I'm for the concept, although I do not understand how it can be done at the city mayor level.

I think most people are somehow receiving gov't payments in some form and will think they should somehow be excluded.
"I run a program that helps startups win SBIR grants. The list is supposed to be for other people."
"I'm making ruggedized phones that are used by US troops. This is supposed to be for other people."
"My mom worked all her life, and Medical Assistance 'took her home' and 'forces her' to share a room. The list is for other people."
"My research is mapping the genes of cancer. This list is for other people."
"We carefully put our money into annuities and retirement vehicles as part of financial aid planning. We pay our taxes. My kids in college shouldn't be on the list. It's for other people."
"I would have to have three kids in one room or live farther from the Wal-Mart and wouldn't be able to pick up as much OT if it were for a rent subsidy. This list is for other people."
"After I got laid off, I entered a Trade Adjustment Assistance program. I shouldn't be on the list."
"I just took a job at the prison. This list is for other people."

I support the list, though, because it starts the conversation that not every good cause should be gov't funded. If we stopped funding all the good causes above, we'd all have more money. I suspect in some form people would fund that cancer research and other good causes better if the gov't were out of it.

Otherwise we keep telling ourselves stories that there are these evil moochers out there milking the system on purpose, but it's no one we know. That fiction perpetuates gov't spending.