Originally published at the Kansas Policy Institute.

The latest bad idea from the global policy class is dressed up as compassion: the world needs less growth. That may sell at international conferences. It should not sell in Kansas.

In a recent piece for the American Institute for Economic Research’s The Daily Economy,“The Poverty of the UN’s Degrowth Agenda,” I explained why the push to move “beyond growth” would leave people poorer, more dependent, and less free. Advocates talk about fairness and sustainability. The result is fewer jobs, less innovation, higher costs, and a smaller future for families trying to get ahead. Kansas does not need that mindset. It has already seen what slow growth does.

The 2026 Kansas Green Book shows Kansas has ranked near the bottom since 1998 in private-sector job growth, private-sector wage growth, GDP growth, and domestic migration. That is not just a data problem. It is a dinner-table problem. When opportunity fades, people leave. Young workers look elsewhere. Businesses expand in states with lower costs and fewer barriers. Families stay only if the numbers still work.

Kansas has real strengths: productive land, capable workers, strong communities, energy resources, manufacturers, logistics advantages, and entrepreneurs who know how to create value. But those strengths can be wasted when the government makes it too expensive to live, hire, invest, and build. 

Recent data show both promise and caution.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that Kansas had the fastest real GDP growth in the nation in the third quarter of 2025 at 6.5 percent annualized. Personal income grew 6.3 percent, also the fastest in the country. Production led the way, with agriculture playing a major role.

That was encouraging. But one strong quarter does not fix a long-term weakness.

The latest BEA first-quarter 2026 report shows U.S. real GDP grew 2.1 percent annualized, while Kansas grew only 1.0 percent. Real GDP increased in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Kansas grew, but it trailed the national pace and remained far from the top performers.

Kansas can grow when people produce more. But it will not sustain growth if policymakers keep accepting high costs, weak competitiveness, and too much government.

Farmers need lower costs and fewer policy shocks. Manufacturers need reliable energy and a better tax climate. Small businesses need less red tape. Families need property taxes that do not punish them for staying in their homes.

As I wrote in “Kansas Has a Cost Problem,” the state collects and spends too much for the results it delivers. Every dollar spent by the government first comes from someone who earned it. There is no free lunch in Topeka. There is only a bill shifted to taxpayers, consumers, property owners, or future generations.

Kansas should start with a responsible budget that grows no faster than population growth plus inflation. Americans for Tax Reform’s Sustainable Budget Project shows how much room Kansas could have created for lasting tax relief if spending had followed that simple limit over the last decade.

That is not austerity. It is discipline.

Kansas should also stop mistaking subsidies for strategy. Ribbon cuttings make good headlines, but favored deals rarely make good economics. As I argued in “Subsidies Cost Kansans Even When Revenues Rise,” every special deal has an opportunity cost. Money used to privilege one company cannot be used to lower rates for everyone.

That matters for agriculture, energy, housing, manufacturing, and technology. Kansas should welcome investment, but with a clear rule: pay your way. Do not ask families and existing businesses to subsidize politically connected projects.

Growth built on favoritism is fragile. Growth “planned” by a policymaker from any political party is no growth at all. Growth built on freedom lasts.

The poverty of the degrowth agenda is that it treats prosperity as something to ration instead of something to unleash. Kansas should reject that error in every form.

Kansas can drift, or Kansas can lead. But it will not lead by producing less, taxing more, subsidizing favorites, or accepting average results.

Originally published on Substack.

​The latest attack on economic growth comes wrapped in moral language. Its advocates promise less poverty, greater equality, and a safer climate. Their policies would deliver less production, less investment, and fewer opportunities. That is managed decline, not prosperity.

The UN-backed Roadmap for Eradicating Poverty Beyond Growth proposes 80 policies meant to reduce society’s dependence on growth. A separate Global Justice Report, led by Thomas Piketty and researchers at the World Inequality Lab, puts numbers behind this vision.

The reports differ, but they share the same central mistake. They treat growth as an obstacle to justice rather than the force that has lifted billions of people.

What Degrowth Would Mean

The Piketty-led model would push rich countries toward output of roughly €60,000 per person, or about $69,000, by 2100. It would hold annual per-person growth in wealthy regions near zero. That figure requires context.

