You are correct. But at this point, the fish stinks from the head down. I believe there is an opportunity at hand to sever the coercive (corrupt?) relationship between the Federal and State governments.
In the past, congress has tied federal funding to state compliance with federal regulation. But over the years this carrot and stick approach has morphed into more stick and less carrot. We call these "unfunded mandates." My hope is that in the blowback to Obamacare we find a state that can loose itself from the unfunded mandates and start a cascade of rejections in all areas of government.

Take this now to my original thesis about your local school district. Who then would decide whether to upgrade the school bus or hire a new teacher? Today that decision comes from the state and often directly from Washington.

Rich,
A few days ago you nailed the obvious. The conservative movement is not homogeneous. We are made up of people of all colors, religions and races. Except in one way. We all want the freedom to succeed. The calls for "limited government," "lower taxes," and, "less regulation" are drowning out the most important principle of all. The need -- yearning even -- of middle America for freedom from social and economic engineering. In our estimation, one of the greatest achievements of the founders was to codify an environment in which political jurisdictions were allowed (perhaps forced) to compete amongst each other to deliver the best environment for freedom and prosperity.

The argument is much more complicated than big v. small government. The discussion should revolve around the notions of centralized v. decentralized government. As I survey the landscape of my fellow Americans in every state, county and municipality from coast to coast --- I see people trying to make their way in this world and being blocked at every turn by an ever expanding centralized government.

You are correct to point out the eagerness with which the social conservatives were willing to wield the Centralized model. Within that group the desire was not for more freedom, but simply for central control of a different flavor.
As representatives of middle America, our focus should not be on big v. small, but on central v. decentralized government. Power must be moved from Washington to our school districts, towns, counties and states.

Lately it appears that there is no issue too small to escape the need for federal control. Tanning salons, are they out of their flipping minds??

The rallying cry is not simply "Smaller Government," but LOCAL government. The representatives and senators we send to Washington need to focus on pushing governance to the local level. To allow the local people to determine their own fates. To allow smaller jurisdictions to compete with each other rather than being wrangled in to a national soup that allows for no competition, no local control.

This, I believe, should be the motto of the new conservative movement. Down with central government, up with local government!

The message is simple. The test of fidelity is easily understood. Who should control the local elementary school?