Except possibly for liberalism, welfarism, humanism and a few other political realities, no capitalist institution in America receives more criticism in this country from the average citizen than the Federal Government.  Literally thousands of books and articles and days of media time are devoted to an indictment of its steady advance.  From pundits and pedants to politicians and partisans the assault is on-going.  Everything from debts and delinquency to degradation and disintegration are laid at its doorstep.  We are constantly told that if we can only reverse the steady encroachment of the federal government in our lives our problems would be reversed dramatically.  It was the theme song of the Reagan-Bush era.  Few contentions are further from the truth.  In no way is the federal government the solution to America's problems, indeed, it's the cause of many, but it's not the primary source either.  At best it's a band-aid for a patient bleeding at nearly every pore.  It's attacked by nearly every "conservative," right-winger, fascist, reactionary, Ku Kluxer, and crypto-Nazi in the Nation.  While looking upon the federal government as some sort of alien force steadily taking over, its critics constantly harp upon the importance of local control, personal responsibility, and limited government.  What they really want, of course, is to continue keeping the power relationships within the nation as imbalanced as possible.  Anyone with even a modicum of political/economic sense knows that money is the name of the game in any capitalist system.  Money confers power; money provides influence; money facilitates escape from legislation, restrictions, requirements, prosecution and punishment; money grants access; money implements propaganda, money gets things done, money procures ever more money and so on and so forth.  In short, money rules the road.  As I said in my yet to be published book entitled THE RELEVANCE OF MARXISM, he who runs the dough runs the show.  That's reality.
     Another fact of life is the class struggle.  Anyone who does not realize that every aspect of our society is arranged, financed, supported and manipulated by a small ruling class of extremely wealthy people for their benefit alone is operating under a horrendous handicap.  Without an awareness of the class struggle virtually everything occurring won't make much sense.  Even when you think you have figured it out, events and facts will keep arising that don't fit the model.
     So class warfare rules and money is the ammunition.  If wealth is the dominant factor, then obviously the power of the masses is directly related to their wealth.  Sheer numbers are very important but they alone are insufficient.  For the masses to counteract those with the wealth, they must find some group, organization, or institution with sufficient financial resources to level out the playing field, be it ever so slightly.  And that's where the federal government comes in.  It's the only capitalist entity in the United States that can marshall sufficient resources to act as a counterweight in some small degree to the big bourgeoisie.  Certainly no privately-owned organizations or institutions would want to fulfill that role and reliance upon some philanthropic individuals is out of the question.  Because of its ability to tax, print money, and borrow, the federal government can raise huge sums of wealth.  And because it pushes a conservative agenda under liberal administrations that's not quite as reactionary as major capitalists, corporations, businesses, and other private entities, the federal government is more able to finance, promote, and continue programs and priorities that are more geared to elements other than the big bourgeoisie.  That's why its influence is so disliked by the rightists.  The latter represent the big bourgeoisie as opposed to the liberals who mostly represent the petty bourgeoisie, the semi-proletarians and the most conservative elements of the working class.  No ruling party represents the working class in general.  Rightists know that if they can reduce, minimize, or eliminate the federal government's influence, then the class struggle will be strictly between the haves and the have nots.  And it doesn't require a genius to know how that will turn out.  The rightists and their allies will have a field day.  Unless somebody or organization with sufficient power, i.e. money, is pushed by mass demand to intervene, the masses will be forced to rely upon demonstrations, protests, strikes, marches and other forms of civil disruption to see their demands realized.  A very important aspect of American history, especially since the Civil War, has been the steadily increasing federal government regulation and control brought about by mass pressure and disgruntlement.  The masses have learned that without federal government "interference," as the rightists call it, or mass protest, the former will be abused without mercy.  Right-wingers know that as things now stand a mass-directed, mass-pressured federal government is the only capitalist entity between them and free-wheeling exploitation.  As bad as things are when the federal government is involved, open season reigns supreme once it bows out.  If laissez faire capitalism were to reestablish its monstrous presence in toto, it would mark a return to the good old nineteenth century years of unfettered exploitation, horrendous fraud, and mass rip offs.  Unfortunately even some workers have been misled to believe that federal interference is at the core of their problems.  Obviously they know little or nothing about how and why federal government "interference" has increased over the years.  It has grown steadily because of proletarian pressure arising from the abuses, exploitation, injustices, thefts, inequities, deception, and other evils that are extremely prevalent in any totally unfettered capitalist system.  Rightists realize, and some workers don't, that without the federal government playing a major role in the economic process because of working class discontent, there is virtually no end to what corporations, businesses and others can get away with.  Anyone who says governmental regulations are unnecessary and needlessly intrusive should address questions such as the following.  How do you know that the gasoline you are buying actually has the 87 octane you expect?  Did you test it?  How do you know the meat you buy didn't come from a horse?  Did you analyze it?  How do you know your new house meets scores of code requirements.  Did you go out and inspect?  