Imagine 10 ordinary adults pulling a large, empty cart along a flat road. When one of them gets injured, the others lift him onto the cart, and continue on their journey relatively easily. As the second, third individuals lose their ability to contribute meaningfully, they are also arranged to sit inside the cart. Despite the increased weight and burden on the cart, they manage to cope with it.
However, if no one voluntarily gets off the cart to join in pulling, and the fourth, fifth individuals are treated as “cargo” and added, the ones pulling the cart may start questioning: “Why should they toil to pull the cart, while those people can sit comfortably inside?” When the weight of the cart surpasses the strength, will, and endurance of the pullers, they will eventually stop pulling.
This economic allegory illustrates my concerns about the expansion of welfare: when social welfare ceases to be just temporary assistance and extends too widely, taxpayers will lose the willingness to continue bearing the burden, ultimately leading to the unsustainable nature of the entire system. Once the citizen society mechanism maintained by voluntary participation grinds to a halt, everyone will be affected.
Excluding the 150,000 inmates in prisons and jails, approximately one-third of California’s population (over 13 million people) receive assistance from at least one government-sponsored welfare program, such as cash assistance, food stamps, healthcare insurance, and disability benefits. Instead of criticizing those utilizing these services, it is more accurate to say that the system actively attracts people to participate while rewarding passive behavior. Therefore, California not only allows welfare programs to expand to unsustainable levels but also tolerates their misuse, causing America’s political-economic system to increasingly lose patience with this situation.
Hence, Congress recently passed the “Big and Beautiful Act,” requiring states to take seriously the effectiveness and reliability of their welfare programs. Unless state legislatures adopt coordinated measures to alleviate the heavy welfare burden, California may lose significant federal funding and face penalties.
If accountability and oversight mechanisms are established for welfare recipients, state programs should function effectively. However, most government managers hold a “use it or lose it” mindset, prioritizing those who “get on board” to ensure a continuous flow of funds, without considering who still needs to remain within the welfare system.
Years ago, San Diego County implemented the “Project 100 Percent,” requiring officials to personally verify the financial status of each welfare applicant within 10 days. This prevented hundreds of millions of dollars from flowing into fraudulent activities orchestrated by organized crime networks. This simple verification process also enhanced the dignity and fairness of the system, instilling trust in citizens that their limited taxes are judiciously used for those truly in need of help. So, why hasn’t the legislature duplicated this successful experience in California and implemented similar verification processes statewide?
Other regions in the USA have also promoted a “one-stop” social service model, enabling individuals receiving multiple government services to access all assistance in one place. For example, “Haven for Hope” in San Antonio, Texas, collaborates with federal, state, county, and city governments, providing assistance at a single location for the homeless and needy families, while actively cooperating with charitable organizations, minimizing the time wasted by people navigating through complex institutional systems. This efficient and dignified service approach has achieved a high success rate, helping individuals attain a degree of self-sufficiency to rebuild their lives and reintegrate into society.
It is not surprising that assisting vulnerable groups, marginalized communities, and the abandoned has become so challenging, as our specialized welfare system systematically sidelines the roles of neighborly help, charitable organizations, religious groups, community associations, and other civic institutions. Governments at all levels in California have assumed responsibilities beyond their capacity. Fundamentally, bureaucratic systems excel at turf wars rather than establishing lasting relationships that truly transform people’s lives.
Americans collectively established a system that makes poverty more bearable but has also eroded institutions that could have assisted people in escaping poverty. Who can blame those who prefer to quietly sit in the welfare “cart” subsidized by taxpayers? It is far easier than collaborating with legitimate charity organizations and mentors, actively developing skills, networks, confidence, and support systems to rebuild lives and re-engage in “pulling the cart.”
The House Resolution No. 1 (the “Big and Beautiful Act”) appears coercive but actually provides California with a choice. California legislators can choose to resist federal reforms, continuing to rely on a system that wastes billions of dollars without effectively helping the most vulnerable groups. Alternatively, they can more clearly define who should board, for how long, and when they are capable of getting off and rejoining the pulling efforts. Only when the government no longer views the most vulnerable groups as “commodities” with long-term dependency needs, will we have more individuals willing to take responsibility.
This article reflects solely the author’s personal opinions and does not necessarily represent the stance of Epoch Times.