No... You be wrong! Moonbeam has always maintained that welfare is broken because it don't seem to foster a movement into the workforce for many.... Of course, not all the folks who receive welfare have workforce potential.
I see welfare as a safety net for those who have no other option. Women or men with a quiver of kids to care for and the other spouse split the scene. Or, some other real life condition that presents the option to starve or subsist on the bare minimum resource contributed by society's tax payer. This bit I see as caring for the least of us.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a permanent welfare recipient.
I think the way to achieve the objective the OP points to can be had in more economically sane methods... Target funds as a stimuli toward business who provide the jobs the welfare to work potential can grasp. There exist a plethora of sound economic applications for funds of the magnitude mentioned in the OP's link. AND, recognize some folks will always be on welfare... Those who can work but won't work when the jobs exist need to move to Louisiana and join the bearded crew shooting ducks for food.
[I recall a post by Moonbeam oh... about 10 years ago where he posted Eisenhower's final speech without attribution.... It garnered all manner of comment which the slick Moonster used to prove once again the insanity of some in the face of seeing the package and not the content.]
That was the one where Corn said the opinion expressed displayed an obvious lack of military experience behind it.