The best argument against larger government is that government does nothing well, other than exercise force. The reason is that the metrics are all wrong, and foster an institutional culture that guarantees not just a bad result, but the worst possible result.
Case in point, the TSA. Consider their metrics. How would you measure success? Quite frankly, there's no plausible metric here - to my knowledge, TSA has never caught a terrorist in the act. Sure, terrorists have been caught in the act (the shoe bomber, the Christmas bomber), but none of these were caught by TSA. The Christmas bomber was caught by an alert airline checkin employee; the show bomber was caught by passengers on the plane.
But consider the metric for TSA failure - a plane goes down. Not hard to understand that one.
The combination of these positive and negative metrics means that the TSA will inevitably gravitate to maximum visible intrusiveness. This way they can justify their budget (lack of positive metrics) and deflect blame if something goes wrong (risk of negative metric). The dialectic is inevitable.
Via US Citizen, we find video of the logical result of this process, where a TSA goon* terrorizes a 3 year old girl.
What's disturbing about this video is the "well, sacrifices must be made" explanations from the TV talking head. It's doubly disturbing that the talking head is the little girl's father.
Security Guru Bruce Schneier was entirely correct when asked what he'd do with the TSA's budget were he its director. He said he'd give it back.