Nope, that is a bad idea. It is also bad to be seduced into thinking the government must grow further in order for us to prosper (ie - charity). In order to recover, we must reduce the scope and span of control of the federal government, piece by piece. It doesn't mean it will not regulate (ie - the impartial referee), it cannot favor. It will mean that we have to examine everything the federal government does, figure out if it is worth what it costs, look at alternatives in private enterprise, state, or local governments. It is hard to imagine there are alternatives, but there are. It will mean we'll have to look as hard at things we think are good as things we think are bad. We cannot abdicate our liberty to allow the government to unconstitutionally do charity because we find it to be a good thing, then try to draw a line when they unconstitutionally enter our electronic homes because the majority that day thinks its a good thing to detect terrorists. The line must be pure, and it is spelled out in our COTUS if we will observe and respect it.
We are an innovative people. If tax dollars are routed to enrich the rich (and that really won't stop with higher taxation or with either party in the WH), you eliminate the function, repackage it and send the function and dollars back to the states (ie - closer to the people), or something in between. That can be done if we will. We can find local or private ways to do charity, methods that will likely better at detecting those needing a leg up and those wanting to be held up forever.
We will not move closer to this utopia (edland) this election, unfortunately, because neither of the candidates or parties held up by the media as our choices see a problem with this control, power, and money, and are able to sell it to the masses by promising to take care of us . . .
Back in 1991-1993, two of my contracts were Air Force BRAC Analysis. That is Base Realignment and Closure. While it is simply an example, here is what we did.
A team of six went to a base and developed, over a 30 day period a "Base Master Plan" which provides complete information on every aspect of the base. Everything from environmental concerns [jet fuel spillage into the watertable and cost of cleanup] to economic impacts to the communities surrounding the base [my job]. Once it got out what we were doing at these bases and in these communities, we had everything but strippers and chauffeur driven limos taking us to our tasks. The towns went nuts.
The point of that little tableau is that it is very easy to LOOK at cutting programs and it is very easy to start the list but once things get beyond the "yellow pad" stage it gets very dirty, very fast. First, you see the economic impacts that a program has on a community, second the wave of hearings occurs and the watered down, shifted gerrymandered result ends up costing more than the original savings were suppose to provide.
Now my only experience is with the 21 AF Bases throughout those 30 months. but that was 21 Communities, from LA to Fargo, 21 Congressional Districts and 21 "Regional Development and Management Agencies".
Not saying that trimming shouldn't be done. IT SHOULD. I am just saying BRING FRIENDS.