I really like Talarico, but in all honesty, the way he argues is just the other side of the theocratic coin.
There are plenty of good reasons for social programs that feed, house, educate, and provide healthcare to all people in our country. On a surface level, it may look like a good idea to reference the teachings of Christ to support these programs as there is a lot of overlap. I fully believe that our response to God's grace and the sacrifice and teachings of Jesus should be to care for others in all of those ways. But that should be a personal response and call to action. It should be a communal response among congregations of believers.
The teachings of Christ should never be leveraged into a response that compels compliance from non-believers or those who otherwise disagree with the response - "I believe so strongly in this teaching of Jesus that I am going to vote for a government program to take money out of your pocket against your will to implement that teaching."
Talarico likes to frame political arguments in such a way that is accusatory against Christians who disagree with him politically - "It is not Christian to vote against X program." I just don't think that is helpful.
IMO... it would be far more effective to argue the societal benefits of a program rather than tagging on some guilt-laden religious justification. Give the cost-benefit argument and then if you want, personalize it by saying that it happens to align with your own interpretation of how Jesus would respond to the issue.