​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.

Originally published at National Review Online.

Few government programs are regularly up for debate as much as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. The latest controversy is whether the food purchased by its recipients should be restricted to healthier diets that exclude snacks and sodas.

While this approach seems reasonable, its tradeoffs necessitate SNAP reforms that balance keeping this costly program temporary for recipients while supporting their agency and choice for long-term self-sufficiency.

Enacted in its current form in 1964 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, SNAP has evolved into one of the nation’s most extensive safety-net programs, assisting more than 42 million Americans at a cost to taxpayers of $113 billion in 2023.

With the Farm Bill coming up for reauthorization by Congress on September 30, it’s time to consider improvements for SNAP and other programs in the existing legislation. The Farm Bill has included funding and rules for commodity programs since it was first enacted in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. But nutrition (primarily through SNAP) is expected to account for 84 percent of the $1.5 trillion spent on programs in the bill over the next decade.

The free-market approach to SNAP reform should be rooted in economic freedom and individual empowerment and emphasize the importance of preserving flexibility in food purchases while promoting self-sufficiency and work for recipients. This perspective draws inspiration from the teachings of free-market economists such as Milton Friedman, who championed the idea of individual choice in economic decision-making.

Since its inception, SNAP has undergone numerous reforms and expansions, reflecting shifting societal attitudes and economic realities. Originally conceived as a program to provide recipients quick, temporary relief from hunger and malnutrition, SNAP has become a permanent fixture for many people experiencing economic hardship. For example, a household of four — to be eligible, its gross monthly household income must not exceed $3,250 — will receive a maximum monthly allotment of $973 per month.

Central to SNAP reform should be the concept of self-sufficiency.

SNAP can honor recipients’ dignity and agency as they navigate their way through the challenges posed by poverty by allowing them to make purchases based on their preferences and circumstances, even if that includes snacks or soda.

This flexibility respects recipients’ autonomy and acknowledges their capacity to make informed decisions about their dietary needs. This can also help reduce the incentive for recipients to sell SNAP allotments to others and purchase items they prefer more.

We should also acknowledge that these food subsidies distort the grocery market.

The restrictions on what SNAP recipients can purchase today drive them to specific items such as milk. The artificial boost in demand then drives up the price and sometimes the profit margins for those items, thereby making them more expensive for everyone while lining the pockets of a few suppliers.

Because SNAP raises some prices for Americans and adds to the national debt, contributing to higher interest rates and inflation, we need a better-functioning program or we need to end it.

In addition to promoting self-sufficiency, a flexible SNAP program should align with work to reduce poverty so recipients use the program temporarily as intended.

Rather than imposing top-down restrictions on food choices, as some are trying to do, policy-makers should focus on unleashing opportunities for recipients to improve their circumstances through education, training, and employment. These steps have a proven record of supporting long-term success.

Furthermore, a streamlined approach to SNAP administration would improve the program’s effectiveness while minimizing waste and abuse. By reducing bureaucratic hurdles, we could help ensure that the taxpayer dollars that fund the program are used more efficiently to support those in need.

As policy-makers contemplate reforms to SNAP with the upcoming Farm Bill renewal, they must recognize the program’s historical context and evolution. Originally conceived as a temporary measure for recipients to address hunger and malnutrition, SNAP has become a permanent, costly safety net for many recipients.

By preserving flexibility in food purchases and empowering recipients with more opportunities to work and move out of poverty, we can support individual freedom and decision-making, two fundamental elements of a vibrant and prosperous society.

The Farm Bill presents an opportunity to do so through meaningful reforms to SNAP that help strengthen Americans’ resolve to overcome obstacles.

​The above reforms would make the help provided by SNAP temporary and flexible, and complement it with a pathway to work. There should also be a push to reduce bureaucratic bloat by streamlining the program and arranging for periodic independent efficiency audits by third-party private firms or a state auditor, so that its funds only go to the people they are intended for.

Moreover, adhering to more free-market approaches across the economy — with less government spending, lower taxes, and reduced regulation — can provide more opportunities for people to get jobs and move out of poverty forever. This will allow people to flourish rather than being dependent on government programs that discourage self-sufficiency.

As we navigate the complexities of food insecurity, let us heed the wisdom of free-market economics and empower recipients to chart their path to a brighter future.

​Episode 73 is with Dr. Gale Pooley, adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute, senior fellow at The Discovery Institute, and co-author of the new book, "Superabundance."  

Gale and I discuss the following and more:  

1) The state of abundance in America and how we compare to other countries; 

2) How government interference through regulations and subsidies are restricting healthcare, education, and entrepreneurs; and 

3) Why AI should be embraced, not feared, and money is not our most valuable economic asset.  

If you found today's discussion valuable, be sure to check out Gale's book: https://www.cato.org/books/superabundance 

Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. Also, subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack (www.vanceginn.substack.com) and visit my website for economic insights (www.vanceginn.com).