Last week, as the Obama administration and Congress debated exactly how far they were willing to go to deal with the current bleak economic realities, The New York Times highlighted the re-emergence of the rhetorical -- and policy -- discussion of the "safety net." One sentence pretty much sums it up:
Programs for the poor are often poor programs -- stigmatized and underfinanced.
But what happens when the people who need welfare are not characterized in the media as solely urban women of color? When the aid recipients include well-educated, former white-collar workers affected by the economic crisis, the vocabulary changes. Now it's suddenly a "safety net" -- a more positive, temporary-sounding term that does not have the same connotations as the much-maligned "W" word.
In his 2004 book American Dream, Jason DeParle (who also reported the Times piece) summarizes the history of public assistance, and how society's perception of it changed depending on who was receiving that assistance. Welfare's earliest iteration was a Depression-era "safety net" program for widowed mothers. De Parle writes in the book,
The payments were reserved for a small elite of "fit" mothers with so-called suitable homes. That typically excluded divorced mothers and those with children born outside of marriage, and it almost always excluded racial minorities. The screening was so rigorous, those on the rolls were sometimes called "gilt-edged widows." Decades later, welfare would be condemned for encouraging poor women to not to work. But that was precisely what it was created to do--in Edwin Witte's words, "to release from the wage-earning role the parent whose task is to raise children."
When the government was strictly controlling which "fit" women were worth assisting, there was not a stigma attached to the aid. (To the contrary -- it was almost an honor!) This was a program that propped up traditional gender roles when society's anointed breadwinner (the husband and father) was deceased, and allowed these selected elite mothers to continue in their caregiving role full-time. But, as anti-discrimination and desegregation laws began to take hold, the "safety net" was widened to accept more women -- and the connotations of receiving aid began to shift. The "welfare queen" pejorative began appearing in the 1960s, as these programs were being integrated, and became a really destructive meme that public assistance has never really shaken. (The right wing bears a lot of responsibility for perpetuating this, but Democrats certainly aren't blameless, either.)
It's undeniable that the tanking economy is once again changing the face of who needs assistance to get by. Given the way people on public-assistance programs have been vilified, it will be interesting to see whether public perception actually does shift as demographics change. If I were feeling optimistic, I'd say that perhaps our country would come away from the economic crash with a more compassionate perspective on poverty, public assistance, and homelessness. But we'll see. I'm not holding my breath.
UPDATE: My friend Noah, who brings some very relevant work experience to this discussion, responds on his blog, disPlacement.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: When is it welfare, when is it a safety net?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11928
NPR was just talking about how claims for foodstamps are going up sharply and there are more and more people applying who have never needed help before. I've been hearing about this with foodbanks for over a year now - families coming in saying "we used to donate and now we need help". the optimist in my says that these perceptions will HAVE to change, as more white, middle-class families find themselves seeking assistance like this.
to make it more personal, i've been lucky enough to never need this kind of assistance, but my gf and i considered applying for foodstamps last year. we worked it out so that we didn't have to, but we've been definitely on the tight side of budgeting since she went back to school and stopped bringing in a paycheck.
What is more interesting is statistical information I read once indicating that 1 in 4 people or families experience homeless at some point in their life, which implies that homelessness is endemic to our system. They are off radar because they stay with family, friends, or in motels until they regain housing, but these short gaps in a dwelling are homelessness nonetheless.
I noticed this yesterday when I was looking at this slideshow of pictures about the recession - all of the people they are talking about were already at least middle class. No mention at all of what is happening to the people who have always been at the bottom of the pile, because who cares about them?
It's interesting what you say about the origins of welfare, too. My great grandmother lost my great grandfather in a logging accident in the early '40s when she had 4 very young kids. She eventually married another man who became the breadwinner, but I always wonder what happened to her in the meantime. She was definitely poor - didn't own her own home or anything like that. Plus, from what little anyone has ever said about it, it sounds like she worked at whatever (crappy) jobs she could find to try to support herself and her children. So I'm guessing she wouldn't have qualified for support back then. I can't even imagine.
This! I was just talking with my partner about this very thing! Every story we see about the recession talks about white middle class people.
I first started noticing this classist trend with the housing crisis. I kept wondering "What about the people (like us) who couldn't afford to buy a house in the first place?"
We both grew up poor/lower middle class, and we're both in school right now, so we're still poor. What about us? Ten years ago, we might have had first time home buyer's loans to look forward to, or maybe a line of credit to help pay for dental work or something. Now? We're lucky that we're still getting student loans. Sure, our future looks relatively bright once we graduate, but I'm going into education, so not really. Are our experiences any less valid?
