Careful that your partisanship doesn't blind you. For Republicans forget that Eisenhower started the Dept. of Transportation, Reagan started the Dept of Veteran's Affairs while GW Bush started the Dept of Homeland Security. All worthwhile government agencies, but you completely ignore their roles in "increasing the size of government" except when it's a Democrat who does it. Of course, once someone brings these things to your attention you're quick to defend them as being "necessary". Well, many will say that the IRS is "necessary", that the EPA is "necessary", that the Dept. of Education is "necessary", that the Social Security Administration is "necessary". I, however, tend to take a different approach and ask, "Are these agencies productive, efficient, or relevent?"
If a true, non-partisan, non-bias audit shows that there is duplication of effort, redundency, waste, fraud and abuse, and that any federal agency has not lived up to its mandate as structured under the law that created or modified these agencies, then in my book it's time to get rid of them. And if "consolidation" is "necessary" to streamline and standardize the tasks these agencies were created to perform and save taxpayers money, why in the world would can those who claim to be for a "smaller, more efficient government" be against it?
Don't let your partisanship get in the way of progress and/or improvement in government just because the person seeking such has a "D" before their name instead of an "R".