US GDP per capita was about $89,962 in 2025. The proposed level is about $21,000 lower, or roughly 23 percent below current American output per person. GDP per capita is not the same as a worker’s salary. It measures the total value produced in the economy divided by the population. For another comparison, personal income per capita was running near $77,800 in early 2026.

Not content to slow some distant, future excess, the plan envisions an America that produces less than we do today. The model would also cut annual work hours by more than half, shifting labor away from construction and manufacturing. As Veronique de Rugy notes, “a comprehensive program for global managed decline…making everyone poorer” isn’t just a likely forecast — it’s the plan’s whole design.

But building fewer homes will not solve a housing shortage. Making fewer goods will not make necessities more affordable. Restricting work will not help families trying to move ahead.

Growth Is Human Progress

Economic growth is not just a line on a government chart. It is the process through which people create more value from limited resources. That process gives us better medicine. It makes food easier to afford. It allows workers to earn more while spending fewer hours producing the same goods.

Productivity is the engine of rising living standards. When a worker produces more value per hour, wages and leisure can rise together. Degrowth reverses this process, reducing production and hoping people will enjoy the loss. 

Emile Phaneuf and Christopher Lingle put the stakes plainly in “Degrowth Kills People—Yes, Literally.” Wealthier societies are healthier, safer, and better able to survive crises. Scarcity carries a human cost.

The Poverty Record Is Clear

The strongest argument against degrowth is what growth has already accomplished. Around 60 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty in 1950. By 1990, the share was about 40 percent. The World Bank now estimates that it fell to 10.4 percent in 2024 and could fall to 10 percent in 2026.

The number of people in extreme poverty also fell sharply, even as the world’s population grew. Under the World Bank’s updated $3-per-day standard, about 847 million people remained in extreme poverty in 2024. That is still far too many. But the direction matters.

Since 1990, roughly 1.5 billion people have escaped extreme poverty. Much of that progress occurred in Asia as countries expanded trade, welcomed investment, and allowed more private enterprise. They did not become wealthier by closing factories.

The World Bank also finds that poverty reduction accelerated after 1990. The average decline doubled from about half a percentage point per year before 1990 to roughly one point annually afterward. That is what economic liberalization made possible.

Poverty Is Not Inequality

Degrowth advocates often move between poverty and inequality as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

A poor family does not gain because a wealthy family loses money. A worker is not better off because a factory closes and makes an inequality chart look more balanced. Making fewer goods will not make necessities more affordable. Equality achieved by destroying wealth is shared deprivation.

As I have argued at AIER, the better question is why government policy blocks people from earning, investing, and moving upward. The goal should be to expand opportunity, not punish success. Growth does not guarantee that every outcome is equal. It does create more room for people to improve their lives. Stagnation makes mobility harder.

The Plan Undermines Itself

The Piketty proposal depends on a global fund financed by taxes on income and wealth. Yet it would weaken the economies expected to finance that fund. It also assumes poorer countries can keep growing while rich countries consume and invest less. That does not add up.

Developing countries need capital. They also need customers. If the United States and Europe stagnate, both become scarcer. A development plan cannot succeed by weakening the world’s largest sources of investment and demand.

Degrowth also creates a political problem. Someone must decide how much people may work. Someone must choose which industries shrink and which goods are no longer produced. Those decisions will not remain inside an academic model.

Markets coordinate millions of choices through prices and voluntary exchange. No global commission has enough knowledge to replace that process. Managed scarcity eventually requires managed lives.

Prosperity Is the Better Path

Rejecting degrowth does not mean ignoring pollution or other real harms. Property rights matter. So does accountability. Innovation can reduce environmental damage without forcing society backward.

As Joakim Book explained in his review of The Capitalist Manifesto, prosperous societies have more resources to adapt and invest in cleaner technology. Poor societies must focus on survival. The world’s poorest people do not need comfortable academics deciding they have reached “enough.” They need the freedom to work, save, invest, and build.

Degrowth is a luxury belief because its advocates already enjoy the abundance they would restrict. Poverty cannot be overcome by rationing scarcity. It is overcome by economic freedom that lets people create abundance.

The stated goal is healthier choices. The early result is a bureaucratic maze that treats low-income adults like children, burdens retailers, and substitutes political nutrition theories for dignity and common sense.

The fresh Washington Post reporting is the real tell. Across nearly two dozen states with approved waivers, and ten already implementing them as of the report, recipients and retailers are running into a patchwork of rules that is inconsistent, counterintuitive, and hard to administer.

