tried that, to a very limited extent, in the form of the so-called "sunset laws" which provided a finite lifespan for newly created federal agencies, for example. The fact is, one rarely hears of the sunset laws anymore and few agencies have shut their doors as a result of it, even after their initial purpose has been outlived. If history has shown us anything, it's that things will keep going in the other direction; toward ever-growing government and increased spending. Even mos so-called "tax cuts" are really just reductions of the rate of proposed INCREASE in taxation, and not actual rollbacks of taxes.

Chris: I am still waiting too. After your initial request for an interview, I agreed in the comment thread and suggested that you email me with info. I don't have your contact info. My email is found in the "contact" section of this website.

There is so much corruption and in senate, house, whitehouse and both parties right now, that it is bursting from the seams. By the way check out physics 911.org.

One way to decrease corruption would be a constitutional amendment banning all subsidy, tariff and federal ownership of non-essential land (read: BLM resources.) This would drastically limit the utility of giving kick-backs to Congressmen and substantially aid the poor and middle class through price decreases and capital formation. No thoughts on how to accomplish this though . . .

Okay, here is the deal: the Constitution has been ignored and all-but destroyed. Nobody reads it anymore. In all respect, I must firmly disagree with Mr. Kendall on creating an amendment to ban all federal subsidies and the like. The solution there is not to ban Congress from exercising such a power, but reiterating that Congress does not have THAT power in the first place.
To respond to Mr. Gary's comment on the US as a world leader possibly because of big government, I must also disagree. The United States became a world power and the most influential nation on the planet, not through big government programs, but through free-market capitalism and American's entreprenual spirits. In fact, 'big government' programs have never done much to help anything at all. For example, has anyone noticed that no matter how many times the US government gives Foreign Aid handouts to poverty-striken Africa the situation never gets better? It is because big-government welfare programs don't work. Only free-market capitalism, with it's private property concept and creation of personal wealth with alleviate poverty in Africa.

I recommend visiting downsizedc.com, mises.org, or cato.org. They have very informational essays on the big fed gov. In fact, the Cato institute has a book, The Cato Handbook on Policy, that deals specifically with downsizing DC.