Exactly!

David Axelrod made the point yesterday that President Obama couldn't have known what the IRS was doing to the Tea Party groups, simply because government is so darned big.  It's huge, got lots of moving parts, and there is no way that any man could effectively supervise all t hose employees.

A Politico piece yesterday made the same point. 

The narrative is ideological. For five years, this president has been making the case that a growing and activist government has good intentions and can carry these intentions out with competence. Conservatives have warned that government is dangerous, and even good intentions get bungled in the execution. In different ways, the IRS uproar, the Justice Department leak investigations, the Benghazi tragedy and the misleading attempts to explain it, and the growing problems with implementation of health care reform all bolster the conservative worldview.

 I don't doubt that rogue employees can cause a stink.  I don't doubt it a bit. Which makes the argument for smaller government all the mote compelling.  If it's too big to control, it's too big. 

I believe in small government, more particularly, in local government.  We know what we need in our cities, our counties, and our local school districts.  We know how best to achieve those things.  We certainly don't need a huge, bureaucratic federal government looking over our shoulders.  We're perfectly capable of managing on our  own.  Even with the snares and foibles of small government, we're better off when the feds let us govern our own affairs.

Small government is better.  Even David Axelrod is makeing the point that the federal government is too big for one man to control.  Exactly my point, David.  Thanks for making it so eloquently.