Reich, Buck, and many others use the term "government" in their discussions. I've noticed that it always means the Federal government. Always. In the same way that it's assumed that there are no alternatives to the Federal government for assisting the poor and needy, it's assumed that there are no alternatives to the Federal government for almost anything at all.

Look again at the article, or Buck's post. Every use of the word "government" has the invisible word "Federal" tacked to the front of it. Why else would it be a Federal budget issue at all?

When you ask the average person to tick off the services and infrastructure government provides him, the entire list will usually consist of things normally provided by local and state government, or even the private sector (I wonder how many people think governments own power lines). Go ahead, try it. Education? Police and fire? Roads? Libraries? Sewer and water? Airports? Street lights? Garbage? Almost all of these are mostly local and state issues, and this was even more the case through most of America's history.

There are a hell of a lot of things that are just not the Federal governnment's job. That's the proper answer to Reich's questions about what the Federal government should be doing. Of course, since he believes Washington should run everything, it's not an answer he would want to hear.