Letting start by cutting all federal aid. Close Fort Sill. Let Oklahoma fund their own highways.

Conservatives love to whine about federal spending but the past seven years shows they love to spend but just have a hard time paying their bills.

Freedom from government is what we need. If we give up freedom to get more security, we will eventually have neither.

The genius of America and its Constitution is limited government, and if we give that up in the name of "War on Terror" or anything else, the America we love will cease to exist as a bastion of freedom or security.

If we limit government what will religion use as its' muscle?

I am formost an American. I am a Utahn because I live here.

In todays world States are simply a part of our national society. The concept of states having rights beyond the rights of people who live in those states is a long dead issue.

My rights to life, liberty and the persuit of Happiness are American rights and given me by any state.

Local gangsters, crooks and polititians use the states rights argument to try to take away our national rights. Don't let them do it.

Anonymous, perhaps religion will have to settle on using correct grammar (specifically the proper use of apostrophes) as its muscle.

Will Oklahoma state representative Charles Key please run for president so I can vote for him? The article didn't mention whether he was a Democrat or a Republican, but frankly, if his bill represents his overall philosophy toward government, I don't care, he has my vote!

To Anonymous #1: I agree! Imagine if we actually did let states fund their own highways! You appear to doubt that they can do it. I believe they can! Imagine if we actually did let states, and on a more granular level, individual people take responsibility for themselves. Does it seem scary to not have the federal government do everything for us? It might, but I believe the founding fathers were afraid of having the federal government do and decide everything for us worse! What were they fighting against? Oh yes... a perceived oppressive monarchy in Britain. What does today's federal government, which accounts for 40% of gross national product, represent? An encroaching oppressive oligarchy. The only thing scarier than taking responsibility for ourselves is having the federal government take all responsibility for (and away from) us. Personally, I want more politicians like OK state rep Charles Key.

Many people see federal money coming to their state for highway projects, parks, public transportation projects, farm subsidies, etc. as free money. In reality it is money collected by the federal government from the people of that state to be given back according to the whims of those in power.

I would gladly see my state cut off from all the federal funding as long as we didn't have to send it to Washington D.C. in the first place.

This is a small point I admit, but Mr. Williams defines too narrowly the term "civil war". He is not correct in saying that the American Civil War was not really a civil war. A civil war, as the term is used most frequently, refers to a war between factions within a nation, as opposed to a war between nations. The American Civil War certainly fits the definition.

On his major point, concerning the power of the states in relation to that of the federal government, he is correct in saying that the Civil War created a much, much larger role for the federal government. We are almost to a point where state boundaries mean little, as the federal government's influence is so strong. Perhaps we need to move in the other direction, as the Oklahoma legislature is suggesting. One day, we might get the balance right.

jdegaston | 5:51 a.m.:

"Freedom from government is what we need. If we give up freedom to get more security, we will eventually have neither."

I'm sorry, friend, but that is a bunch of baloney. The pioneers built forts to protect from the dangers outside. Wonder beyond the protection of the gates and you'd get eaten up by a bear or coyote. Same principle, different format, applies today.

"The genius of America and its Constitution is limited government, and if we give that up in the name of "War on Terror" or anything else, the America we love will cease to exist as a bastion of freedom or security."

More baloney. If the government doesn't fight the war on terror the terrorists will not only bomb trade centers, they will eventually bomb your house and family.

The federal government holds the trump card. It has the authority to lay and collect taxes. Thus, it can get as big as it wishes. The founding fathers, for all their virtues, didn't think that one through very well.

It's always humerous to me to read some impassioned posting about conservatives wanting smaller government while the Cheney/Bush team has successfully ballooned the power of the feds to a point surpassing the Nixon era with a record-breaking deficit and intervention into the private lives of its citizens to boot.

Conservatives are most certainly easy to rouse.
Also the easiest to dupe.
Just wave a flag at them, create internal enemies for a diverson (ie. those demon liberals) and ya got 'em where ya want 'em.

Regarding States rights, and the comment "The concept of states having rights beyond the rights of people who live in those states is a long dead issue."

I would direct you to the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. It reads

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So States have the right to rule on or legislate any "rights" that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

State rights are not, as you like to put it, "dead".

conservatives easy to dupe | 11:54 a.m.:

"It's always humerus to me to read some impassioned posting about conservatives wanting smaller government while the Cheney/Bush team has successfully ballooned the power of the feds to a point surpassing the Nixon era with a record-breaking deficit and intervention into the private lives of its citizens to boot."

The size of the deficit or debt has little or nothing to do with the size of government.

Lou Dobbs keeps harping that the FDA cannot find the problem with the Salmonella outbreak. That's because the size of the government is too small. They don't have the people to do a thorough and complete investigation.

In the seventies we had the savings and loan debacle. The government decided to remove much of the restrictions on that industry in an effort to reduce the size of government.

Recently we had the sub-prime melt down. Government regulators reduced controls on that industry to reduce the size of government and to get government off mortgage lenders' backs.

Etc.

Utah would be better off if we funded our own highways. Get the feds out, eliminate the federal gas tax, and leave the states free. The same could be said about socal insecurity, medi-scare, etc. The biggest impediment to progress is the federal government. It can't even run a war properly. Why would I want it to do anything else?

