It's hard to evaluate the credibility of this claim because he doesn't use a concrete example of a past government subsidy that did in fact de-incentivize people from rising out of poverty.

It is clear that any mandate causes increase in cost. However, Professor Cowan makes assumption that cost out weigh benefits without any numerical facts. He also makes comments about individual and family actions that defy logical, especially about families.

This is the old Reagen welfare-queen argument, repackaged for today's issues. What Cowen's arguments prove is that we'd be better off with a federal program than one administered by the states, that our welfare system needs incremental phaseouts instead of all benefits ending at once, and that we need more government price controls over our healthcare system. Somehow I don't think those were the arguments he meant to make.