Is No Government Better Than Good Government?

There's a big push on for smaller less expensive government. A majority in congress seem to be in favor of this. Well, except for those who represent folks that have been hurt by a variety of calamities. If your constituents got clobbered by the Mississippi river flooding or by tornados then you might feel that smaller government is the right direction to move in but not where your district is concerned. Then and there, you want the biggest government ever devised. You want it now and you want it continuous. presumably until the end of time. Now don't get me wrong, I feel the government's most important role is to protect and serve. Unlike Rep Eric Cantor the house majority whip (I think that's his rank) who said it's okay to help those folks so long as we can cut out some funding for other people or programs to pay for it. But no tax increases, that's an absolute line in the sand.
Now we hear that because of that flooding, there is expected a record breaking increase to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, already hit by the Gulf oil spill. So what? Well it means that nothing will be alive in that area but algae. So what? That means no fish or shrimp which hurts those industries around the Gulf. The Chesapeake Bay faces the same kinds of problems, but there the EPA has stepped in and is requiring states that have drainage into that body of water to reduce the runoff of Phosphorus and Nitrogen into the bay. But the nine states mostly responsible for the Mississippi problem haven't been told to shape up. So what causes those two elements to run off into the river? Farming. Nitrogen is from fertilizer and Phosphorus is from animal manure. So if you live down stream from the farms, and a whole lot of people do, and your city gets it's drinking water from the river, and a whole lot do, then you're drinking, well you can guess what you're drinking. Not to mention what it's doing to the oceans and bays and gulfs around the country and around the world. Ya know what the farmers' answer is? They claim that since 1980, they have increased production by 80% while only increasing those pollutants by 4%. Boy that's a great record. Except that it's still an increase. I thought the idea was to decrease the output of pollution. By golly, smaller government with less oversight sure sounds great. Right?