There are a couple of things in his plan that would benefit low-income Americans, like a boost to the earned-income tax credit. But thanks to proposed changes such as lowering the top income tax rate, ending the estate tax paid by the wealthiest 0.2 percent and even further reducing the rate for investment income, the biggest benefit would be handed to those who are already counted in the richest 1 percent slice of America. And it would come at a cost of at least $1.6 trillion over a decade, according to analysis by the Tax Foundation.

This is exactly what happened during Mr. Romney’s campaign as well: After promising one group no free stuff, his tax plan would have meant a big break for millionaires and an increase in tax burden for everyone else.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Romney’s rhetoric about government programs are nothing new. Ronald Reagan conjured the boogeyman of the welfare queen out of a trumped up story about a woman who supposedly lived large off benefits without putting in a day’s work. That myth was so toxic that it helped pave the way for reform in the mid-1990s that has all but demolished cash welfare. Yet he also, of course, proposed and passed huge tax cuts, which mostly lowered the burden on the wealthiest Americans and did little for everyone else. The top income rate dropped from 70 percent to 28 over the course of his presidency and has never gotten back up anywhere near that level since.

Every four years, politicians stigmatize “free stuff” like food stamps and welfare while courting votes — and gloss over tax breaks. But the problem goes beyond disingenuous politicians. Statements like these erode support for government. The more “visible” benefits someone has used — in other words, direct spending programs — the more likely he is to feel the government has helped him personally. If most Americans falsely think they don’t get free government stuff, though, they won’t want to offer it to the people they think get it instead.

That’s how we end up with a system where we invest about as much on social expenditures as other developed countries, yet are far less effective at reducing poverty or income inequality. We turn a blind eye to giving out more and more tax breaks but balk at actually spending enough on welfare to truly help the most vulnerable among us.