That is not a side effect. It is what happens when government tries to micromanage millions of grocery decisions from above.

The Knowledge Problem
​
This is another economic titan Friedrich Hayek who coined the “knowledge problem,” which is now being realized in a grocery cart.

In Idaho, KitKats and Twix were allowed because they contain flour, while other candy was banned.

In Iowa, the Post reported that one mother’s sweetened sparkling water and semisweet baking chips were rejected while chips and cookies still went through. Some cold sandwiches may qualify or not depending on details that ordinary families cannot possibly track in real time, and retailers told the Post that even Pedialyte was excluded under the state’s rules.

That is not serious nutrition policy. That is bureaucratic absurdity.

When politicians and agencies try to define “healthy” one product at a time, they do not create clarity. They create loopholes, contradictions, and arbitrary line-drawing. The result is exactly what Friedman warned about: a system run by people who do not bear the costs of the mistakes they make.

A Tax on Small Retailers

This is not just paternalism. It is an administrative tax.

The Post reported that some states did not provide product-code lists, leaving retailers to guess or to buy third-party lists that can cost thousands of dollars.

In West Virginia, the state said even buying a one-time list to give retailers was “cost prohibitive” at $130,000. In Oklahoma, one nonprofit grocer said SNAP accounted for about 60 percent of total sales, which means compliance mistakes are not trivial. They threaten the business itself.

This is how government makes life more expensive without calling it a tax. Stores have to update systems, train employees, sort through vague rules, and worry about losing authorization if they get something wrong.

USDA told the Post it would initially avoid penalizing minor mistakes, but after a 90-day runway enforcement had already begun in at least five states. That kind of uncertainty falls hardest on smaller retailers, especially those serving poorer neighborhoods.

Picking Winners and Losers

These rules also end up picking winners and losers in ways that have little to do with health.
​
USDA’s waiver tracker shows that all 22 approved states restricted certain drinks, while 14 also restricted candy, but the definitions vary from state to state.

Some rules focus on soda, some on candy, some on sales-tax treatment, and some on broader categories of desserts or sweetened beverages. That means the same family can face different rules depending on where they live, and suppliers can be advantaged or disadvantaged based on arbitrary classifications.

That is not a neutral safety net. It is political consumer management.

The Dignity Problem

The most revealing part of the Post story was not economic. It was human.

Recipients described being surprised, embarrassed, and stigmatized at checkout. One participant in Oklahoma said rejected items had to be put back. Others joined a lawsuit challenging the changes in five states, arguing the rules are unlawful and harmful to vulnerable households.

Supporters of the restrictions say the policies should be tested and measured. Fair enough. But if the early rollout is already producing confusion and humiliation without clear evidence of better outcomes, that should give policymakers pause.

True dignity does not come from a government-approved shopping cart. It comes from being able to earn, provide, and choose for yourself.

The Bigger Administrative State

This is part of a larger pattern.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that more than 100 MAHA-related state measures were introduced in 2025, including efforts to restrict SNAP purchases and regulate food ingredients and additives.

At the federal level, the FDA’s 2026 food priorities include several MAHA-related deliverables. Whatever one thinks of the health goals, the practical reality is obvious: government is layering more administration, more compliance, and more politics onto one more part of daily life.

And as the progressive group CBPP has warned in a broader SNAP context, administrative burdens matter. Complexity can lead to delays, confusion, and people losing access to benefits they are eligible for. Even people who support nutrition reform should understand that adding friction is not costless.

The Better Standard

If policymakers really care about health, they should use Friedman’s standard and ask what actually works.

Does this policy improve health outcomes in a way that justifies the confusion, stigma, compliance costs, and arbitrary classifications? Or is it mostly another case of government trying to play parent with other people’s lives while avoiding the harder work of promoting self-sufficiency, income growth, and real upward mobility?

Government is a poor parent, a clumsy nutritionist, and an expensive helper. The better North Star is not more checkout-line supervision. It is helping people get to the point where they can buy what they want with their own earned income and live with the consequences as free adults.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Good intentions are not enough.

The early evidence shows state SNAP restrictions are creating confusing and counterintuitive checkout rules, not clear nutrition standards.