How do you know your new car is made of the materials claimed?  Did you scrutinize it?  What do you know about the chemicals that are added to your food supply or the drugs your pharmacist dispenses?  How do you know your water is uncontaminated?  Did you perform the requisite experiments?  Do you have the materials to conduct an examination?  In fact, would you even know how to conduct an appropriate inquest if you had the materials and instruments available.  I have little doubt the answer is no in nearly every case.  Unfortunately all of us are relying upon someone else, someone with sufficient authority, and if that somebody is ineffective, coopted, or doesn't exist, then we are at the mercy of elements directly inimical to our interests and well-being.  Anyone who thinks he or she can do without thousands of federal rules and policing bureaucrats in a capitalist environment is detached from reality.  What he/she is actually saying is that he/she knows more about the production of cars than General Motors and Ford, more about TV's than Zenith and Sony, more about gasoline than Marathon and Mobil, more about food than Campbells or Kelloggs, more about drugs than Squibb or Merck, more about chemicals than Monsanto or Dow, more about cosmetics than Revlon or Estee Lauder, more about stocks than Merrill Lynch or Dean Witter, more about borrowing and lending than Chase Manhattan or Citibank, more about insurance than Prudential and Aetna, and so on ad infinitum.  Anyone trying to beat an opponent at his own game, especially when the latter is extremely well financed, is a fool.  Rightists know the working class is at a tremendous disadvantage if the federal government acting out of mass pressure is unable to level the playing field, even if ever so slightly.  Rightists talk about the federal government removing our freedom to do this or that when the average citizen is not appreciably more restricted now than he/she was 30 years ago.  But those who operate a business, a farm, a factory or deal in manufacturing, commerce, trade, sales, securities (what a misnomer!) or other financial matters have had their flexibility restricted somewhat.  Left unsaid of course is the fact that the latter comprise less than 10% of the population and are overwhelmingly members of the capitalist class.  Being essentially propertyless, ninety percent of the population has been hardly effected by the added burdens.  But the financial elite yells constantly and spends enormous sums of money to convince the majority of citizens that it's in their interest to oppose increased federal control.  Unfortunately many buy their line.  As long as capitalism dominates, if the federal government fails to accede to demands that it take a more activist role, destitution awaits millions and additional millions will experience a steady decline in living standards.  For still other millions an increased role by the federal government has been all but worthless.  Increased involvement by Washington D.C. is by no means a solution to the problem for anyone, but it does act as a temporary amelioration for some.  Rightists constantly talk about letting the market place determine what is and is not to be produced.  They know that when you are dealing in the buying and selling associated with any market, you are dealing in money and victory for the richest is foreordained.  The current growing attack on public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio is a good example.  It is a blatant attempt to eliminate one of the few sources of information not directly filtered through right-wing screens.  What is actually an ideological fight between rightists and liberals over which class views should be heard most is masked as an argument over balance and objectivity.  Rightists wouldn't be opening their mouths if NPR were pushing the National Review's propaganda.  But since it isn't, rightists assert that it should obtain its money from the public at-large and not from taxes.  Of course, they know full well that any voluntary contributions of real significance would have to come from foundations, corporations and other comparable sources directly controlled by the richest.  What the masses in general contribute to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is minuscule compared to what just one corporation or foundation (a front organization for private property owners and groups of same) submits.  And it doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to know what kind of programs will be aired under that arrangement.  They will be non-progressive, anti-socialist, non-controversial, pro-unbridled capitalism, escapist, and bland.  Anyone who thinks capitalists are going to finance or support anything that has the remotest possibility of upsetting the apple cart is living under delusions of decency.  Rightists want to funnel all funding of anything of consequence directly through the ruling class propaganda filter of the big bourgeoisie.  And if the only real source of funds becomes the wealthy alone, that becomes a foregone conclusion.  There is no alternative if the federal government doesn't become involved.  When the federal government gets into the picture, however, conditions are altered slightly.  It can tax, raise large sums of money, and finance something other than that which goes directly through the filter.  That's a major reason why rightists constantly try to reduce federal taxes.  Feds without funds can't do much of anything of real importance or of a divergent nature.  If the federal government's tax revenues are reduced, then so is its ability to reduce even minutely the incredible power and wealth imbalance that inevitably expands with great rapidity in any capitalist system.  Because federal government officials are not directly under the thumb of the rightists and ultra-rightists, they have a slight amount of maneuverability to do what is more in the interest of those outside the big bourgeoisie rather than what is only in the interest of a clique.  Because their activities are funded through taxes on the masses, they are slightly freer to put on more socially involved, more relevant, less escapist programming.  One must not lose sight of the fact, however, that their additional room to maneuver is only slight and they are by no means operating in the interest of the masses at large.  They could never do anything of fundamental importance, nor would they if they could.  They are merely responding to working class demands and additional pressure from the petty bourgeoisie and semi-proletarians.
