When you stand in line at a grocery store in the state of California, it’s easy to notice the different decisions people make–one cart might be filled with nutritious foods and fresh produce, but another filled to the brim with sodas and processed foods, sometimes purchased with a government-issued EBT card. These common sights help fuel a popular debate: Is California’s welfare system helping the needy, or is it quietly enabling a system of unhealthy dependence and abuse? 


Prior to the beginning of the Great Depression in 1929, the United States’ welfare system was an untidy patchwork of clumsy initiatives. The University of Michigan described it: “--an uncoordinated mixture of local and state public relief agencies, supplemented by the modest resources of voluntary charitable organizations” (UMich). However, the response to the depression resulted in a great increase in government social work and the idea that social welfare assistance was the government’s responsibility, not just charitable benefactors (National Archives and Records Administration). During the Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt, promising “A New Deal for the American People,” won the presidential election in 1932. Three years later, following the public’s wishes, he signed the Social Security Act of 1935 into law. A social insurance funded by payroll taxes, the SSA would return citizens' deposits once they entered retirement. Roughly 30 years later, during a time referred to as the “Great Society,” especially under the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, federal assistance with Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance for the elderly was expanded (Katz, 2008). These programs were unique, compared to many welfare programs, in that they are reciprocal--everyone pays, everyone benefits.


Before the Food Stamp Reform Act of 1977, food stamps themselves required purchase; now, everything is “free” (California Department of Social Services). Why? Not to use a platitude, however, the saying “nothing is truly free” can effectively be applied in this context: welfare takes universally to support discretely. This cost is estimated to be roughly $2,739 annually for the average taxpayer (“How Much Welfare Really Costs the Average Taxpayer Each Year 2026”), with a large cut of this funding programs like CalFresh and CalWorks; in California, a state which spends almost 81% higher average expenditures on income-support programs, this cost is almost assuredly higher with one estimate nearing almost $3,900. One might attribute this increased cost to California’s high cost of living; nevertheless, the Golden State still disburses “62 percent more on income support programs than all other states” ("California’s Expensive but Ineffective Income Support Spending," 2024 ). Although one could argue blame in the state’s relative relationship with expenditures, compared to most other states in the Union, California’s official poverty performance is average. The federal poverty level, which is used to predict this performance, is moreover a concern: in 2026, Medi-Cal is determining eligibility for adults by comparing their household income with 138% of the Federal Poverty Level to adjust for price-of-living (California Department of Social Services). Yes, 138% could be a sufficient estimate, however compared to the cost of living--in San Francisco this reaches as high as 191.1% of the National Average--in some regions, the current rate is inadvertently overstating the effectiveness of the programs (Salary.com): many Californians, although above the state poverty-line, remain incapable of sustaining themselves without governmental assistance. In March 2025, San Diego County had 405,515 people registered under the CalFresh program, which provides food, and with it, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year to feed this demand in the county alone. In this single county, criminals have stolen over $34.6 million from these disadvantaged Californians.


From the people who truly need it, criminals “skim” millions from Electronic Benefit Cards, which are commonly attributed to utilizing insufficient security-prevention technology, and the losses have to be completely reimbursed (Rivas, 2025). Not only are the CalFresh members at huge risk when they discover their EBT cards are completely free of cash, but taxpayers, when a generous portion of their income funds thieves, are also troubled. CalFresh has generally been a target of appropriation by criminals, but some further consider CalFresh as “larceny” when its promise of providing, as advertised on its website, “healthy food,” is not fulfilled. In California, according to the Washington Times, fast-food spending, the antithesis of this promised diet, reaches up to “more than $475 million.” Despite access to hot meals, an undoubtedly beneficial component for elderly or disabled Californians, maximizing benefits for everyone demands this isn't spent at the local McDonalds. 


While California’s welfare system is crucial for those in need, its current format and structure leads to preventable fraud and unhealthy purchases that undermine the key concepts the programs stand for: modernizing technology, furthering the narrowing of eligibility to only those truly in need, and improving nutritional standards to exclude/limit fast-food restaurants, sugary-drinks, and processed goods are all necessary steps to better the welfare system for everyone.