when it's that big, then so much is at stake

From Ernest Christian and Bill Frenzel in the WSJ (before the election)...

One more reason that a smaller federal government would be a lot healthier for our country-- politically and economically...

The 2008 election is shaping up to be an extraordinarily high-risk affair. Consider, for example, the risk that Republican losses in the Senate might give Democrats control over both houses of Congress, with unstoppably large majorities. And on top of that, consider the risk that Barack Obama will win the White House with an open-ended mandate for radical but unspecified change....

The stakes are so high in this presidential election for a fundamental reason that doesn't get discussed nearly enough: The federal government is so large and powerful. In particular, any aggressive president and Congress acting together have it in their legal authority -- under our presently elasticized Constitution -- to exercise near complete control over the economy....

Obama or no Obama, alarm bells about the size and scope of government should have been going off for years, but weren't.