The article is lengthy and captures the complexity of emotions felt by people who feel (a) that the government should limit the social safety net to the desperately poor, not simply sustain people at a their current living standard; (b) do not believe in raising taxes; but, (c) recognize that they are beneficiaries of these programs and that many of them will become desperately poor without them.
My personal feeling on this is that the economic benefits to everyone from a well executed social safety net are not understood. We look on the social safety net as charity. That's partly correct. But it is more than that. It is a method for regulating the economy. If you think economic regulation to smooth out the bumps of the boom-bust cycle is bad, then this is not a selling point.
As I have said before, my belief is that we should maximize the likelihood of good outcomes and try to minimize the impact of bad outcomes. The result of that is to drive economic growth toward the center of the curve. This produces fewer really rich people, but also fewer really poor people. I would also argue that it drives the standard of living up for all, even the people who would have been richer, since being the wealthiest person in a crap economy is not as useful overall as being slightly less wealthy in a more developed economy. But again, that's personal opinion on policy.