Your point of view is the strict constructionist take on the constitution. I can't find the article, but Rush Limbaugh had a piece on it some time back, about (IIRC) an argument in Congress in (say) the early 1800's about whether to give a pension to a widow of some decorated veteran. He richly deserved it; she needed the money; etc. etc. -- but the right to fund such things was NOT constitutional.
I am a strict constructionist, and I would approve (and I long for) the days when the three branches of the US government return to a constructionist posture...as someone's tag line says, "The Constitution may not be much, but it beats what we have now."
BUT--given how much we have slid from Constitutional principles--excuse me.
Did I say "slid"??
It's a lie. We were pushed and cajoled by leftists, socialist, Marxists, moles, trolls, and others, for the express purpose of destroying the Constitution. That effort has taken decades if not longer.
So--given how much we have forsaken Constitutional principles--I think our society would get the civics equivalent of "the bends" suffered by deep-sea divers, if we attempted to go cold-turkey on the corruption.
I think that it would take (say) 10-30 years at minimum (if we advanced change at a breakneck pace) to get back to something like obeying the Constitution.
That is why I proposed gradual measures. And if you will note in my earlier piece, I said that I hoped a good number of people, once started on a healthy lifestyle, would embrace it to the point that they'd keep going, even if the subsidy was removed.
Think "triage" in a medical sense. I'm aiming at the people in the middle, and trying to ratchet down government interference (insofar as it is there) to less intrusive, more market-friendly measures...
I wish the goverment weren't already involved. But given that it is, I want its interference at a minimum, and its tentacles less toxic.
Cheers! Full Disclosure: Yes, I see what you mean about the farm program and day care. The modus operandi of government is :
1) Create--by policy of propaganda--some problem.
2) Appoint a commision dominated by those cherry picked to deliver the "solution" you want.
3) Announce the commision's "findings" which almost always call for more regulations or bureaucracy.
4) Implement the regulations and bureaucracy to *maximize* the law of 'unintended' consequences.
5) Use the unintended consequences to prove that your bureacuracy is underfunded.
6) Apply, later, rinse, repeat.
As (I think) Jefferson said, it is the natural tendency of government to gain ground, and for individual liberty to yield.
Maggie Gallagher seems to agree with you!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MaggieGallagher/2006/10/11/trans_fatty_nation
Frankly, I've about reached the point where, if our government says "trans-fats" are bad for me, I'll run out and buy a hundred-gross (or whatever their unit of measure is) just on g.p. :-).