The thing that always worries me about scrapping social programs, not to mention schools, is that we've been there before and it didn't work out for most people. There was hunger, there was ignorance, there were seemingly intractable social problems that public education and welfare programs demonstrably helped.
Let me clarify that I'm speaking only of federally funded programs, which serve less to provide tons of needed funding, but more to be used as as carrot to control and influence existing state funded programs. These things are decidedly outside the control of most voters, but affects them quite a bit. Via pure executive action, the department of education can decide the requirements for grants for state and locally funded schools. Now, they don't have to take the money, but that last 10% of funding does come in handy, and if it means inserting X into the curriculum, or following Y standards for testing, that's not so great a price, right? You nor I, nor pretty much anyone ever gets to vote on that stuff. It's done behind the scenes, but has a pretty large effect.
Similar deal with things like transportation. It would be one thing if our legislature simply passed laws establishing some standards for things and moved on. But no. What often happens is that interstate funding is dangled in front of the states and used to influence all sorts of things from light rail construction, to HOV lane requirements, to bike paths. The voters in the states get more or less zero say in these sorts of decisions. Which is arguably the greatest disenfranchisement of all.
Do publicly funded programs need to be curated? Of course. Should they be scrapped? That depends on how far you want the poorest citizens among us to regress, and how fast.
Again. I'm talking about federal funding. I'm not even against regulation. But be honest and above board about it and actually pass legislation that regulates things. The process of funding a government agency, and basically just handing it the power to create rules for how states and cities can qualify for the funding dollars is pure extortion. The "rule be exception" we've seen over and over in the ACA is a classic example of this. Doubly so since in that case, it became increasingly obvious that the executive decisions had little to do with making health care "better", and everything to do with trying to gloss over the glaring flaws in the original legislation so as to limit the amount of voter outrage.
Secondarily, putting money into the hands of poor and working class people is good for the economy. Giving it to CEOs is not.
Except that if the government is putting money into the hands of the poor and working class in return for zero productive labor output, while the CEO is handing that money out via employment (which means greater productive labor output than the cost), the result over time is decreased productive labor output. Which in turn means lower GDP growth rates. Which means fewer job opportunities, and fewer advancement opportunities in your job, and general economic sluggishness. You know, kinda like what we've seen under Obama. It is demonstrably bad for the economy for the government to do this. It may be good for the poor and working class people in the short term, but it's not good for the economy at all.
You mention trying things before and having them not work out well. Wealth transfer as an alternative to productive employment falls into that category as well. And it pretty much always fails miserably. If the government hands you $30k in benefits, it cost our economy $30k to do that (those dollars had to come from somewhere, right?). If you receive $30k in salary for your work, it not only doesn't cost the economy anything, but it actually grows the economy. You provided more in labor value than you "cost". Which means more profits, more growth, and more future opportunity for the next crop of people looking for a job.
The idea that money in the hands of the rich is somehow at odds with economic prosperity for the regular folks is just plain wrong. Assuming that most people don't want to live their entire lives as working poor, relying on the government to make up the difference, then how do they accomplish that? No amount of government benefits will ever make you not be poor. Only employment can do that (either self employment or working for someone else). And for that to happen, you kinda have to have "rich" people to hire you (or have enough yourself to self invest). And successful (and even "big") businesses, with sufficient profits to expand their employee base is one of the greatest sources of that. Just as convincing people that he didn't exist was the greatest trick of the Devil, convincing working class and poor people that big business, corporations, and "the rich" are their economic enemies has been the greatest trick of the political Left.
Nothing could be more wrong.