Did you read where I agreed that the state has a role to play in these things? Why does the (I'll just make it even more explicit) federal government have a role in subsidizing Special Olympics? I suspect you've understood my point from the outset, as a self-identified conservative. If this is simply a personal-emotional position, then just state it and clarify that it's not a matter of philosophical consistency for you.
We can't question something like this because the people who make these decisions are afraid of broaching the subject, even when it's the right thing to do, because demagogues will exploit it to the Nth degree, as we saw in this case. No one can explain in any intelligent way why the Special Olympics needs this sort of subsidy. The responses here are akin to what I get when I ask things like, "Why does the federal government subsidize artists?"Or, "How does the Dept. of Education improve public schools in the United States?"Or, "Why should the federal government subsidize corn-based ethanol?" It's either crickets or tortured contortions full of vague word salad phrases that mean nothing because there aren't any good defenses. Oh, and wrap it up in some emotive, demagogic language to try and silence any rational questions about whatever subsidy is in question.