2. Administrative burdens are real costs.

Retailers face system changes, compliance risks, and in some cases thousands of dollars in added costs, while states themselves are struggling with implementation.
​
3. Dignity should matter more.

A policy that increases stigma and confusion without clear evidence of better outcomes deserves much more skepticism than it has gotten so far.

Originally published on Substack.

A discussion is happening over welfare reform. One camp says the answer is stronger work requirements. Another says the system itself must be reworked through reforms like “One Door” to Work.

That debate matters. But it could be framed better. The choice should not be either work requirements or One Door. That is the wrong debate.

If we actually want fewer people trapped in welfare, fewer taxpayer dollars wasted, and more people moving into work and self-sufficiency, then we need to think more seriously about the difference between a policy tool and an institutional reform.

Work requirements are a tool. They matter. But they are not the same thing as fixing the machinery of government that administers these programs in the first place.

Confusing Tools, Systems

The Foundation for Government Accountability’s argument against One Door-style reforms contends that integrated eligibility systems widen the on-ramp to dependency, import errors across programs, and increase the risk of fraud.

The Alliance for Opportunity counters that One Door is about integrating workforce development, job training, and public assistance in ways that reduce waste and help move people from welfare to work.

I have worked with the Alliance for years, though less closely in recent years as my attention shifted to other issues. I also respect the work FGA does to advance a pro-work agenda. This is not a cheap shot at allies. It is a substantive disagreement about what reform really means.

My view is simple: the attack on One Door goes too far, confuses the issue, and risks hurting efforts to get people off welfare.

Work Matters

Let me start where I agree with FGA: work matters.

A healthy society is built on work, family, faith, and civil society—not on permanent dependence on government. Welfare should be limited, temporary, and oriented toward upward mobility.

That is why it matters that the 2025 reconciliation law, OBBB, added new Medicaid work requirements for many adults in the Obamacare expansion beginning January 1, 2027. It also requires states to verify compliance or exemptions at the time of application and renewal.

But that only strengthens my point. Work requirements are now part of the governing reality. So the real question is no longer whether states should care about work. They must. The question is whether they will administer that reality through a fragmented bureaucracy—or a more coherent system aligned around work.

Costly Fragmentation

America’s welfare state is not one system. It is a massive web of different systems.

The Alliance notes that the safety net is broken and fragmented, and the federal government’s own record shows just how costly that fragmentation can be. The Government Accountability Office reports about $162 billion in improper payments in 2024 and estimates annual fraud losses between $233 billion and $521 billion, with $2.8 trillion in improper payments since 2003.

That does not mean all improper payments are fraud. But it does mean the current system is already leaking money at a staggering scale. Fragmentation is not a neutral baseline. It is expensive, duplicative, and hard to oversee.

What One Door Fixes

This is where One Door deserves a fairer hearing. One Door is not “easier enrollment.” It is an institutional redesign intended to align benefits, verification, case management, and workforce services around one objective: helping work-capable people move from dependency to employment to self-sufficiency.

The Alliance’s case is that integrated systems can streamline programs, reduce waste, and improve outcomes. Similar ideas appear in reforms like those discussed by the Pelican Institute and in my work on moving from dependency to empowerment.

That is not about expanding welfare. It is about doing better for people so they can stay off these programs at a lower cost.

Institutional Reform Needed

Here’s the core issue. Work requirements are a tool. One Door is an institutional reform. If the system is broken, adding more rules doesn’t fix it. It often just increases:

• Administrative costs
• Compliance burdens
• Bureaucratic complexity

That’s why this debate matters. You cannot fix a broken system by layering tools on top of it.

From my fiscal hawk perspective, the case for reform is clear. A fragmented system means:

• More staff
• More overhead
• More duplication
• More taxpayer waste

A better-designed system—using modern data, shared verification, advanced computing, and streamlined processes—can reduce those costs and improve accountability. That means more dollars go to those truly in need, fewer are lost to bureaucracy, and more opportunity for lower taxes and greater economic opportunity.

The result can be fewer people needing the welfare system.

Let People Prosper

This ultimately comes back to first principles. The best anti-poverty program is work. Other first responders are family, community, and civil society. Government should be a last resort. But if the government is going to operate these programs, it should:

• Be simple
• Be efficient
• Promote work
• And get out of the way

Right now, it too often does the opposite.

Key Takeaways for Policymakers

For policymakers, three things should be clear.

