We do not fully appreciate the impact the federal government has on our daily lives. As the government shutdown continues, we are beginning to feel the effects of not having government assistance. In Minnesota, programs providing critical food aid and energy assistance are either delayed or at risk of running out of money, all because the federal government lacks a budget.

This painful reality should serve as a reminder of how much we all depend on the federal government in some way.

Yet, despite how many Americans rely on programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, many people who depend on these government-funded services are quick to support politicians who want these services defunded.

University of Minnesota political science professor Paul Goren said some people rely on government programs but support politicians who cut them, separating themselves from people they think do not deserve support.

“Government spending on programs like Medicare or unemployment insurance, people like me deserve that because we’re working hard and we’ve paid into the system, but government spending shouldn’t go to programs that benefit these undeserving others,” Goren said. 

This double standard of who deserves government support is often applied to racial minorities and other traditionally underserved groups, Goren added.

“The ‘undeserving poor’ is a term that political scientists use, which means that there’s a subset of poor people, the underclass, if you will, that don’t deserve government spending on programs for them because they’re not working hard enough to pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” Goren said.

The idea that certain people don’t deserve government benefits is hardly new, with tropes such as the “welfare queen” dating back decades. Yet, many voters do not understand the wide-reaching consequences of cutting the budgets of welfare programs.

University first-year Storm Honigstock said a large part of people’s support for cutting government programs they rely on comes down to either a lack of education on what aid is given by the government or the misguided idea that an exception will be made for them.

“If the exception is not part of the bill, memo or whatever, the exception does not exist,” Honigstock said.

Despite this distinction between deserving and undeserving welfare recipients and the idea that those advocating for cuts won’t be affected, many of the proposed cuts to these programs would have overarching effects on everyone who receives these benefits.

Even though SNAP cuts, such as those included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, primarily come from Republican politicians, SNAP reliance is common in both Republican and Democratic areas. Heavily Republican areas, like West Virginia, have more SNAP recipients than the national average.

Honigstock, who studies animal science, said they have noticed even conservative areas reliant on federal funding and trade policies have now come under threat.

“Farmers tend to be in rural areas, rural folks tend to be conservative,” Honigstock said. “But they’re still very much reliant on a lot of things from the government, such as hospital funding and a lot of government subsidies.”

Given that SNAP provides much-needed food aid, it’s remarkable that voters who rely on this support would even consider supporting politicians who advocate for cutting it. However, voters have their priorities, and their own livelihoods may not always be what they have in mind when they vote.

Goren said economic self-interest isn’t always a strong indicator of how people vote, as there are demographics on both sides of the political spectrum who seemingly vote against their self-interest consistently.

“A lot of well-educated, upper middle-class, well-to-do liberals vote for the Democratic party, which raises taxes on people like them,” Goren said. “And you have a lot of non-college whites and non-college non-whites of a middle income or lower who vote for Republicans that promise to cut taxes on the rich.”

Even if these voters have other priorities, it is still important that they communicate their needs to the people who represent them, whether they believe they would still be receiving government assistance or not.

University second-year student Sarah Jacob said people should be more open in communicating what they want from the government so that the government can best balance its support for its citizens with the people’s individual rights and responsibilities. 

“A lot of people are now against the government, and so it’s very hard for people to get their needs met because of the opposition to the government and the government not looking out for its citizens,” Jacob said.

Many people who voted for politicians who want to cut benefit programs want to limit those very cuts. For example, polls from April found a majority of polled Trump voters disapproved of Republicans’ attempts to cut Medicaid.

Communicating this discontent to those in power is crucial to prevent everyone from losing access to the welfare programs they depend on.

Jacob said the fact that a single party often controls the federal government at any particular time makes it more difficult for everyone when the government makes important decisions, such as budget cuts.

“If there were more grounded opinions that were influencing what the government is doing, I think everyone would be more in line when those decisions are being made,” Jacob said.

We deserve a government where many voices are represented and heard, not one where singular disagreements can cripple federal funding.

Whether it’s through welfare programs and subsidies or infrastructure and national defense, the things we depend on for our well-being almost always have ties to the government.

So, before throwing our support behind politicians or parties that may end up hurting us, we should examine our own situations to see what role the government plays in our lives and advocate for our own self-interests.

Pushing over the pillars that support us is rarely ever a good idea.