How about an activist Supreme Court that strikes down the NEA, USDA, and all welfare programs as unconstitutional?
I wish that people would stop using the word "unconstitutional" because it conveys the wrong idea about the amendable Constitution, in my opinion.
To begin with, the given that the federal Constitution says nothing about programs like NEA, USDA, the 10th A. automatically reserves the power to tax and regulate these programs to the states. So there can constitutonally be up to 50 programs like the NEA and USDA at this time in the states, no questions asked.
But the point remains that the federal NEA and USDA are constitutionally unauthorized and thus illegal. Again, thank constitutional flunky FDR for this mess.
Next, if the states decided that the feds could somehow manage a national NEA and USDA better than they could, and there's a first time for everything, then the Article V majority could consider amending the Constitution to authorize the feds to do so.
But even if today's Article V majority decided not to allow the feds to administer things like NEA, USDA, tomorrow's Article V majority might be okay with the idea and appropriately amend the Constitution.
The problem now, of course, is that minority factions are wrongly subverting the will of the Article V majority as reflected by the Constitution's silence about things like NEA, USDA and many other constitutionally unauthorized programs. And the reason that they are getting away with this is because of widespread ignorance of Congress's constitutionally limited powers. The abuse of judicial power by corrupt, Constitution-ignoring judges is not helping things either.
Again, and I don't mean to insult you, but the idea that some federal program is "unconstitutional" reflects a lack of understanding of the amendable Constitution's division of federal and state powers.