1. Work requirements are necessary but not sufficient. They are a tool—not a system change.
2. Fragmented bureaucracy is not fiscally conservative. It is costly, inefficient, and often counterproductive.
3. The goal should be fewer people on welfare, not better management of greater dependency. This should include One Door to Work and work requirements, as neither is a panacea.

The Bottom Line

The choice isn’t work requirements or One Door to Work. The choice is whether we keep a broken, expensive system or build one that actually helps people move into work and independence. One Door isn’t a silver bullet. Neither are work requirements. But together—done right—they can help achieve what matters most:
​
Less government. More work. More people are able to prosper.

Originally published at The Daily Economy. 

If you only followed the political feed, you would think the world is splitting into billionaires on yachts and everyone else eating instant noodles forever. Then you see the data, and the narrative gets awkward, fast.
​
A recent Economist graphic, in the article “The world is more equal than you think”, underscores something many people do not want to say out loud: global living standards have been converging, meaning poorer countries have been catching up in ways that matter for real life. 

That is not a victory lap. It is a reality check.

The inequality debate matters because it shapes policy. When lawmakers believe the world is growing less fair by the day, they reach for bigger government as the default response. But if the real goal is upward mobility, opportunity, and a decent life for regular people, the biggest obstacle is not “the rich.” It is the policy machinery that blocks competition, inflates costs, and quietly transfers wealth toward the politically connected.

What The Global Story Actually Says

Researchers at Brookings point to two forces behind global inequality trends: the “between-country” gap (the difference in average living standards across countries) and the “within-country” gap (inequality within each country). They find that the between-country side has been an equalizing force because many developing countries have grown faster than advanced economies. They note that in 2000, cross-country income differences accounted for about 70 percent of global inequality, with that share falling as countries converge. They also highlight that the within-country component has been mixed but roughly constant on average since 2000, and is projected to become more important going forward. The share of global consumption for the world’s poorest half rose from about 7 percent in 2000 to 12 percent in 2025. That is still low, but it is movement in the right direction. (If you are scoring at home, “the poor getting more” is not supposed to happen in the apocalyptic version of this story.)

Now layer in a second data stream that is even easier to understand: are the poor in a given country seeing their incomes rise?

The Our World in Data chart tracks the annualized growth rate of real income or consumption for the bottom 40 percent of a country’s population, based on household surveys and the World Bank’s Poverty and Inequality Platform. It is not perfect, but it is grounded in the question people actually care about: are those nearer the bottom moving up?
This is what a healthy “inequality conversation” should sound like: less sermonizing about billionaires, more focus on whether people are gaining purchasing power and options.

The Alternative View Deserves a Hearing, Then a Cross-Examination

Oxfam’s 2026 report, “Resisting the Rule of the Rich”, argues that billionaire wealth is rising rapidly and that extreme wealth can undermine democracy. It claims billionaire fortunes have grown at a rate “three times faster” than the previous five years and that the number of billionaires has surpassed 3,000, while “one in four” people face hunger.

That is the kind of framing that fuels the “eat the rich” mood. But here is the problem: it often treats “wealth” as if it were a pile of cash stolen from everyone else, rather than a constantly changing market valuation of businesses that create products, jobs, and productivity. It also slides between important concerns (cronyism and corruption) and a very different claim (free enterprise itself is the culprit). That bait-and-switch is common.

If the real concern is political capture, that concern is understandable. The solution, however, is not to hand more power to the same institutions that create capture in the first place. The way to weaken oligarchy is to eliminate the deals, carve-outs, and barriers to entry that make oligarchy profitable.

And yes, big tech and “superstar” companies raise real governance questions. Even The Economist has highlighted the “superstar dilemma” in corporate pay and talent markets, a complex issue that is not always pretty. But the cleanest way to discipline superstar firms is not to freeze the economy into a regulator’s version of fairness. It is to keep markets contestable, meaning new entrants can actually challenge incumbents.

The Uncomfortable US Lesson: Growth Beats Dependency

Here is where the inequality myth really breaks down. If the concern is that markets cannot deliver broad progress, then we should look at periods when broad progress actually happened.

