Oftentimes, I'll suggest eliminating a program from the federal government's purview and shifting its responsibilities down to the state, especially in cases where 'one-size-fits-all' policies don't make sense or where the dollars could be spent more efficiently within local reach (and especially where spend efficiency matters, which ought to be a bigger focus than it is), and the response is to parrot that 'program x needs to exist'.

I know I'm a libertarian, and yeah, that does come with a lot of baggage, but I like to think I'm more pragmatic and comprising than most, but suggesting we get rid of the Department of Education and shift the billions of dollars to the states doesn't mean I hate education, it means that those dollars matter, and one-size-fits-all plans aren't good for America (see: no child left behind).

Regarding 'limited reach', again, I completely agree, but I think that the fault lies with the citizenry. The Constitution, if read as a cautionary tale, basically predicted that this would inevitably happen, and it's our fault for not having been vigilant enough to prevent it.

Even today, despite all this outrage, I'm guessing by the next election cycle, it will have been forgotten. If anybody loses so much as a seat over this, I'll be very surprised.