The reason that I suggest that the U.S.A. should be referred to as countries is that I think this was the intent behind the 10th amendment.  We all know that differing people have differing ideas on how to do things (this is good, without it there could be no team).  Each state must be it's own "countriet" so that the folks who want to require differing laws can live in the place that agrees with their ideas.  I.e.. If you want to drive a car that has $3,000.00 worth of pollution controls on it, live in California.  If you want everyone but the gang bangers to go without guns, live in New York.  If you like the idea of legalized prostitution, live in Nevada. etc. etc... 

     The recent (last 50 to 70 years) trend toward more and more Federal interference is an interesting one to me.  You see, it is in response, mainly, to the citizenry's desires that it has occurred.  You can not ask the Government to build interstate highways without giving them the land and the money to do it.  You can't ask them to defend our boarders, rebuild our flooded homes, put men in space, vaccinate our children, loan us money for our homes (FHA), give us money to live (welfare, CRP, earned income tax credit), give us money for our health (Medicare/Medicaid), etc. without first giving it the money and the power to do so. 

     So, for many years (mainly starting in the late 50's early 60's) we have been allowing the Government (at all levels) to solve many of our problems for us in the hopes of making America a better place (mainly for the unfortunate (?)).  (More on what it means to be unfortunate later.)  Now we sit around (as men have undoubtedly always done (read the Old Testament)) and complain about what our government is doing to us.  And all the while we take our CRP checks, our Medicare payments, our Earned Income Tax Credit (I've taken that one). 

     We sit around and complain about the government control of our land while we ask them to make our neighbor behave as we would like him to.  We sell our land to the BLM so that they can raise birds for us to hunt.  We sell our land to the DNR so that they can build dams for us.  We must decide weather we want our freedom or our governments help.  Fortunately I do not believe that the choice must be quite so cut and dried.  The constitution and any other documents in support of it should provide us with an easy to define litmus test. 

     There are many things that can easily be defined as "federal projects".  The building of dams, interstate travel/commerce routes, and international treaties are just a few examples.  You may ask why I complained about the dams in one paragraph and praised them in the next.  The reason for this is that I believe that such projects should be turned over to the States when the construction has been completed.  This would include roads, dams, parks, and any other real property not directly needed for a constitutional mission, i.e.. military bases etc. 

     I do not think that the federal government should own forests, range land, lakes or any other non defense/administration building or property.  I would even go so far as to suggest a federal land lottery.  If you want some property and think that you could pay the state and local taxes on it then you would be placed on a random list and someone would be given the current federal land (of random acreage's proportional to the area that the land is in.) 

     I also believe that is must be made easier (or at least de-villified) to impeach people, especially activist judges (see the 9th circuit court for an easy example.)  When you have senators like the Clinton stonewaller John Glenn who will waste the public's time and money in a coordinated effort to block any attempt to investigate the possible violation of federal election laws, then such a man should be quickly dispatched from government service.  We need men in office who are patriots first and good ol' boys second.  This is not to say that politics should be something other than politics, human nature dictates that it can never be anything else.  We should, however, demand the utmost integrity of our elected officials.  When one so blatantly flaunts all that is rational and ethical he/she must not be allowed to continue to poison the system. 

     Now, on to the "disadvantaged".  Everyone needs a little help once in a while.  The question is: Who should help and who should do the helping?  I think that this again comes down to a matter of degree.  If you loose your job you should first get help from your family, then from your friends then from your church.  You must also go out and find SOMETHING to do (even if that means picking up litter in the street).  If your community is destroyed by a natural disaster or such an event then your county and maybe your state should help (mostly with labor).  If a state, or a large part of a state, is decimated then the federal government may need to offer some help, as in the midwest 500 year floods.  So in a nut shell, yes we have people who are in need of help but D.C. is not the place from which help can effectively come.  I think that most of those that Washington is helping are lazy not needy.  Nuf said... 

     So, what must be done to fix this "mess we are in"?  First and foremost we must have faith in God and our American brothers.  Most of us want the same things in this matter.  Next, we must simultaneously reduce taxation, regulation, and therefore employment on all governmental fronts. 

     May we all remember to pray for our country, for the righteousness of our brethren, and for the wisdom of our leaders!