​A new NBER working paper by Richard Burkhauser and Kevin Corinth provides a blunt historical comparison of poverty trends before and after the War on Poverty. They build a consistent post-tax, post-transfer measure and find that from 1939 to 1963, poverty fell by 29 percentage points, and that the pace of poverty reduction after 1963 was no faster when measured consistently. They also emphasize that the pre-1964 reduction in poverty was driven mostly by market income growth, not by expansions in transfers.

That is not a claim that safety net programs have no value. It is a reminder that the most powerful anti-poverty program is still called a job in a growing economy, supported by rising productivity and competition. 

When politics replaces growth with managed redistribution, it can reduce measured poverty in a narrow accounting sense while trapping people in low-mobility systems and higher cost structures.

So what is the real driver of inequality, perceived or real? Policy.

If people feel the game is rigged, it is usually because it is, but not in the simplistic “the rich did it” way. It is rigged through four main channels.

Spending

Government spending is not “new money.” It is a transfer of scarce resources from private activity into political allocation. Once spending becomes the main tool for solving every social problem, the economy becomes a contest for subsidies, grants, and contracts. That is how you get corporate welfare and permanent bureaucracies that grow regardless of results. The cost is what you do not see: businesses not started, wages not earned, inventions not funded.

Taxation

Tax systems loaded with carveouts reward the people who can hire the best experts to navigate them. High rates plus Swiss-cheese loopholes do not produce equality. They produce lobbying. If lawmakers want more fairness, the answer is simpler and more neutral taxation that stops picking winners and losers.

Regulation

This is the quiet cartel-maker. Complex rules do not crush giant firms first. They crush the next competitor. Licensing, zoning restrictions, compliance mandates, and paperwork costs operate like a moat around incumbents. That means less competition, higher prices, and fewer ladders for people trying to move up.

Monetary policy

Central bank discretion can amplify inequality by inflating asset prices and distorting capital allocation. When money is too loose for too long, assets can surge while wages lag, and the gap between owners and non-owners widens. You do not need a conspiracy theory. You just need incentives and a printing press.

Put these together, and you get a simple but unpopular conclusion: if inequality is your headline concern, you should be far more skeptical of the modern policy state.

A Classical Liberal Approach That Actually Helps People Move Up

The goal is not equality of outcome. That is a slogan that turns into control. The goal is mobility, meaning the ability to improve your life through work, saving, entrepreneurship, and choice.

That requires a strict limit on government spending growth so the state stops sucking the economy’s oxygen. A simpler tax system that lowers the penalty on work, saving, and investment. Deregulation that targets barriers to entry, especially in sectors where families feel crushed. Clear fiscal and monetary rules that stop politicians from buying today with tomorrow’s prosperity.

If someone still insists that “inequality proves capitalism failed,” point them to the global convergence evidence in Brookings and the mobility-focused reality behind the Our World in Data bottom-40 growth rates. Then ask the question that separates economics from activism: if government expanded massively and the best eras of poverty reduction were still powered by growth, why are we so confident that more government is the answer?

The punchline is not “stop caring.” The punchline is “stop being fooled.” If you want a world where more people can thrive, the most reliable path is still the boring one: freer markets, real competition, and hard rules that prevent government from rigging the economy while claiming it is saving it.

Originally published on Substack. 

​America has spent more than $25 trillion (inflation-adjusted) fighting poverty since President Lyndon Johnson declared a “War on Poverty” in 1964.

The result?

A poverty rate that has barely budged or was already improving before forced massive divergent spending and redistribution on flawed programs. Families trapped in cycles of government dependence and policymakers still tinkering with the edges. They argue over how much in welfare payments do recipients get rather than asking the more important question: how do we help people thrive?

​The latest poverty data show the cracks: millions remain stuck, even as government spending on welfare programs continues to climb. For too many, assistance has turned into a trap—where the marginal tax on returning to work is so high that staying on welfare seems rational. That’s not compassion. That’s policy failure.

Why the War on Poverty Failed

The central problem is design. Instead of fostering upward mobility, most programs lock people into dependency by phasing out benefits quickly when they return to work. This creates a punishing tradeoff: work more, lose benefits. For a single parent weighing childcare costs, transportation, and reduced benefits, working can actually mean taking home less.

Worse, well-meaning add-ons—from regulating what low-income families can buy with SNAP to new bureaucratic hoops—only pile on frustration without changing incentives. These regulations pretend to “help” but mostly signal distrust of the very people the programs claim to serve.

The unintended consequence?

