Commentary

Imagine ten regular adults pulling a large, empty cart along a flat road. As one participant is injured, the group loads the person into the cart and, with relative ease, continues on their journey. As a second and third person become incapacitated or are no longer able to contribute in a meaningful way, they are removed from their pulling duties and put into the cart. While the load with increased ridership becomes progressively heavier, pulling the cart is still manageable.

If someone does not rotate out of the cart to pull again, adding a fourth or fifth person as cargo may provoke the pullers to ask why they are exerting so much effort when they could easily ride in the cart. When the strain of the weight of the cart exceeds the strength, will, and stamina of the pullers, they will eventually stop pulling the cart.

This basic economic parable demonstrates my concerns with the growing largess of the welfare state. When the services we are providing as a society (that is, the cart) do not act as a temporary social safety net and accommodate more than a few exceptional cases, those who pay taxes for the services will stop contributing in some meaningful way, and the enterprise will come to a halt. Everyone suffers when the wheels of voluntaristic civic society stop turning.

Not including the 150,000 incarcerated individuals in our prisons and jails, around one-third of Californians, upwards of 13 million people, receive benefits from at least one government-sponsored welfare program, like cash aid, food assistance, health coverage, and disability benefits. This is less of a critique on the people using these services and more on the system, which actively invites participation while rewarding passivity. As such, California has enabled not only the growth of welfare programs to unsustainable levels, but sanctioned their abuse, and the American political economy is becoming increasingly impatient with this scenario.

As such, Congress recently passed House Resolution 1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, requiring states to get serious about the efficacy and fidelity of their welfare programs. California stands to lose substantial federal funding and face potential fines unless our legislature adopts several conformity measures to lighten the load on weighty welfare services.

State programs can work when there are accountability and guardrails for those accessing welfare benefits. However, most government administrators have a “use-it-or-lose-it” mentality prioritizing riders instead of figuring out who still needs to be in the cart to keep the funds coming.

Years ago, San Diego County implemented Project 100 percent, requiring officials to personally verify every applicant’s financial situation within 10 days of signing up for benefits. The program prevented hundreds of millions of dollars from being funneled into fraudulent activities often orchestrated by organized crime networks. This simple verification procedure also added to the dignity and fairness of the process, allowing citizens to believe that their scarce tax dollars were wisely spent for those who really needed the help. So why hasn’t the legislature replicated this success and required a verification procedure statewide?

Other jurisdictions around the country have pioneered the “one-door” approach for social services, allowing those receiving multiple government services to access everything in one place. Programs like Haven for Hope in San Antonio, Texas, coordinate with federal, state, county, and municipal governments to assist homeless individuals and needy families under one roof while actively partnering with charitable organizations to minimize the wasted time navigating a bewildering maze of agencies. Their effective and dignified approach yields a high success rate of helping people and allows them to also achieve some semblance of self-reliance so they can pull the metaphorical cart.

It shouldn’t be a mystery why helping the least, last, and lost among us has become so difficult when the domain of neighbors, charities, congregations, community groups, and other civic institutions has been systematically marginalized by our professionalized welfare state. Governments at all levels in California have assumed responsibilities beyond their natural capabilities. By their very nature, bureaucracies are better at turf wars than building enduring relationships that actually change lives.

Americans have collectively built a system that makes poverty more tolerable while simultaneously eroding the very institutions that could help people overcome it. Who can blame those who would rather quietly ride in the taxpayer-subsidized welfare cart? It can be easier than working with legitimate charitable organizations and mentors to actively develop the skills, connections, confidence, and scaffolding necessary to remodel their lives and get back to pulling the cart.

House Resolution 1 presents California with a choice disguised as a mandate. California lawmakers can fight these federal reforms and cling to a system that wastes billions of dollars while failing our most vulnerable. Or they could better define who belongs in the cart, for how long, and when they are capable of stepping out and pulling again. We will get more pullers when the government stops making the most vulnerable among us a commodity of perpetual dependence.