Yes they will do that. And they will say that too many are grappling with poverty, and they won’t consider it good news to have fewer getting food stamps.
“they will say that too many are grappling with poverty”
Never specifying what “poverty” is.
The US “poverty line” views 80% of world population as “poor”.
A millionaire living off cash savings ($0/yr income) is deemed “poor”.
A significant fraction of the “poor” are wantonly obese.
I’m all for helping the poor: the _temporary_ poor (life threw a curve ball, need help getting back up), the _existential_ poor (can’t afford food/shelter, gonna die), the abject poor (incapable of sufficient productivity).
Alas, so many are “poor” because they either work the system for “entitlements” (to wit: their job is milking the system), or because government regulation stifles their opportunities (ex.: Obama ending coal mining) or drives up cost of living to infeasible (ex.: property taxes skyrocketing on owned lots). And there are some who make their profitable living off of “helping” the poor, and so in lieu of working themselves out of a job do what they can to ensure those deemed “poor” are growing in number, not shrinking.
A pity the language does not easily differentiate between the “deserving poor” vs “wanton poor”, and laws encompass the “clearly not poor” as poor due to lousy legislation.