Generational cycles of dependency. Families learn to navigate welfare systems, not labor markets. Children grow up without seeing parents steadily employed. Communities lose the dignity and prosperity that come with meaningful work.

A Better Way: Empowerment Accounts

There’s a smarter path forward: Empowerment Accounts.

As I’ve written and spoken about with the Alliance for Opportunity and in conversation with the Sutherland Institute, these accounts would consolidate welfare benefits into a single, flexible platform that recipients could use for their specific needs—while facing the right incentives to transition back to work.

Here’s why it works:

• Flexibility: Families choose how to allocate resources—whether for childcare, training, transportation, or basic needs.
• Accountability: Payments are conditional on progress toward self-sufficiency, with work requirements that actually help.
• Simplicity: Dozens of overlapping programs are replaced with a single system, reducing waste, fraud, and bureaucratic overhead.
• Incentives: Benefits taper in a way that encourages work, rather than penalizing it.

This flips the focus from “how much can you get” to “how fast can you succeed.”

Direct and Indirect Costs of Dependency

We often talk about the fiscal price tag—billions in taxpayer dollars funneled into programs that don’t reduce poverty.

But the indirect costs are even higher:

• Lost productivity when millions of work-capable adults are sidelined.
• Higher crime and instability in communities with entrenched dependency.
• Declining family formation and cultural cohesion as government replaces community and church-based support.

Dependency is expensive not just for taxpayers, but for society itself.

​The Case for Reform Now

The case for reform is urgent. Policymakers keep layering on rules—like banning “junk food” purchases with SNAP—as if micromanaging diets will solve poverty. That’s a distraction. The real question is: how do we transition people back into work, restore dignity, and let families prosper?

Empowerment Accounts are not just about saving money—they’re about unleashing potential. They recognize that the goal of welfare should be temporary assistance, not permanent dependency. They return the focus to work, responsibility, and opportunity.

Conclusion

Compassion isn’t measured by how much government spends. It’s measured by whether people actually escape poverty. After decades of stagnant results, it’s time to admit the War on Poverty was lost—and chart a new course.

We need welfare that empowers, not entraps. Programs that encourage work, not avoidance. Policies that trust families to make decisions, not bureaucrats to micromanage them.

If we want families and communities to flourish, welfare reform must move away from dependency and toward prosperity through empowerment.

Listen & Learn More:

• Alliance for Opportunity: Empowerment Accounts
• My Sutherland Institute conversation
• Let People Prosper Show

​True compassion is not handing out more benefits. It’s equipping people to leave welfare behind for good. Empowerment, not dependency, is the way forward.

​What happens when your life changes in an instant, and you have to rebuild it from the ground up?

In this week’s Let People Prosper Show, I talk with Rachel Barkley, a policy advocate, wife, mother, and one of the most resilient individuals I know. After a rare spinal cord tumor left her paralyzed just weeks after giving birth to her first child, Rachel began a long and painful road of recovery—one marked by faith, perseverance, and incremental miracles.

But her story isn’t just one of personal triumph. Rachel now leads state and national efforts to reform the safety net for individuals with disabilities and those facing hardship. She’s championing policies like the One Door Policy to streamline services, shift the conversation from “able-bodied” to work-capable, and ensure the system supports human dignity and independence. Don’t miss this episode!

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com. You can also get even greater value by subscribing to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. Please share with your friends, family, and broader social media network. 

(0:00) – Introduction and Background
(3:05) – Rachel's Journey Through Adversity
(9:00) – The Impact of Health Challenges on Family
(15:00) – The Role of Community and Support
(21:47) – Building New Systems and Habits
(25:18) – Finding Purpose in Adversity
(26:44) – Advancing Freedom and Dignity
(27:53) – Work Capable vs. Able Bodied
(31:44) – The One Door Policy
(40:34) – The Future of Safety Net Reforms

​Why do so many families turn down work opportunities—and how can we fix that?

In this thought-provoking episode of the Let People Prosper Show, I sit down with Nic Dunn, vice president of strategy at the Sutherland Institute, to explore how benefit cliffs, broken welfare incentives, and poorly designed safety nets can trap people in poverty instead of lifting them out of it.

Nick shares his personal journey into public policy, his belief in the dignity of work, and the data-driven case for state-led welfare innovation that removes the fear of losing benefits for earning more. This episode is all about restoring upward mobility and helping families truly prosper.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. 

