
Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand
Some say they're not fighting President Donald Trump hard enough.
Others say they aren't messaging their agenda well enough.
In reality, they're fighting too hard for an agenda that Americans reject, with a central demand of welfare for all.
Thirty-two years after President Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it,' no idea unifies the Democratic Party more than the belief that welfare should be never-ending.
This vision of government dependency spurred their most notable policies of recent years, and explains their intransigent opposition to Republican reforms.
While some Democrats show an increasing willingness to compromise on other leftist priorities, such as biological men in women's sports, the party brooks no dissent on welfare — even though Americans want to fix the system's many failures.
Consider the ongoing federal budget battle.
House Republicans have put together a reconciliation bill that would slow the rate of Medicaid growth — from a projected 59.6% increase to 40% — over the next decade.
Democrats oppose even that, including GOP attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse.
Yet the latest federal data show that 22% of Medicaid payments and 12% of food-stamp payments went to ineligible recipients.
More than 70% of likely voters want to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, polls show, yet Democrats essentially deny there's a problem that needs to be solved.
In fact, when the Trump administration proposed a rule in March to end $11 billion in improper ObamaCare subsidies — aiming solely to curtail fraud — Democrats immediately opposed it.
Democrats are just as adamant when it comes to work requirements for welfare recipients.
My organization, the Foundation for Government Accountability, recently found that six in 10 able-bodied adults on Medicaid don't work at all, hoovering up resources that would benefit the truly vulnerable.
When voters in purple Wisconsin were asked two years ago if welfare recipients should work as a condition of receiving benefits, nearly 80% said yes — but national Democrats now say no.
They also reject Republican attempts to block Medicaid payments for illegal immigrants, which would save billions of dollars over the next decade.
More than 70% of voters don't want illegal immigrants to receive government benefits, yet Democrats bizarrely disagree.
But it's not just Congress; Democrats are striking the same strange tune in state capitols.
Over the past 10 years, virtually all Republican-led states have taken steps to purge waste, fraud and abuse from welfare programs.
By contrast, Democrat-run states have expanded illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid and pushed able-bodied adults onto welfare programs.
In recent months, Democratic governors in Kansas and Arizona have vetoed Republican bills that would ban food-stamp purchases of soda and junk food — a reform that could lower state and federal Medicaid spending and encourage healthier choices.
Democrats have a long history of supporting restrictions on consumers' options, but as soon as welfare enters the picture, they oppose it.
Apparently limiting freedom is fine by them, but limiting federal welfare is unthinkable.
The left's unwillingness to support even modest welfare reforms reflects the reality that government dependency is the biggest thing Democrats now offer Americans — even beyond limitless immigration and the Green New Deal.
The Affordable Care Act, the central achievement of Barack Obama's presidency, dramatically expanded Medicaid while creating a new welfare system for the individual health-insurance market.
Joe Biden enacted a work-destroying child tax credit and sought perpetual expansions of Medicaid and food stamps under the guise of pandemic relief.
A slew of Biden regulations made it easier for people to abuse the taxpayer's generosity, from Medicaid to food stamps to free school lunches for rich kids.
Democrats' end goal is clear: Get every American on the dole.
Yet insisting that government dependency is always the answer means Democrats can't publicly admit that seemingly infinite welfare has any shortcomings.
In fact, the left's agenda of welfare-for-all is profoundly harmful, and voters know it.
Democrats have built a welfare system that taxpayers can't afford while pushing millions of people out of the workforce — a dual assault on the economic growth.
They've left fewer resources for disabled children and the elderly by prioritizing able-bodied adults and illegal immigrants.
And they're corrupting the foundational American belief that welfare is temporary assistance whose recipients should work to get back on their feet.
No wonder Democrats are so unpopular: They're fleecing taxpayers, crippling the economy, hurting the truly needy and giving handouts to those who don't deserve them — none of which has Americans' support.
The first Democrat who wakes up on welfare will be the hero their party desperately needs.
Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Backs Off 'Hostile Takeover' of D.C. Police
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 14: Members of the National Guard walk on the National Mall on August 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump announced plans to deploy federal officers and the National Guard to the District in order to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control and assist in crime prevention in the nation's capital. Credit - Anna Moneymaker—Getty Images The White House has backed off plans for a full takeover of the D.C. police force and will allow for the city's police chief to remain in charge after a judge indicated they would block the move. President Donald Trump this week invoked emergency powers to take control of the D.C. police department and call in the National Guard to a city that he claimed is overrun by "bloodshed, bedlam and squalor"—a claim that is disputed by experts. Read More: Trump Paints a Picture of D.C. as a Crime-Ridden Hell-Hole. Here Are the Facts As part of the federal takeover, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Drug and Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Terrance C. Cole as 'Emergency Police Commissioner,' a move that would have given the White House extraordinary powers over policing. The city's Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit calling for an emergency restraining order to block the move, accusing the Trump Administration of implementing a 'hostile takeover' of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) that would lead to 'imminent, irreparable harm'. 'In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive,' Smith wrote in the lawsuit Judge Ana Reyes said in a Friday hearing that, according to the Home Rule Act, the Department of Justice needed to rewrite the section of the executive order that placed Cole in charge, and that he needed to go through the city's mayor. Reyes stopped short of issuing a restraining order, but indicated that if the DOJ did not rewrite the section, she would. Read More: Trump Took Over the D.C. Police. He Can't Do It In Other Cities, Legal Experts Say 'The statute [The Home Rule Act] would have no meaning at all if the president could just say 'we're taking over your police department,'' Reyes said. In a press conference after the hearing, Schwalb touted the result as a 'very important win for Home Rule today.' A new directive by Bondi following the lawsuit allowed for Chief Pamela Smith to remain in charge of the force, though the city will still be under the Administration's control, and orders will be sent through the city's Mayor Muriel Bowser. The Trump Administration will still essentially have control over the city, but Smith will maintain control of the day-to-day operations of the MPD. In Bondi's new directive, though, she also required MPD to comply with the Trump Administration's aggressive immigration tactics, rescinding two police practices that limited MPD's immigration enforcement—also known as 'sanctuary policies.' D.C's At-Large Councilmember Christina Henderson reacted on X that, 'Respectfully, the Attorney General does not have the authority to revoke laws.' In the first week alone of the Trump Administration's federal takeover, nearly 200 arrests have been reported in the city, including many undocumented immigrants, which has alarmed civil rights groups. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer to speak with coalition of the willing ahead of Zelensky-Trump meeting
Sir Keir Starmer will speak to western allies on Sunday ahead of Volodymyr Zelensky's White House meeting with Donald Trump. The Prime Minister, France's Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Friedrich Merz will host the meeting of the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon. The coalition, made up of 30-plus nations, is prepared to deter Russian aggression by putting troops on the ground in Ukraine once the war is over. The meeting, which is expected to take place at approximately 2pm UK time, comes on the heels of US President Mr Trump's summit in Alaska with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Mr Trump hoped to secure a peace deal from the talks at a military base in Anchorage, but both he and Mr Putin walked away without agreement on how to end the war in Ukraine. The US leader, however, insisted 'some great progress' was made, with 'many points' agreed and 'very few' remaining. Several news outlets have cited sources which claimed that during the negotiations Mr Putin demanded full control of Donetsk and Luhansk – two occupied Ukrainian regions – as a condition for ending the war. In exchange he would give up other Ukrainian territories held by Russian troops. Other outlets reported that Mr Trump is inclined to support the plan, and will speak to Mr Zelensky about it on Monday when they meet in the Oval Office. After the Alaska summit, the US president told Fox News it was now up to Mr Zelensky to 'make a deal' to end the war. Sir Keir commended Mr Trump's 'pursuit of an end to the killing' following a phone call with the US president, Mr Zelensky and Nato allies on Saturday morning. But he insisted Ukraine's leader must not be excluded from future talks to broker a peace in Ukraine.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Putin Must Be Thrilled With the Result of the Alaska Summit
