way. karen, let me ask you a few questions. i accept your premise, that the debate shouldn t be big versus small government. but debate has to be effective versus ineffective government. efficient versus inefficient government. and the place that the anti-governmentites, if you will, reside, is that the government is by definition, inefficient. that the government is by definition, wasteful. and so the only way that i as a god-fearing american can fight this inefficient, wasteful government is to make it smaller. how would you reframe that debate, such that i m now moving towards an efficient government. as opposed to fighting all government? well, again, how about looking at it just from a practical sense? so like these commissioners in this county, if they had thought about a 13-cent property increase, we could get federal funding to offset those costs, it might make more sense than
peel. not long ago, that same republican county commission rejected a proposal that actually would have created a countywide fire department. and the plan called basically for raising about half a million dollars from either a 13-cent property tax increase, or other minimal fees. the commission, the commission voted against the plan because they wanted to be able to crow about keeping taxes low and limiting the size of local government. where have we heard that before? if they had adopted the plan, this county could have offset the cost through hundreds of thousands of those evil big-government dollars that we always hear the right wing railing against. but instead, gene crannick s house burned to the ground. so when you hear about limited or too much government. i say remember this county. and does repealing parts of the health care legislation or denying health care services to someone who might be in the country illegally really mean an ineffective ala carte government? sometimes