It is worth pointing out that in contemplating cuts in government, everyone will hoot and holler. There is nothing currently being funded which does not have an entrenched constituency. I read today that two projects being looked at are funding for lawyers for rural people, and airports in Alaska.
The questions 1) should this be done; 2) should this be done by government; and 3) should this be done by the FEDERAL government are all logically discrete.
It is a good question: why should the other 49 States pay for something which only benefits Alaska? Are they helpless? Unable to pay their own bills? Why would something which uniquely benefits Alaska not be paid for with Alaskan tax dollars?
Why can country lawyers not be provided by State and local governments? Why cannot a national pro bono group come into existence which does what inner city pro bono lawyers do?
These three questions should be applied to all these decisions, and I think in virtually all cases where it can be argued something should be done by government, that it still should not be done by the FEDERAL government. This is the only way to decrease the Leviathan, and is absolutely consistent with both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
Freedom cannot be centralized: it is always local.