It is my understanding that welfare started after WWI or WWI? when malnutrition was the primary root cause for why men were turned down for military service due to being unfit for combat. So the earlier rationalizations for generating government welfare programs were based on a need for civil defense, not on humanitarianism.
To clarify, men were malnourished as children and that was the primary health issue making them unfit for service.
A few points about what happens during an economic crisis in America:
(1) In the 1930s assistance was dressed up as all sorts of things when American whites of largely northwestern European origin were hungry. Then when the union jobs came for them, that was the end of everything. Problem solved. That's what Michael Harrington described as the arc of social programs from the 1930 to 1960 in "The Other America." (This was the foundational book that inspired the very successful "war on poverty," which lowered poverty from 19% to 11% in less than a decade.)
(2) This didn't include African-Americans or Latinos, nor much less Asians (some of whom were rounded up into concentration camps).
(3) As to helping women, they were only deemed good for paid work in World War II, when unemployment fell to 2% and war materiel factories were going begging for workers. Then, when the war ended it was "back to the kitchen, lovelies."
(4) Ronald Reagan's infamous "welfare queen" in Chicago didn't actually exist. He made her up.
The Reagan Administration's invention of the black welfare queen buying vodka while her little ones howled for supper is well documented in Faludi's _Backlash: The Undeclared War on the American Woman_. I recall the incessant repetition of this racist lie from the 1980s as a call to dismantle welfare because it is abused.
Well, be forewarned, I'm enjoying a bottle of wine, which allows me to delurk, but might impair my ability to communicate a bit. I am no longer working at a prison which I did last time I commented; for the last six months I have been working at my dream job, for a non-profit welfare to work program, which will go unnamed. We assist people receiving welfare benefits in job search as required by the government. We are seeing a huge, HUGE increase in clients. There are a lot of people who have never received assistance before coming to us. Sometimes it's hard to serve them, because we are geared to serving people who require having their basic needs met first--housing, medical, getting GEDs, learning how to apply for a job, basic services. So, of course, people who have worked for years or have degrees are sometimes offended or disappointed by the basic information such as how to create a good resume or how to interview for a job. But, we still have young people or those new to the workforce in our program, so they often (but not always) benefit from basic, just starting out in life/workforce information.
Of course, we have budget constraints, and we have federal and state laws to follow. It is very frustrating. How do you tell someone that to continue receiving their food/medical/cash benefits, they will have to job search 5, 20, 30 or 40 hours per week? There are just not that many jobs to apply for. How do I tell a single parent that lives far away from our office and has no vehicle that to get cash assistance, they will have to come to classes and job search up to 8 hours a day? How does anyone expect a person with no car, no stable home, to meet the requirements laid out by the government? How does society expect them to become stable without even the little help the state can offer? Why does society blame them when without that help they cannot become stable, productive citizens? It breaks my heart and yet there is so little I can do.
I have been on foodstamps before, and I have benefited from the kindness of others to escape an abusive relationship. It tears me up that I cannot provide that same help to so many other people in similar or worse situations than I was in. I'm sorry, I guess I'm just venting here, but it's really getting to me.
Anyhow, thank you for the post. I am an optimist, and my hope is that those who may have never been to a Health and Welfare office before will leave it changed, in a good way, regarding government assistance. I hope that more people will see that funding welfare is a necessity, and that families and individuals sometimes need help and that sometimes, there is no one to provide it but our government. I hope that people will understand that welfare betters our society instead of damaging it. I hope they will understand that receiving benefits is no walk in the park. I hope that more people will understand that those receiving assistance are far from lazy, stupid or evil. They are our family and they need our help, more now than ever.
And I would be failing our family if I didn't remind you that now, more than ever, people can use your help. Donate clothes, food, diapers, toys, your time, to a program you believe in. People will appreciate it so much. Your time or donation could change someone's life. And thank you feministing. You have helped change my life and I appreciate what you do every day.
With my utmost respect and love,
zombieprincess
I'm working on a Food Stamp Enrollment Campaign, as part of a year of service with AmeriCorps. While calls to our Food Stamp Hotline have dramatically increased compared to this time last year, the thing that I'm worried about is the lack of aid to states in the upcoming Economic Stimulus Package. This could have a devastating impact on those receiving public assistance, because the infrastructure to distribute these entitlements is broken.
