Isn't real liberalism, as people have pointed out. But that's more for social reasons than for actual intent, because if you look at the actual concept of welfare state liberalism it's oriented towards facillitating freedom on the part of individuals. This shift comes from British thinkers coming out of the late 19th century. The idea was that in the present day there are some distortions which cause certain individuals in certain situations to be denied the possibility of freedom equal to that of their fellow citizens and so it's ok to create programs and do things which set out to rectify this.
Nice thought, however, it isn't like society is fair already. Let me explain this: with the welfare state you're asking people who are at the top of the heap, people who are represented in government, the elites, to create programs and to do things which will solve the problems of the community. Now, with the idea in mind that the system is already not equal, do you think that what these people come up with will truly address the needs of people who are dispossesed, or do you think that it'll just be more of the run around?
I think that, although well meaning, it'll likely be the latter. If the people who are being legislated for aren't present representing themselves in their own way, with their own voices, at the table then I think you'll see the same biases and unfairness being replicated throughout whatever's created, which is why things like the Labour Party in Great Britain and the Social Democratic parties in Europe and the Trade Union Federations of Europe, which in the case of Great Britain actively collaborate with the Labour Party to determine the party program, are so important.
We don't have that here. Instead, the tendency unfortunately has been to only invite groups to the table which Democratic politicians think can be useful consitutuencies.