Anonymous asks, "How will Oklahoma fund their highways without the Federal funding". A classic liberal attitude. They assume...

1. We/States need funding from the Feds or we can't do anything.
2. The Feds have a big pile of money to give us/States.

Where does he think the Federal Government gets the money to fund highway projects? Do they just get it from a money-tree? A magic box? Does the government have ANY way to get money other than from us? If they do, you let me know Anonymous.

Of course we could fund highway projects without Federal Aid (if the reduction in Federal Aid came with a corresponding reduction in Federal Taxes).

Problem is... Liberals like the way it works (Fed Gov takes money from us, and then they give it back to us, so we think we can't exist without their aid).

Liberals are especially happy with this way of funding projects if they can convince themselvs that the Federal Government will TAKE the money needed from someone else and GIVE the money to them.

Re: conservatives 11:54. I agree that Bush has dramatically expanded government. But don’t mistake him for a conservative, even though he’s a Republican. I admire much of what Bush has done with the War on Terror, but I’m seriously disappointed with his big increases in domestic spending and the size of the government.

Considering that Oklahoma gets $1.36 back for every $1.00 sent to Washington, I should think that this good Oklahoma state senator should get his head examined.

wrz wants us to believe:
"The size of the deficit or debt has little or nothing to do with the size of government."

Under the conservative Cheney/Bush debacle both the size of government and that government's spending has put us into a hole that we may never fully be able to get out of.

But lots of pals and cronies of BushCo have made fortunes in the process.

Congratulations to Jud for pointing out a fundamental truth about the financial makeup of our nation. The more conservative states (like the South and the Mountain West) get a great deal more money back from the federal government than they pay in. Perhaps we should allow those evil liberals in NY and CA to keep their money. My guess is that our infrastructure would begin to crumble as we whined about our horrible lot in life. It would be interesting to see the howls from the federal government haters when the state has to raise income and property taxes by 100% to make up for the shortfall from the federal funds that were overpaid to Utah.

As was said before, you can always spot a conservative. Just look for the guy griping about the federal government while he takes advantage of all of the benefits the government offers.

Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals - Mark Twain

America is wise to the conservative-riddled GOP.
And that is why neocons are toast.

Here's a little know fact. Once the federal government tried to give all federal public lands to the state.

The states protested. They felt the cost for Nevada and Utah would be too high without federal dollars.

Historically, Utah gets more federal dollars than Utahan pay in. Image no Hill AFB.

Back to higway funding. The relative cost to a citizen of Utah or Nevada to build and maintain roads would be higher than for an American living in NYC.

What would Utahan pay for fighting forest fires, Airports and other federal services?

Utah needs the fedeal government more than the federal government needs Utah. Without Utah and the Winter Games America would be 3.2 bilion less in debt. Like Utah brings many in to the military.

Regarding liberalism "They have the usual socialist disease; they have run out of other people's money."
-- Margaret Thatcher, speech to a Conservative Party Conference (October 10, 1975)

"Today, wanting someone else's money is called 'need', wanting to keep your own money is called 'greed', and 'compassion' is when politicians arrange the transfer."
-- Joseph Sobran

"No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong."
-- Walter Williams

"Nobody spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own."
-- Milton Friedman

"If you would not confront your neighbor and demand his money at the point of a gun to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, you should not allow the government to do it for you."
-- William E. Simon

Socialism will fail in America the same way it falls everywhere. Finally the people have had enough government stealing and income redistribution.

To those hopeless name-callers on the liberal side, conservatism is making a comeback and you won't know what hit you....

Why have the British rejected Thatcher?

Charles tell me the difference between increased national debt and deferred taxation?

Why do conservatives lie, saying they support our troops but they wont pay for their wars on terrorism?

When you come out of your delusional state you will see most American are discussing the failure of conservatism. Until then, we pray for you.

Chuck, would you tell you socialist president to stop taking my money to make his friends at Hunt Oil wealthier.

thanks guys. I knew you wouldn't take on the argument, instead you try to take it to another topic.

That's the perfect liberal response, can't win in facts just change the discussion.

BTW, there is absolutely nothing stopping liberals from paying more to the government so they can feel better about themselves; yet why don't they do it? Because it's their own money they would have to fork over.

Go ahead, pay more. Write the check today.

Didn't think you would....as the quotes state, liberals are great at taking and giving away other people's money...but when it comes to their own; silence.

I asked a simple question... Does the Federal Government have ANY source of income besides you and me (or debt they place on you and me)?

Do you think they pull the money from thin air? Where do Liberals think the money the Feds promise to give us comes from?

A simple answer would suffice, but the best you could do was the condesending quote from Mark Twain?

I know you do but there we go again...Oklahoma??? Geez I am shocked it wasn't Alabama...with President Limbaugh I presume...unity is good, but to a state I would let each one that tried to secede in 1861 leave...with my blessings!!!

bad, bad Federal Government; there we go again...Oklahoma??? Geez I am shocked it wasn't Alabama...with President Limbaugh...unity is good but to a state I would let each one that tried to secede in 1861, leave...with my blessings!!!
Somehow, I don't think We would be missing THEM!!!