Even though more people are applying for public benefits, many states have a hiring freeze that prevents them from hiring new caseworkers and some states may even have to layoff staff at their welfare departments. While this could radically change the public benefits system in the US, I'm afraid that this change will come at the expense of poor people, who have already suffered disproportionately in the economic downturn.
i was getting to know a new friend right before the elections last year. she grew up middle class, has always had the "safety net" of her middle class parents, and is anti-welfare. we were arguing about the role of the government one evening and she says to me, "you know, i had a 6 figure job once & when i fell on hard times & needed help, i didn't qualify for welfare, and that's what it's supposed to be there for!! for people like me!!! who pay their taxes & if you fall on hard times, the government's there to help you out!!" and she seemed hung up on the fact that she was the only white person in the welfare office - in los angeles. not only did i give her an earful regarding just who exactly welfare is really there to help (and i didn't say spoiled middle class kids who didn't save up for that rainy day when they weren't on speaking terms with their middle class parents), but invited her to visit a welfare office in southern ohio, or iowa, or just about anywhere but southern california. i don't think she believed me when i told her that white people make up more than the fair share of welfare recipients.
and i can't help but feel bitter towards these middle class people who suddenly have no problem with all those hard earned taxes going towards a "safety net" for all the hard on their luck no longer middle class families. hypocrites.
I respectfully disagree, it is our money. We pay about 33% in taxes and possibly more on a progressive scale, and what do we get in return? Granted, anyone that could have prepared for hard days and failed to was lax, and having a family to help you out sure must be great, but stories about the ants and a grasshopper aside, she paid into a system for what exactly? We work three or four months of the year for the government.
"When is it welfare, when is it a safety net?"
I agree with your take: now that the effects of the poor economy are being felt by the middle class, even those who own homes and have "good" jobs, suddenly people are supposed to be less judgmental, because it is a problem which affects THEM, not "others."
I am sorry that additional millions are suffering from loss of jobs and income, that they are losing their homes, or that their plans for a more comfortable living or retirement are now in doubt. I really am. My family members are faced with these challenges. The only thing saving my mother, with her health problems, is her government employee's pension. If she had not put in her years, and had to live off her savings and Social Security, she'd have lost her home (her last of three home loans will be paid off when she is age 92 if she lives that long) years ago. She also has the health benefits (or savings) to pay for her own treatment.
On the other hand, I see no way that my brother or I would ever be able to afford our own homes (we live in Hawaii). We cannot even afford to pay our mother's home loans in the event she dies, and we'd most likely lose those homes eventually, because her pension alone is greater than our incomes. We can't pay off her loans, and we don't have the means to rebuild or remodel in the decades ahead. Even retired and "unemployed," she could afford to buy and maintain her homes. We cannot.
However, I believe that expecting people to simply accept this change in perception because it affects mainstream Americans, is pure bullshit. If people feel they can judge underprivileged women for having "too many" children, or having children they "can't afford," (be they one or fourteen) or for expecting the government and taxpayers to take care of their problems allegedly of their own making, why are middle class people who e.g., made questionable financial choices or arrangements to buy homes during a KNOWN housing bubble (particularly if they wanted to make quick sales for a profit, rather than seeing homes as personal residences or long term investment) any less "irresponsible"? Why don't middle class people see their own standard demands for greater government spending on education, health care, etc., to make THEIR children and lifestyles any more affordable, as just as much "welfare" as when the underprivileged receive basic assistance simply to eat or keep a roof over their heads? Why doesn't, "work harder" "you should have studied more" "you shouldn't have (so many) children" or "you should have saved and spent more wisely" apply to the middle class?
I am not saying that people do not deserve a "safety net" or that the government or rest of society should not assist people in need. I simply believe that a safety net should apply to even the traditionally "undeserving" like the underprivileged, without judgment.
i have been applying for SSI and SSDI for almost 2 years now. they keep denying me for bullshit reasons, even though i can't sit up for more than an hour at a time, etc.
so, because i am applying for SSI and SSDI, and have NO other income (because student loans don't count) i get food stamps.
and i get more glares, more whispers. last week, at the grocery, i was accosted by some jackass, who demanded to know how many children i have, where there are, why i had them, and so one. when i said "I don't have children, i recieve food stamps because i am disabled" he turned PURPLE. he obviously believed that only "lazy sluts" would ever be on foodstamps (he had muttered lazy slut when he first saw me pull out my food stamp card, and by "mutter" i mean he at least wasn't rude enough to YELL. he followed me out into the parking lot to accost me. and i don't get why he was so shocked, i HAVE to use a cane to walk and i walk *very* slowly and with a very pronounced limp.) this is the general attitude - and, even worse, say i get SSI and SSDI. know how much i'll get a month? $840. know the cutoff income, for a single person, if they make more than that they can't get foodstamps anymore? $750. so if i DO get that meager amount, i'll lose all other aid (but the only thing i qualify for is foodstamps. nothing else. even though i CAN'T work. which pisses me off). i DO NOT understand how people can see those who are on public assitance, and see HOW fucking little they have, how poor they are, how hard they work, and STILL believe in "Welfare Queens"? the whole thing is beyond belief!
