Defined rules instead of making up decisions as you go. That is always a tough sell, because it considerably reduces the scope of activity for politicians. Less for them to decide or promise. But that does not mean that we should not try. Imagine the opposite: a state that engages generously in welfare, but only ever in one-time handouts. It would be a perpetual repetition of those in power feeding of all critical mouths.
I think that this is exactly how the Roman Empire dealt with the "automation problem" of their time (a massive increase of forced labor imports -slavery- completely wrecking the domestic labor market). Now where again did fascism's namesake originate? Not really the point, I am convinced that everybody would agree that one-off welfare is a power politicians should not have (even politicians, as long as they are not in power).
No matter where you stand on the question of more or less welfare, I think you should always fight for it being more regulated. Which in the case of welfare, means "de-politicising" it as far as possible.
I am not an expert on central banks and macroeconomics, but I don't see why the Fed couldn't wiggle payroll tax rates around, keeping it revenue neutral by making up any shortfall with the printing presses.
If you squint at the right angle, this is essentially the argument for "privatizing" Social Security. Even in that limited form it's a huge political loser (for a mix of good and bad reasons, IMO).