People aren't going to vote against the hand that feeds them. Money is a proxy for the top of the hierarchy of needs, and if people are going to be voting merely to satisfy their hierarchy of needs then other policy comes second.

Say you've got one party running for office that promises to continue handouts, or perhaps expand them, but also is highly authoritarian, but there's another party that wants to protect fundamental freedoms but wants to reduce handouts. Who do you think has the upper hand in that scenario? It'd be one thing if the populace was well educated and had an interest in their own freedoms, but we're not exactly known for that these days.

This is one of the reasons that California is in the state that it's in. It dwarfs all other states in welfare spending, has the most homelessness, has an exponential feces and public urination problem in its big cities, and the return of medieval illnesses. The problem is unlikely to resolve any time soon because enough voters are dependent and detached from society that those in power can sit back.

That's why there are people who are wary of handouts. It's not that they don't want to help other people; it's that handouts are an easy way to influence the populace, and once you give out handouts, it's extremely difficult to take them away, lest you are willing to lose elections.