You're mixing philosophy with practice. My point was that it is not -hypocritical- for someone who is a limited government Constitutionalist to approve of spending on a specifically enumerated Constitutional power, a duty really, of the Feds like National Defense, while simultaneously disapproving of spending in areas not originally part of the Constitution (Education, welfare entitlements, etc).

I agree it's reasonable and important to have continual discussions of what the scope of "National Defense" should be, but that's not really relevant to my point. Personally I think things were clearer when it was the "War Department" rather than "Department of Defense," as it made the stakes clear on what the real job and risk was. I also think making Congress do their damn jobs per the Constitution and define and declare an actual war with cogent objectives and a definition of what "victory" constitutes if we are going to be sending our men and women to die would be a good limiting step.