The spotlight is firmly fixed on the upcoming 2024 elections, and understandably so. A great deal of attention is being directed towards the phenomenon of double negatives, or dual haters, recognizing their potentially significant influence on the election outcome. These individuals are seeking a government that works for them. Unfortunately, for too many, the government seems punitive and entrenched in a culture that stigmatizes those requiring assistance.

Most Americans believe that, while the government may be working for someone else, it is not working for them. The respected Pew Research Center reported in September 2023 that only one in six Americans trust the federal government to do what is right — with a mere 1% believing it does so “just about always” and 15% “most of the time.” Pew found that the issue isn’t solely in how well the government works but rather for whom it serves.

70% believe the federal government performs reasonably well (58% “somewhat good” and 12% “very good”) in responding to natural disasters — a test of the government’s competence — only 21% say the government is doing a “somewhat good” job in helping people get out of poverty, with an even smaller 3% rating its performance as “very good.”

The Covid-19 pandemic had a positive impact on the views of the public sector, as Americans directly experienced what the government could do. In spite of problems with unemployment insurance and relief aid for small businesses, confidence in the government increased. However, this confidence declined again when many of the benefits were withdrawn — just at a time when Americans were trying to get their heads above water.

There is another dimension to the frustration and anger Americans feel. Given their own experience with public sector agencies, more than three-quarters of respondents (77%) agree that “dealing with federal government agencies is often not worth the trouble,” with 15% saying this describes their views extremely well, 23% very well and 39% somewhat well.

What is not well understood is the fact that the federal government provides monies to states who then, in large part, implement the programs. Each benefit program is subject to specific requirements dictated by state laws, resulting in a patchwork of almost Sisyphean hurdles to receive aid depending on your zip code. When presidents boast about monies delivered and aid provided, many don’t experience this accomplishment — unless it is direct, like the Child Tax Credit. Instead, they experience a need to be masters of hurdling, an extremely technical event.

Three social programs are examples of this narrative — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the successor to Food Stamps), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, the successor to Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and Medicaid — across three “swing states:” Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

SNAP, TANF and Medicaid are all means-tested programs. Those seeking assistance must document that they fall below federal (and sometimes state) income thresholds at or above the poverty line. They must often exhaust their assets to qualify. The application process is cumbersome, intrusive and exhausting. One might even say it is designed to discourage those most in need. For instance, Arizona’s consolidated application form spans 31 pages, with another 20 pages of instructions, while Pennsylvania’s form has 15-pages, with 17 pages of instructions. Georgia has a 14-page form and 6 pages of instruction. These instructions, even if followed to the letter, did not help 46,234 SNAP applicants who were not paid due to an administrative mix up.

Many states, including Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania, have adopted consolidated application forms, allowing individuals and households to apply for all three programs at the same time. However, this does not reduce the burden for applicants, and they must still cope with confusing and cumbersome requirements. And the process doesn’t end with completing pages and pages of an application… Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia require personal interviews for one or more of these programs.

During Women’s History Month in March, it is important to recognize that these programs serve as a lifeline to many women who are disproportionately represented in this group — particularly single women, who bear the hardest burden. This is a group that constitutes the majority of women in the United States. They are particularly shortchanged by the public sector and, for single women, this is true at any economic strata.

But let’s compare what those at the top are required to do to “qualify” for benefits. Their process is less burdensome at both the federal and state levels. Why is this? Most affluent Americans virtually determine their own eligibility for reduced tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, the qualified business income deduction, and the federal real estate tax exemption. After deciding that they qualify, these wealthy folks submit their claims by filing the appropriate tax forms. Well, actually, their accountants do the paperwork and provide documents with stickies saying, “sign here.” Very few have to prove they are the “deserving rich” — and the audit rate is 0.6% for those with incomes between $500,000, 1.3% for those between $1 million and $5 million, 2.0% for those between $5 million and $10 million, and 8.7% for those with income greater than $10 million.

The tragedy of this story is that so many Americans who need a little help to recover from exigent circumstances have to go through a process that discourages them, causing many to drop out of the process altogether and suffer the consequences. America loses so much by not helping these individuals who value hard work, a strong family and the ability to support themselves and their loved ones.

One thing is clear: Those who starve federal and state governments in terms of the administration of all programs know that the more the public sector is starved, the less efficient it is — leading to further mistrust and anger. This has been a long-term play of the Right, and it is time to end this vicious cycle.