Government in the Right Places

     Some questions I've been pondering lately is "Should the federal government be making laws and regulations for the whole nation?" and "Should the government make a decision to where my money(taxes) funds organizations and charities?" Obviously on the first question they have to make some laws and regulations else everything would be chaos. Would it be better though for just states to make laws and not the federal government?  To me it seems it would cost us less in taxes this way.  What about conflict between states where one state something is legal and another it is not?  Say someone buys marijuana in one state that it is legal and takes it across into a state that it is not.  What do we do then?  For people in Michigan we know that the illegal firework laws don't get enforced much.  People everywhere in Michigan go to neighboring states and buy these illegal fireworks.  I really don't care that they do so, but what if something I don't want in my neighborhood  that is illegal arrives there easily because it is legal in another state?  Well, I could call the cops and they take care of it.  If this illegal activity becomes popular like illegal fireworks how much would it cost to enforce these laws?  This is where I see a federal law that mandates all states to have certain laws that would effect people negatively.  I believe it would be easier to enforce and in so costing us less tax dollars.
     Now to the second question, "Should the government make a decision to where my money(taxes) funds organizations and charities?"  The government gives money to charities and organizations without out our consent.  Some of the charities are places that do some good, some places I would rather see go bankrupt and shut down.  Let's say all these places that the government gives our tax dollars to are places that do good in the world.  If the government just gives these people money and that's their only involvement then this may be acceptable.  If you know anything about government you know that this is not what happens.  No, the government wants to make sure the money is being spent wisely so they hire someone to oversee the funds that are given.  You have to pay this person right?  So the money the charity receives gets cut some or they just allocate more tax dollars to pay for this employee.  This employee may oversee a number of charities and organizations.  Well, that person can't just fly around the country and make sure the charity and organizations are spending their federal donations right.  So they hire people at state level and maybe someone at local level.  There may be more levels, but I believe there is at least these three.  That's a lot of tax dollars being spent just to manage donation money.  Do you think that the federal government will let them spend the money on things they really need?  Only if it is within certain parameters is my guess.  Now let us say the government didn't give to charities and organizations.  Let's say the government just lowers our taxes and we give to the charities and organizations that we WANT to support with no overhead of federal government.  If this happened then the charities and organizations I think would get more money and they could spend it on anything they need.  As a side bonus it would probably lower their taxes!