I sent this off to a couple of mouth-foaming NOPers...:
=================
Let start with the obivious "meme" of big government = bad.
The erroneous assumption is Small government = good, Big government = bad.
It's not the size, it's a government's ability to be effective. There are many small governments around the world, are they effective? Are they serving the needs of the people? Conversely, there are many large governments which are as incompetent as their small counterparts. But let's explore the erroneous assumption that size matters.
Grover Norquist want's to "shrink government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Ok, so now government has been drown in a bathtub - what do we have left? How small of a government would you have? Abra-cadabra - you now have complete control of the country - what are you going to do to organize an environment where there is opportunity and prosperity for all? How will you pay for it?
Ok, you probably won't as far as drowning government in a bathtub, but you do want to 'shrink' it - what would you eliminate?
From your previous "welfare queen" comments - I'm assuming one of your first steps would be to eliminate welfare, food stamps, medicare and medicade. *POOF* these social safety nets are gone. What are you going to do about the millions of people who are now on the streets? Probably nothing - they are on their own. Some will die, some will commit crimes in order to survive - what are you going to do to protect those who have homes and jobs?
Hire more police? Round up the homeless and put them in a compound, or jail? Congradulations - you've just increased the size of your government - how you going to pay for it?
Here's the Federal Budget for FY 2010.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ shrink it