Some people would say this makes me a "conservative".
But in recent years the "conservatives" have:
Tripled the national debt by increasing the parts of the
government they liked and hoping others would cut the parts
they don't like (Ronald Reagan).
Given a big tax cut to the rich while borrowing
money from the future via increasing the national debt (George W Bush).
A fiscal conservative would have reduced expenditures in order to finance a tax cut;
he didn't do that. A states-rights, small-government conservative would
have reduced the size of the federal government to give a tax cut; he didn't do that.
Compromised the constitutional separation between church and state (prayer
in school, Pledge of Allegiance with god in it,
Congressional chaplain and opening prayer, etc). Is God
so weak that he needs government help ?
Used government mechanisms to do
everything they could to restrict women's ability
to even get counseling about birth control and abortion.
A clear case of government abuse of personal freedom.
Other examples: prohibition of gay marriage / civil unions, prohibition
of gay service in military, intervening
in the Terry Schiavo case.
This from people who say they are against government power
and in favor of individual freedom ?
Spent $40 million of taxpayer money in a personal
vendetta against Clinton (Ken Starr).
Tried to eliminate some rights to free speech (flag-burning).
Removed rights to due process for some people in the
name of anti-terrorism (John Ashcroft). The terrorists won ! They got us to remove key
parts of our democracy.
Greatly expanded the size of the federal workforce
("federalizing" airport security workers; adding a whole new layer of bureacracy
in the form of the Homeland Security agency).
I don't approve of any of those things, so I don't think
I am a "conservative".
Wouldn't we lose or not have some wonderful things the federal government has done ?
Interstate highways.
This could have been done as a public corporation, owned
by the states, funded by the states. Maybe it wouldn't
have happened without a president (Eisenhower) to make
it happen. But it could have been done differently.
Once built, it could have been maintained by each state.
If the citizens of some state decided they don't want
to pay for it, they lose the benefits of having nice
highways in their state. They lose productivity, tourism, etc.
Trade and traffic goes through some neighboring state with
better highways.
Grants for research (parts of NIH, etc).
Again, some sort of states-owned public corporation could be arranged as
a coordinating body. Why does it have to be the federal government ?
Parks, national forests, wildernesses, land management.
Each state should be able to do this. If they squandered
their land, residents would vote them out, and tourists
would vote with their feet.
Building and managing power and waterways (dams, canals, etc).
Same as the interstate highways.
Civil Rights over state's objections. I think this
falls under federal law enforcement.
A major benefit of using focused public corporations to run things
is that performance becomes much easier to measure, and to compare to
non-government companies. It is much easier
to hide pork-barrel spending, incompetence and trickery
in one huge pile of money (the federal
budget) than in a smaller pile that has clear goals.
Some people would say the state governments are worse than the federal
government. I'd say:
At least your money, voice and vote are
about 50 times more powerful when directed against state government
than when directed against federal government.
Each state has its own local conditions and
problems; state laws can target those more effectively
than federal laws can.
Maybe with less meddling by the federal government,
the states would do a better job.
Diversity has always been a key strength of the USA.
Having various states trying different approaches
to, say, health care would result in innovation,
and wide adoption of the more successful models.
With a single (federal) government in control, there
is only one approach, and little innovation.