Quite so! That is why we have provisions in our Constitution to amend it. I would want this to be the only way our fundamental law of the land could be modified, but the Supreme Court and other federal courts have found numerous quasi-legalistic ways to alter the law without going through the constitutional process. This is because they know that their versions of the law would not pass muster with the public and states going the prescribed path.

Then, too, we have the Congress that passes laws for a presidential signature to ratify. Large political majorities can result in new laws that require vetting by the Supreme Court sooner or later, and often a likely repeal once the other party takes power.

Some laws are far too difficult to unwind or modify, however, and result in personal entitlements that have swamped the entire federal budget—that is the case now(reference Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, Stumulus, TARP, and, perhaps soon, Obamacare).

Fiscal responsibility is not evident in these controling bodies of ours.

Be that as it may, I just think that the Democrats want to move the United States more toward a German style society. In some ways that would lead to a competitive disadvantage for the US because they would give up some of their unique character and even a good copy is still a copy. Other changes are inevitable. For example, 150 years ago London was the world biggest city with a serious sewage problem and a bunch of private companies that couldn’t get the job done. In their defense, nobody at the time knew how to handle 2.5 million people’s poop. However, it needed central oversight and enforcement to win the sanitary battle. All I’m saying here is that there is a role for government and today’s problems can’t all be solved by insights from a rural society 233 years ago.

To me, this is criminal. They are raising the expectations of people in trouble today, only to short them in a little while as the credit of the nation goes South, the deficit blooms, and the service costs explode.

This is not fiscal conservatism in anyone’s book. It is buying votes and support with future dollars that accrue to the deficit we aren’t even trying to reduce now!

The suspicion exists rather strongly now that the whole plan is akin to the Marxist idea of disassembling the society, or rendering it fiscally impotent, in order to have the mandate from the public to remake government in the image of centrally-controlled collectivism or social progressivism—poorly– noticed little step by little step.

My own view is that this is rampant in Washington and is one potential definition of statism, that is, using the state to create outcomes that one wants. When those outcomes relate to the state’s role in the World, there is no true alternative. When it relates to state control over things that do not concern the state per se, they can be seen as statist.

That said, I prefer the term Federalist since this is a disease first and foremost of our (limited) Federal government. It is a disease that affects both parties, although, like many here, I believe it affects democrats a bit more and the current administration quite substantially.

The test of freedom is to support a person’s right to do something that you would not do in their place. The statist believes in using the state to take away that right. The statists are rampant in our society today and we little realize it because we have few comparisons. Most governments today are more controlling than ours and our history is one of government control for more than the living memory of most who are now alive.

The examples are almost too numerous to contemplate but do a thought experiment someday. Just spend the first 90 minutes of your day thinking about the degree to which the state limits your choice in matters that affect nobody but you. My first 90 minutes consisted of reduce flow shower heads, low flow toilets, cars with airbags, taking my kids to a “private” school with mandated curriculum. We no longer see these things as statist because we consider them normal, but statist they are nevertheless.

We should streamline government as well, such as devolving education down to the states, and killing duplication in agencies, commissions, committees, and bureaus (of which there are some 1,177 in being, according to the LSU website).

The difference between Republican and Democratic deficit spending is one of degree. Bush was a total piker compared to Obama by about 7 or 8 to 1, I believe, so the deficit is far and away owned by Obama and crowd, marking his presidency forever, and perhaps putting the nation into bankrupcy. Just the service on our debt will reach over 700 billion dollars per year!

If you have ever had a monitary judgement from a court in your favor, you know that the larger problem is to collect the money. If your debtor cannot pay you, the judgement is effectively null and void. This is what will happen to new entitlements from Obama and Co. You will be owed, but there will be little or no money for you to collect. So the nation will slide even further into debt. Good luck with that!

While at it, we use the word “statist” constantly although in a collective context. The Left accuses the Right of wanting a “National Security State,” the Right accuses the Left of wanting a “Nanny State.” Both terms have merit although they are used derisively and often accurately.

Finally, Barack Obama has been a gift. The perception that the American electorate had swung to the Left and wanted larger government has been torn to shreds as citizens from all walks of life have resisted this overreach. We can always debate where the line is drawn, but as polls and recent events bear out, Americans still resist too much government. The ability to manage is important, but we cannot ignore what has happened in the last few months.