"He'll know it when he sees it..."

That's how Ryan said he'd know "enough" regulation from the Fed. That's fine... he's not the first to say it, either (obviously... he said he was quoting when he made the remark).

I have tried to show that past regulations, some of which were instituted by Republican, conservative administrations or officials, have historically shown measurable benefits to the US economy and/or politics. The first was Reagan's regulations that denied the trading of crude oil futures on the speculation markets, and the second was the regulation know as the Fairness Doctrine (implemented under a Democratic administration, but lasting through three Republican administrations). I think both of these very different regulations have merits... or at least have a measurable history of benefit to the areas they impacted... and both are either dismissed or ignored by Ryan as just another piece of governmental interference in our lives.

So here's my question (rephrased from past attempts):

Is there an historical benchmark when "enough was enough"? How far back do we have to go to see a Federal Government at the size and scope that modern conservatives (like Ryan) think is big enough?

Here's my reason for asking... I'm not picking a fight, really. I'm curious as to what the national conservative movement would "settle" for, given a GOP majority in Congress and control of the White House (like we saw in 2001, say)? Even I have seen that the Department of Education is probably completely extraneous in its make up and scope... so is the Department of Energy. Neither produce anything but bureaucratic red tape and bloated payroll budgets. However, there are some convincing arguments that the Department of Homeland Security has the same problem... as does the Department of the Interior, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury Department (which is, surprisingly, the fourth largest executive department in the country after Defense, VA, and Commerce). Where is the line drawn with these departments?

Reagan changed the entire national paradigm by simply reducing the rate of growth within the US government... how much reduction (actual reduction, mind you) can we rationally expect to see happen with a conservative majority in Congress in 2012? Or is simply slowing the rate of growth by 10% enough for the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Ryans of the nation?