Bart Said:

"Let me suggest something that you can all take some shots at. Our federal government grew in response to a desire to become more involved on the world stage and as a counter balance to perceived excesses by big business and individual states."

I do not agree with that. Our federal government grew because everyone in the U.S. wants more. More of everything. It is the perception of the U.S. taxpayer that when the government gives them something, someone else is paying for it. Our politicians thrive on this perception by convincing taxpayers that the "rich" are paying more, and therefor, the middle class is really getting more then their share.

The politician survives by promising more. In exchange, he / she gets to hire more friends/fund-raisers who become dependent on the government for their paycheck. One of the largest unions is the one representing federal workers.

"On the domestic side specifically, the federal government has served as a counter weight against power and influence that has been usurped by local elites and used against individuals or less powerful groups. Examples of this would be the breaking up of trusts, desegregation of schools and support for the rights of laborers to organize."

All three things, breaking of trusts, desegregation, and labor rights do NOT require a large government. Those things are accomplished by laws, not massive spending!

"It appears to me that those who would "shrink" the federal government are those who would benefit most from the withdrawal of that counterweight."

On the contrary, the people who would benifit more from a smaller government are the ones who can't jump through hoops to get a tax exemption or lobby.

"The arguments may be for "more accountability", "less tax burden", etc. but to me it all just adds up to another grab for power."

Grab for power???? Bart, do you actually LIKE how much power the government has???

"That is not to say that the federal bureaucracy doesn't need fixing; it is - without question - a cobbled together aggregation of good ideas, bad planning, shabby thinking, poorly written laws and pork barrel projects and shameless log rolling."

No crap.

"But I stand with those who would try to re-form it, i.e., change its form. I think Clinton accomplished more in that area than either Reagan or Bush the elder did, or lil' Bush will."

Clinton didn't reform it. He did reduce it. And he did so reluctantly. He did so ONLY because the Republicans were stonewalling his budget and pushing for deficit reduction.

John