Russian President Putin speeches during their joint press conference with U.S. Persident Donald Trump after their meeing on war in Ukraine at U.S. Air Base In Alaska on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska, United States. Credit - Contributor—Getty Images Vladimir Putin wanted a lot of things from his visit to Alaska. A ceasefire in Ukraine was not one of them. Throughout the summer, his troops have been grinding out advances along the frontline, and they achieved a sudden breakthrough in the days before the Alaska summit. Putin's main objective was to buy time for his troops to continue those advances, all while avoiding the 'very severe consequences' that President Donald Trump promised to impose on the Russians if they refused to call a ceasefire. It appears Putin succeeded on both counts. In his public statements on Friday night, Trump made clear he no longer plans to impose any economic pain on Russia. 'Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that,' he told Fox News after the summit. 'I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now.' In Trump's understanding, two or three weeks is a malleable term, as the New York Times recently noted, 'not a measurement of time so much as a placeholder.' Read more: From the Sidelines, Ukraine Prepares to Watch as U.S., Russia Discuss Its Fate On the battlefield, however, it could mean the difference between holding off the Russians and allowing them to seize another region of Ukraine. The epicenter of the fighting in recent weeks has been the region of Donetsk, where Ukrainian troops were able to stop the latest Russian breakthrough. The latest maps of the fighting indicate that the Kremlin remains determined to seize that region. Another few weeks of Russian infantry assaults could achieve that goal, allowing Putin to negotiate with the U.S. and Ukraine from a position of greater advantage. 'Things at the front are going well for them,' a senior Ukrainian military officer tells TIME. 'Slow but steady.' These gains helped Putin negotiate in Alaska from a position of strength. Ahead of their talks, Trump indicated that he wants the warring sides to 'swap' territories, with Ukraine giving away its own land in exchange for areas Russia has occupied. 'They've occupied some very prime territory,' Trump said a few days before his summit with Putin. 'We're going to try and get some of that territory back for Ukraine.' Trump failed to achieve that in Alaska, and his chances of getting what he calls a 'fair deal' for Ukraine diminish as Russian forces continue to gain ground. For reasons that remain unclear, Trump said he believes that Putin wants to stop the fighting. 'I believe he wants to get it over,' Trump said. 'Now, I've said that a few times, and I've been disappointed.' Alaska marks the latest of these disappointments, but Trump has shown no inclination to change his strategy. He did not even secure some of the easier concessions from Putin that might have given the Americans something to show for the Alaskan spectacle. One of Russia's leading dissidents, Yulia Navalnaya, had urged Trump to secure the release of Russian political prisoners jailed for their opposition to the war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for his part, has urged the U.S. to demand the release of thousands of Ukrainian children that Russian forces have abducted from the war zone. Neither of these issues came up in the official statements in Alaska. Appearing side by side on Friday, Trump gave his guest the floor, allowing Putin to deliver another one of his rambling history lessons, a maneuver that has been likened to diplomatic 'filibustering.' When Trump's turn came to speak, he admitted that the talks had not resulted in a deal. The next step toward peace, he suggested, would be to arrange a meeting between Putin and Zelensky. But the Russian side has given no indication that it would be open to such an arrangement. Instead, at the end of their press conference in Alaska, Putin suggested in English that he and Trump would meet 'next time in Moscow,' an idea that seemed to catch Trump off guard. 'Oh, that's an interesting one,' he replied. 'I'll get a little heat on that one.' This final exchange pointed again to the paltry outcomes of the summit. The two sides had not even agreed on a location or a format for the next stage of the peace process, while Putin came away confident enough to suggest that his capital would be a fitting venue. It was hard to blame him. Given the red-carpet treatment he received in Alaska, Putin had every reason to feel like a winner coming out of those talks. He had, after all, achieved his main objective, and given nothing away. Contact us at letters@