     Rightists stress local government control because they know that regulations are easier to evade, regulators are easier to control, and requirements are easier to prevent when locals are calling the shots.  If a state passes environmental laws requiring scrubbers on smokestacks, for example, employers can always move to a state that doesn't have these restrictions.  If a state introduces a minimum wage, exploiters can always move to a state that doesn't have a minimum wage.  If a state passes rules enforcing job safety, capitalists can always move to a state in which such rules don't exist.  Private businesses and corporations always tend to gravitate towards areas that are the most environmentally unregulated, the most open to exploitation, the least costly in terms of medical and retirement benefits, the least affected by worker safety regulations and so on, unless a greater economic influence on the bottom line interferes or supercedes.  The only capitalist organization strong enough to short-circuit this kind of evasion is a federal government operating according to working class pressure.  Because it can pass laws, rules, and regulations that apply to every state equally, it can reduce or hinder incentives to move or escape.  If one state is allowing its industries to pollute its air and water, which then flows into another state, only one capitalist entity can diminish the iniquity.  And the rightists know it.  The offended state can't pass regulations to correct the behavior of the offending state; but it can go to the federal government for relief.  That's a major reason rightists are attacking unfunded mandates with such vigor.  They claim the federal government is forcing states to act without giving them the funds to accomplish the deed.  If the offending state were doing what it should have been doing to start with, it wouldn't have to be issued an order.  And even more importantly, it should pay the price, because it's either causing the problem or refusing to take action against those who are.  It's the state's problem and so the state should institute curative procedures.  After all, rightists constantly want local control.  So here's their chance.  They should do what every unco-opted individual knows needs to be done.
    Another topic definitely related to the federal government and about which rightists and their allies repeatedly rant and rave is centralization.  They constantly refer to federal bureaucracy and red-tape as if they were major contributors to society's ills.  Their real motive is to weaken the federal government and turn its powers over the states and localities which can be more easily influenced, manipulated, and controlled.  In point of fact, decentralization is exactly what you don't want any organization acting on your behalf to adopt.  Almost without exception every effective agency in the world is centralized and the greater the degree of centralization the greater the number of accomplishments.  There is no better way to dissipate one's effectiveness than to decentralize.  Centralization is the cornerstone of coordination, efficiency and celerity.  It's the only way to go.  Every police department, fire department, army, navy, and air force is highly centralized.  They even have a pecking order with titles such as sergeant, captain, lieutenant and major.  Every corporation is centralized and nobody at the top is elected by those who do the work.  Every government is comprised of numerous agencies that are run strictly from the top.  They don't call it the Central Intelligence Agency for nothing.  What could be more centralized than sports?  Everybody is told what to do in almost every respect.  Imagine the captain of a sports team saying halfway through a game that everyone is now free to do his own thing in every play.  From that point onward they would be eaten alive.  For the good of all, individual whim must be eliminated.  Common sense dictates that if everyone is allowed to behave as he chooses under the guise of fostering "individualism" by eradicating supposed red-tape and bureaucracy, defeat is a foregone conclusion.  Any group that operates according to any other principle than centralization is headed for disaster.  In fact, it's hard to think of one successful organization or institution in the entire world that does not operate in a highly centralized manner.  As my father always said of the military, "You join the army to fight for freedom and that's the first thing they take away from you."  He's correct.  But military officials would have taken leave of their senses if they operated any other way.  Nearly all institutions that operate in a decentralized manner are ineffective, inefficient, and iniquitous.  Many school systems are under local government control and financed by local property taxes.  The result is ineffectiveness and inequities of the first magnitude.  Because property values in some localities are astronomical and in other areas minimal, some schools have swimming pools, indoor track facilities, and air-conditioning while others can barely pay the light bill or provide sufficient paper.  Even more revealing are the test scores, performance, and behavior of those attending the wealthy schools.  In every category they are substantially better.  And it doesn't take a nuclear engineer to figure out whose children attend the schools in which the higher property values are located.  That's why the wealthy want local government control.  They don't want school funds distributed evenly throughout the state with every school system receiving the same amount per child.  Centralization administered by the states can more adequately cope with, but in no way cure, a problem of this nature.  Everything else under capitalism is smoke and mirrors.
     The overriding conclusion to be drawn from all of the above is that although federal government interference and regulation are by no means a solution to society's problems, they're the only viable options capitalism has to offer.  The national government is the only agency with sufficient money and regulatory authority to act as a counterbalance to direct and blatant rightist control.  Is it the solution to America's problems.  Of course not!  Don't be ridiculous.  Only socialism and mass movement, which the federal government not only doesn't support but definitely opposes in every way possible, can provide the ultimate solution.  Marxists must spare no effort to show the American people that the New Deal approach of expanding federal government involvement has definite limitations and is little more than a doomed palliative of band-aids, bandages, cosmetics, and drugs.  Although the only substantive approach capitalism has to offer, it is light years from what the masses have earned, deserve, or should expect.  Undoubtedly the best approach is pressure and mass movement by the working class, but that's neither offered nor supported by capitalism.  It's only grudgingly allowed.  The federal government responds to mass pressure when conditions have reached a point at which no other option is viable.  From the beginning its philosophy has always been: Better to yield a little than lose a lot.