(0:00) – Introduction to Prosperity and Safety Nets
(2:18) – Why Nick Dunn chose public policy
(5:02) – How life experiences shaped his worldview
(9:46) – Successes and setbacks in fighting poverty
(12:11) – The vital role of work in upward mobility
(16:43) – Dignity, labor force participation, and culture
(23:24) – The reality of benefit cliffs
(29:35) – Innovative state solutions and pilot programs
(36:40) – Federal reforms to restore opportunity

Originally published at Econlib.

​At the recent vice-presidential debate between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz, both leaders emphasized that families are America’s backbone. However, they erred in their approach by suggesting that more government involvement could solve families’ challenges. From expanding the child tax credit to advocating for new social programs, their solutions imply that the government can strengthen families. This is a dangerous misconception. 

Instead of empowering families, government programs often create dependency and stifle personal responsibility.

Families thrive when they can shape their futures, not when bureaucratic systems constrain them. Each time the government steps in with a new program or benefit, it diminishes that freedom, replacing it with control. 

What begins as well-intentioned assistance often leads to dependence on the state. For example, the expansion of the child tax credit may appear to help families in the short term, but beneath the surface, it’s just another form of wealth redistribution. The government takes from some families to give to others, often with strings attached, reducing overall freedom and fostering a culture of dependency.

As Milton Friedman often argued, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every dollar spent on social programs must come from somewhere—from today’s taxpayers or, worse, future generations who will inherit the debt. 

When politicians advocate for more government borrowing, they are not helping families; they are placing a financial burden on the very children they claim to support. These government interventions discourage self-reliance and erode the virtues that strengthen families, such as responsibility and initiative.

The real solution to helping families is not more government intervention—it’s less. 

Cutting government spending and reducing taxes allows families to keep more of their hard-earned money. When families control more of their income, they can make decisions that fit their unique needs, whether saving for a home, investing in their children’s education, or starting a small business. 

Families are far better equipped to allocate resources than Washington bureaucrats.

Moreover, reducing the size of government programs fosters independence. Work requirements, for instance, are essential to reducing welfare dependency. When individuals are encouraged to contribute to society through meaningful work, they regain a sense of dignity and self-worth—key elements for the stability and strength of the family unit. 

Government handouts that lack work incentives trap individuals in cycles of poverty and dependency. Over time, these individuals lose the motivation to improve their circumstances, weakening the family structure.

A critical area where this is evident is in criminal justice reform. 

Too many fathers, particularly in minority communities, are imprisoned for non-violent offenses, leaving families without a primary breadwinner and creating emotional and financial strain. This is another case where excessive government intervention—in the form of overcriminalization—has done more harm than good. 

Reforming the system to focus on rehabilitation and second chances would do far more to help struggling families than government welfare checks. Strong families depend on having responsible, present role models. Keeping families intact is essential to breaking the cycles of poverty that afflict so many communities.

Rising living costs are another major issue for families, but government intervention often exacerbates this problem. 

In housing, healthcare, and education, regulations and taxes inflate costs, making it harder for families to get by. For instance, restrictive zoning laws and excessive property taxes increase housing costs. Rather than creating new government programs to subsidize housing, a better approach would be eliminating these regulations and reducing the tax burden, allowing the free market to provide more affordable solutions. 

The free market has a proven track record of reducing prices and increasing access, while government involvement often does the opposite.

The government should protect individual rights and ensure a fair playing field, not interfere by redistributing wealth or attempting to manage the economy. Personal responsibility and economic freedom are key to prosperity. Families need the freedom to choose how to work, spend, and live their lives. 

More government programs won’t strengthen families—freedom will.

Politicians like Vance and Walz, though well-meaning, miss the broader point. Families don’t need more government programs; they need more freedom. This includes the freedom to work, to spend their money as they see fit, and to live without excessive regulation. By reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, and eliminating burdensome regulations, we give families the tools they need to succeed on their terms.
​
The key to strengthening families is not expanding government but reducing its role. Families thrive when they have the freedom to make their own choices without the heavy hand of government dictating their lives. The best way to help families is to let them keep more of what they earn, remove the bureaucratic red tape that stifles opportunity, and foster a culture of personal responsibility. The freer families are to pursue their goals, the more prosperous society will become—not just for them but for the entire country.