That is awful, denelian. A reader once wrote in with a similar story (in this case, she was using WIC), and I posted it here.
I feel your pain, welcome to starvation. I have been on SSDI since 2006, and yes, it is hard to get. It is easier for "mental" conditions than "physical" conditions. I have a PTSD diagnosis and most likely relevant brain damage. With a physical condition, you coul be paralyzed from the neck down, and the sytem thinks you must still be able to telemarket or something... that all that is required are accomodations, which you must seek out, and become employed again. I am back in school, I had zero taxable income for 2007 and about $3,000 taxable income for 2008. SSDI grants me about $1,100 a month but Chicago is very expensive to live in and you really need at least double that to keep up an apartment. This is where I live and I haven't the money to relocate; besides there is less opportunity for employment in rural areas based on my observations. I am sharing an apartment with someone; I could not afford my own. The state of Illinois defines the poverty line at $840, so I was without medical care for two years and do not qualify for food stamps or other program. I had food stamps briefly but was kicked off for getting a part-time job, even though I did not earn enough between the part-time job and SSDI to pay the utilities. I sure like hear and hot water and electricity a lot. I got rid of the phone, internet, satellite t.v. and sold anything that I could to get by. It is humiliating. Foreclosure and Ch. 7 Bankruptcy are humiliating. When you get SSDI they make you wait two years to get Medicare; Medicare covers no prescriptions (except diabetes, for some reason), allows one check up in your life-time as an entry level process, so far this is all the care I received since mid-2006. Medicare takes about $100 out of your SSDI check. I am not visibly disabled, so it is harder to deal with people's remonstrance and rudeness. I have filed Chapter 7 and lost my house. I had a decent paying career in the mortgage industry 2006 and prior, but all my skills were specialized; and the whole industry is collapsed now. With all the people out of work, I couldn't find more than menial labor. I was never middle class but I was headed upwards, had a 401K and a little savings. :(
What I recommend if you are able to, is to get an on-campus Federal Work Study job, which will not affect your financial aid since it is a form of financial aid. It is taxed at a low amount, around 5%, so the $8 - $9 an hour will actually help you. Plus, these jobs are friendly and co-operative to the fact that you are in school. That's how I'm getting by. I'm 35 DWF no kids and safety net or welfare, I couldn't get either. I have never even been able to get a social worker. If I did not have a medically diagnosed disability and years paid into SSDI, to thus qualify for the maximum amount available, which I am getting, then I shudder to think I would be quite at risk of begging change on the streets. Sharing an apartment is the only thing between me and utter downfall as it is. It's a blow after owning a home. I wonder that I will ever own a home again.What is more cute is that financial aid via FAFSA is less than tuition at my school and nothing left for books or needed supplies. Fuck you Bush regime and corrupt pols for the wreck you made of the Clinton surplus. Haliburton ought to pay my rent and yours, too. Keep your head up, there are many of us out there. Many congratulations on being in school and concentrate on getting good grades as much as you can.
"i DO NOT understand how people can see those who are on public assitance, and see HOW fucking little they have, how poor they are, how hard they work, and STILL believe in "Welfare Queens"? the whole thing is beyond belief!"
I hear you. I hear you. I hate that sort of thinking. I don't want millions of people losing their jobs, retirements, or homes. But just maybe (it hasn't really changed from previous recessions) mainstream Americans will realize just how easy it is for even themselves to end up jobless or without a home and learn to reserve judgment. I am well aware that despite all my undeserved blessings, my entire family is just one health problem or a few months unemployment away from bankruptcy and a future of poverty.
I guess it is because believing in "Welfare Queens" is the flipside of the coin to "believing in America". In America, the math is supposed to go:
hard work + stay out of trouble + be smart = success
Therefore, the homeless and the fucked up did something wrong, earning their status. So the winos and ho's and all, they chose that; they bucked the mighty system, denied the equation and got their just desserts. The truth is you can work hard, stay out of trouble and be very smart and still fail pretty badly. The majority of all wealth is inherited, not earned. You can be really smart and bust your ass your whole life and not get too far along financially cuz I sure have. People want to believe that if you are good enuff, smart enuff and gosh darnnit, people like you, you will somehow "make it".
Shyeahhh. Right. >.
I think we need to some changes like make patents and trademarks and stuff AFFORDABLE and accessible. We're crushing innovations at that level. The corporations rule, and who the hell can bootstrap their way up anymore? Who can compete against the monsters and monopolies of today? The I figure that the guys that founded the big fast food franchise chains like KFC and Wendy's from out of next to nothing in the beginning wouldn't stand a chance at success in today's world. I think that the small entrepreneur is whipped before he or she starts. We have the worst educational system compared to many countries, too.