I should clarify. I don't see the problem with pundits saying "You can't live on $X" when you really, demonstrably can't raise children well on $X, where "raising children well" is defined as positive psychological and employment outcomes. The article suggests that this is the situation we're in right now; therefore I'm fine with people agitating to improve that situation.
If, as you fear, America should at some point find itself giving too much to the poor, then perhaps proposals to limit that would be appropriate, but right now (and for most of recorded history) we have the opposite problem, and your fear does not look at all realistic.
