One of the main problems that has always existed with the general welfare system, is that it separates the recipient from their community in a number of ways.  One of those in breaking up a family accountability, where assistance might be given to a son, daughter, or sibling, but accountability to those family members is strong.  Money given to nameless faceless people who have no expectation to report on what they did with the assistance will get what should be expected; no positive results, and an expectation of more with no accountability.

We teach entitlement, but do not teach responsibility or encouragement to improve decision making as would/should happen from familial or true community charity.

An open book on whom might be recipients of welfare would be a good first step in encouraging those who would rely on public assistance.  Knowing who collect might sometimes invite scorn, but it would also develop a REASON to desist in putting the hand out first. Is it not more humane to encourage recipients of public largess to make responsible decisions in their own lives, rather than encourage the same that has brought them to the trough?

We have already destroyed multiple generations of self sufficiency through 'great societies', and great rewards for unearned self indulgence. Whole communities in Michigan have been unraveled because of a lack of accountability to neighbor and family alike.  Thinking forward to future needs is a path more resistive than that that cool new tat you got on your way to the grocery store to buy soda (or a lottery ticket) on that bridge card.

And privacy advocates don't want us to drug test, question welfare recipients for lottery winnings, or even know whom these people are.

And dummies like Tlaib deem it too harsh, to desire less dependency.