You can't pick up a newspaper or turn on a cable television news program without seeing someone complain of out-of-control government spending.

In an era of spiraling federal budget deficits and huge state government budget shortfalls, the complaints are to be expected.

One North Carolina woman, in a recently published piece, put it this way: "If I handled my finances the way Washington handles theirs, I would have already been arrested for writing bad checks."

Perhaps. But most of us have only a few constituents -- our spouses and kids -- clamoring for a piece of our family budgets.

Hearing the complaints about government spending, I'm always struck by how little attention is received by the corresponding public appetite for government services. It's a selective appetite, where one group wants this, one group wants that. Before long, the collective hunger becomes immense.

Just last week, an administrative law judge ruled that North Carolina health officials couldn't slash services for in-home care to the elderly and sick. The private providers who provide those services -- of course, once reimbursed with state and federal tax dollars -- had sued to block the state's attempt to save money.

They argued that the 37,000 patients who receive the services are being unfairly penalized and that the cuts could put more people in rest homes.

They might be right.

But a few decades ago, very little government money went to try to keep the sick and infirm in their homes. Families had two choices: provide care themselves or send grandma off to the nursing home.

Now, we turn to government for help. Why not? We pay taxes. Shouldn't we get some back?

A few days ago, I was sitting in a meeting room as wildlife officials spoke to state legislators about the spread of coyotes in North Carolina. Complaints by farmers had prompted a legislative study of the animals' spread, and what can be done about them preying on livestock.

Among the speakers was a representative of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services program. That program, in one form or another, has been in existence for more than a century. Essentially, it amounts to government expenditure of money to help farmers and ranchers kill or control predators that prey on livestock. Their own guns, bullets and traps apparently aren't enough.

Dozens or even hundreds of ranchers and farmers might testify to the program's effectiveness. And shouldn't government help? After all, we're talking about the nation's food supply, right?

I'm not trying to pick on families who use Medicaid in-home health services or farmers battling coyotes. Expenses in these programs represent fractions of state and federal spending.

But multiply them by a thousand, and you begin to see the demands that we -- in groups big and small -- place on government.

If people want less government and cheaper government, they can't just say it.

They must be willing to live more independent lives.