A commentary piece published this week in the Washington Examiner argues that American citizens — whom the author calls 'the real monarch' of the nation — have been betrayed by government servants who have grown wealthy while expanding federal power and maintaining systems that subsidize dependency rather than self-sufficiency.
The op-ed, written by Michael Breeden, a writer based in North Carolina, frames its argument around what he describes as personal capitalism: the universal human drive to improve one's own condition through voluntary exchange and productive contribution. The piece draws on James Madison's Federalist No. 51, quoting: 'If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics of this philosophical framework argue that it overlooks structural barriers to economic advancement and oversimplifies complex socioeconomic challenges facing American families.
Representative Barbara Lee of California has argued that policies addressing systemic inequality are essential to genuine opportunity. 'True freedom means having the resources and support to make meaningful choices about your life,' Lee stated in a recent House floor speech. The Center for American Progress has published research suggesting that access to affordable healthcare, quality education, and childcare infrastructure directly correlates with economic mobility.
Economists at the Economic Policy Institute contend that wage stagnation, rising housing costs, and healthcare burden have created conditions where personal responsibility alone cannot guarantee upward mobility. 'When a single medical emergency can bankrupt a family, we need structural solutions alongside individual effort,' EPI researchers wrote in a 2025 policy brief.
What the Right Is Saying
Breeden's commentary aligns with conservative arguments that federal welfare programs have expanded beyond their original intent and now discourage self-sufficiency.
Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has championed reforms to connect safety net benefits more directly to workforce participation. 'We want to help people, but we also want to help them become independent,' Scott said during a Senate Budget Committee hearing in March. The senator has proposed legislation aimed at incentivizing work and reducing long-term dependency.
The American Enterprise Institute published analysis in 2025 finding that means-tested benefit phase-out rates create effective marginal tax rates exceeding 80% for some low-income families, potentially trapping recipients in dependency cycles rather than rewarding workforce advancement.
Heritage Foundation researchers have argued that the expansion of federal social programs since the 1960s correlates with declining marriage rates and increased out-of-wedlock birth rates in target communities. 'Policy should encourage the two-parent family structure that consistently produces better outcomes for children,' Heritage's Robert Rector has written.
What the Numbers Show
Census Bureau data shows that federal means-tested benefit programs cost approximately $1.1 trillion annually as of fiscal year 2024, serving roughly 100 million individuals.
The Congressional Budget Office reported in January 2026 that effective marginal tax rates for low-income households receiving multiple benefits can exceed 50% in some cases when benefits phase out with increased earnings.
Marriage rates have declined from 8.2 per 1,000 population in 2000 to 6.9 per 1,000 in 2024, according to National Center for Health Statistics data. The share of children born outside marriage rose from 33% in 2000 to approximately 41% in 2023.
Labor force participation rates for working-age adults (25-54) stood at 83.2% as of May 2026, up slightly from 82.7% two years prior but still below pre-pandemic levels of 84.4% in February 2020.
The Bottom Line
Breeden's commentary reflects an ongoing debate about the proper balance between government support systems and policies that encourage individual self-sufficiency. Conservative commentators argue that decades of expanding welfare programs have created perverse incentives that trap recipients rather than lift them toward independence.
Progressive critics counter that structural economic changes — including healthcare costs, housing affordability, and childcare expenses — represent genuine barriers that cannot be overcome through willpower alone, requiring policy solutions beyond personal responsibility frameworks.
The philosophical divide reflects broader disagreements about the role of government in American life and whether federal programs should prioritize immediate need relief or long-term behavioral change toward self-sufficiency. Both sides cite empirical data, though they interpret causation differently regarding what produces economic dependency and how it might be addressed.