A quick thread, to elaborate a bit on this tweet: https://twitter.com/ScottElliotG/status/1357376922515341312

The U.S. welfare state is far from perfect. There are two ways that lawmakers could improve it:
(1) Reforming existing programs
(2) Scaling back or eliminating certain programs, and replacing them with better programs.

Often, (2) is a better bet than (1). There's only so far reform can go when you're dealing with a fundamentally flawed program — and it's often independently desirable to cut back on the number of overlapping government programs, for the sake of simplicity and administrability

But there are are some people in the policy discourse (and on This Website) who are allergic to the very idea of (2).
"Why would you ever scale back this program, which helps many Americans in need?"
"Why couldn't you just choose a different pay-for, like taxing the rich?"

These questions can be useful, but only up to a point.
If you automatically attack lawmakers who try to replace old welfare programs with new ones, you're significantly limiting the possibilities for actually making the welfare state better.