Where's the Limit on Government?

We’re talking a lot in Washington these days about limiting principles.
In the healthcare debate, we wonder if government can make you buy health insurance, what stops it from making you buy broccoli or lobster or a Prius. In the arena of foreign engagements, if we can lead from behind to take down Khadafi in Libya, why not Assad in Syria, Chavez in Venezuela or the newest Great Dear Fabulouser-Than-All-Before-Him leader of North Korea?
How much airport security is enough? And why? And when and how should government be able to listen to our phone calls and monitor our texts and emails?
Then, there is the great American regulatory machine. How much of our freedom will we surrender to ensure our air and water are clean, our banks and financial institutions responsible and our food and drugs safe? What responsibility does the government have to present this information responsibly, to act without favor and with restraint? At what point do costs outweigh benefits?




By Tom Mullen
It is certainly encouraging to see a massive grassroots movement demanding that government cease its exponential growth. The Tea Party movement has already flexed its muscles in some high-profile elections, and there is widespread consensus that it will be a factor in the 2010 elections. For the first time in over a century, there is a critical mass of people actually demanding limited government.
However, there is one very important question that must be answered. What is limited government?