Your disdain for what you call "the freebie state" suggests a tired and rather simplistic worldview that was mother's milk to Reaganite conservatives. I'm on the opposite side, in that I think these so-called freebies are not only humane and an element of common decency; they're also fiscally sound policy.
As an example, I would point to health care. We have free healthcare for the lowest rung of society (wealth-wise) but not universally. Other democratic nations with economies similar to ours have much lower healthcare costs AND considerably higher life expectancies. So when MAGA or anyone else moans about the cost of universal health care, they're misguided. They should be realizing the SAVINGS from it.
The same goes for things like food assistance, child care subsidies, public transit, libraries, and the like. They all cost money, but every single cost/benefit analysis ever performed shows that it's very much worth spending.
So that's how to cut the ideological Gordian knot. Compassion is fiscally sound. It's easier AND CHEAPER to give someone the medical care they need now rather than scrape them off the sidewalk later.
And yes, I know about WASTEFRAUDABUSE BELCHGRUNTSNORT. But I suspect there would be a lot less of it if there was no question about whether people would receive government benefits or not.
My liberal radical radical liberal belief is that medical care, basic food and shelter, etc. are fundamental human rights--at least in an immensely wealthy nation such as ours.
Oh, and to answer your question about political orientation: they're much more conservative up in Albany than they are in NYC. Many NY legislators view NYC as an immense money sink. Of course, they tend to ignore that it's also an immense money factory.