Sorry, but this is fundamentally wrong. Welfare is a short-term necessity, one that can be passed in the current political climate. The support that it stands in for cannot get passed, thanks to the right. The issues it attempts to address are gross inequality (made worse by the wealthy more-or-less owning the rule makers, can you say 'The Matthew Effect'?), lack of support (for anything, really, but especially support for change, re-specialization, and so on), and thus dehumanization, more generally. Good luck finding the source of those issues exclusively (or even mostly) on the left.

So-called fiscal responsibility (aka austerity in the European context) is predicated on the enabling right-wing metaphor of the nation as a family. Having a metaphor around which to organise your thinking is a human thing, and failing to recognize where that metaphor falls short is, too. If you think of the nation as a family, you think of tightening your belt when things get tough. Sure, makes sense... for a family, but that's because that's the only mechanism a family has to make money go further. Families don't have the equivalent of quantitative easing, bonds or borrowing at 0.1%, so the metaphor is no longer helpful.

In a family dynamic, there's always the child with the greatest earning potential, and they get a little bit more of the scant resources. Along the same lines, that's why the GOP tend to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Also, let's call that what it is: "corporate welfare". This illustrates that the GOP are not against welfare, just against welfare that goes to predominantly minority and poor people.

The problem with this approach, enabled as it is by the "Nation as Family" metaphor, is that in a society, unlike a family, all of the research suggests that spending money on the least able is actually a better bet, a better return on investment, mostly because investment in the youngest, poorest and most needy now, reaps returns in the long run.

As we all know, politicians are geared to the four-, five- or ten-year view, and as such are tuned to avoid policies that only have long-term benefits for the city, county, state, or country. So, information like this gets ignored:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_executive_summary.pdf

Psychology graduate with interests in values and morality, cognition and executive function, and High Functioning Depression. Kiwi living in London, UK.

Psychology graduate with interests in values and morality, cognition and executive function, and High Functioning Depression. Kiwi living in London, UK.