I have a problem with these kinds of arguments in the context of candidates for national offices because they just make sweeping generailzations about "what the government should do" without specifiying or taking into account which government we're talking about.
We are a republic. That means there is a system of defined spheres of authority divided between the State and national governments.
It's fine to think that government in general should be taking care of the poor, but if it is to be done it needs to be done by the state governments. There is no enumrated power of the national government that empowers them to do that.
I don’t think he’s advocating ‘care’ in the sense of more welfare checks at all. For the life of me I cannot envision Santorum expanding welfare - ever. He might go soft on the status quo (and not one of the others would be diffent) but his ideals are far different than giving more power to the loving arms of a godless federal gub’mint.
The Federal government, in it’s proper role, should expand liberty by upholding and fostering the very principles at the base of the Tree of Liberty - that is, strong and free families. A very Western tradition. Upholding those ideas, in this age, need be nothing more than getting gub’mint out of those areas it shouldn’t be and upholding the laws and institutions that foster traditional families
I agree with you, however, that handing out welfare money ought to be a state right.