Problem with Dark Matter?

I have a bone to pick with Dark Matter.  If I've lost you already, feel free to read up on Dark Matter before continuing.

(Checks watch) All right, here we go. Dark Matter makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways.  Just from a very basic standpoint, when you start off a universe with a boatload of energy which eventually condenses into matter, you would expect the simplest forms of matter to be the most abundant.  And, of course Hydrogen is the simplest atom and simultaneously the most abundant element in the universe, but is an atom really the simplest form of matter?

Well we know that protons, neutrons and electrons break down into smaller pieces we know as quarks.  Bosons, leptons, etc, are simpler and as far as we know they are matter.  How about neutrinos?  The standard model, with 4% regular matter, 22% dark matter and 74% dark energy fits a lot of holes in the known universe.  The problem I have is this: It doesn't fit our solar system.

If galaxies formed inside giant clouds of dark matter, clouds which are held together by their own massive gravity, and this is used to explain the galactic rotational curve — where stars in the spiral arms (like our sun) of galaxies orbit at the same velocity as stars closer to the galactic core (and super-massive black holes) — then that would seem to imply dark matter is as abundant in our solar system as it is elsewhere.

But then, wouldn't our own measurements of mass already include dark matter?  Everything we ever weighed would have been in the presence of dark matter.  The planets of our solar system would be flying through it all the time.  Which begs the question: why is the rotational curve of our solar system mathematically sound without the need to bring "dark matter" into the equation?

It seems to this amateur physicist that when Newton's laws failed to explain the distribution of gravity on a galactic scale that scientists introduced a constant (in the form of dark matter) to "fix" the equation so it worked, but the constant somehow is ignored at smaller scales.  And it's not like we're talking about a little constant — without "dark matter" we only have 4% of the gravity needed to hold together a galaxy.

From what I have read, proposals that Newton's laws need to be adjusted for the very large, just as they had to be adjusted for the very small, are not mathematically sound and simply do not work.  This may be the case, but I still can't help but wonder why physicists don't have a problem introducing "dark matter" to resolve the issue when there seems to be such an obvious discrepency: Our sun is orbiting the galactic center at the same velocity as stars closer to the core hypothetically due to the presence of dark matter, the very presence of which should affect our solar system in ways we can clearly see it is not being affected.

I give up. My brain hurts.

- one