Political and economic elites’
success in manufacturing mass ignorance represents the largest impediment to
democratic empowerment today. Stoking fear of and contempt for the “other” –
including minorities and the poor, is a common tactic employed in election to
gain voter support. So is the stoking of hubris – as seen in the demonization
of the poor, and in the rhetorical glorification of those “who work” against
those (allegedly) “who don’t.” Unfortunately, countless Americans fall victim
to divide and conquer techniques employed by elites. The goal moving forward
must be to create a critical citizen consciousness, so the masses don’t simply
“accept what they’re told” once every four years by the pretty faces running
for office. What follows is a primer for readers to help in their conversations
with friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and family, to fight back against the
racist, classist propaganda so often employed against disadvantaged groups in
the U.S.
I focus here on anti-welfare
stereotypes promoted by the major candidates this election year. Donald Trump
and Ted Cruz, in addition to Hillary Clinton, rely on tired stereotypes,
demonizing the poor in their efforts to gut social welfare spending. Clinton’s
stereotypes reach back to the 1990s, when she and her husband championed the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which
eliminated the national government’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children
program (a highly successful anti-poverty initiative with roots in the Great
Depression). The Clinton’s support for PRWORA was justified via the assumption
that the poor were seeking a free ride by gaming the welfare system and
refusing to work, compared to most Americans who made their way through hard
work and sacrifice.
Cruz and Trump continue
Hillary Clinton’s assault on the poor. Cruz attacks the food stamps program
(Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) for “trapping millions in
long-term dependency,” while Trump alleges that welfare programs create “an
incentive” on the part of the poor “not to work.” Trump recycles Romney’s old
language from the 2012 presidential race, arguing that “we have a society that
sits back and says we’re not going to do anything. And eventually the 50
percent cannot carry, and it’s unfair to them, but cannot carry the other 50
percent.”
I’ve long been frustrated by
what passes for “common knowledge” regarding American welfare programs. Many
conservatives I know embrace this “knowledge” simply because they’ve been socialized
by parents, friends, and political elites to do so, without looking into the
actual evidence. Cognitive dissonance is a major problem, with citizens
becoming even more entrenched in their beliefs when confronted with evidence
that clearly refutes their preexisting prejudices.
The U.S. is historically the
least committed of all wealthy countries to taxing and spending on all types of
social programs, although one would hardly know this by looking at popular
media and political commentary. But what about many of the specific
anti-welfare claims that pass for informed discourse in the U.S.? I
tackle them head-on below, showing how most everything political elites tell
you about welfare recipients is wrong.
The “people on welfare are
Cadillac-driving, lobster-eating cheats” myth.
These claims have been common
since the Reagan years. Welfare recipients, we are told, are so good at
manipulating the system and have so much money on hand that they can afford to
drive Cadillac Escalades and buy steaks and lobster, compared to the average
working American, who struggles economically and avoids frivolous extras.
In reality, most poor
Americans struggle when it comes to eating well and in securing basic
transportation. Regarding food consumption, it is well known that there exists
a strong correlation between poverty and obesity in the U.S., with poor
Americans having greater difficulty affording healthy foods like fruits and
vegetables. By comparison, processed foods, often comprised of
government-subsidized corn-based products, are far cheaper and more likely to
be consumed by the poor. Consider recent data from the American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, which finds that $1 can purchase 1,200 calories of potato
chips or 875 calories of soda, but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170
calories of fresh fruit. Also consider that the poorest American states are
among the most obese. As CNN reports, “the five poorest states are also among
the 10 fattest, and eight of the 10
poorest states are also among the 10 with the lowest life expectancy.”
In the U.S., the average individual in a family of three in the poorest 20
percent of the income distribution receives just $3.33 a day from the SNAP
program to pay for food This miserly subsidy means poor Americans are
forced to try and “do more with less,” often turning to low-cost, high-salt,
and fatty foods.
Concerning transportation,
welfare recipients seldom fit the affluent description of the Cadillac-driving
elitist. One shouldn’t be surprised to find some welfare recipients who still
drive expensive-looking cars from the days prior to losing their job. Many
Americans were fast-tracked from prosperity to the unemployment line following
the 2008 economic collapse. In general, however, welfare recipients are
significantly less likely to own cars than non-welfare recipients. While only
three percent of families not on welfare fail to own a car, the number for
those on public assistance is nearly a quarter. The average family on public
assistance has one car, whereas the average non-welfare recipient family owns
two.
Previous studies find that
transportation issues abound among welfare recipients. One Minnesota study, for
example, found that 85 percent of state welfare recipients cited transportation
as either a “big problem” or “somewhat of a problem” when it came to holding a
job. Studies in Illinois and New Jersey found that about a quarter of states
residents cited transportation issues as interfering with their ability to
work. The numbers were higher in studies from Missouri and Utah, which found
that 57 and 55 percent respectively cited transportation as “a barrier to
employment.” The reality of work in the United States is that we are a
car-centric culture. To exploit job opportunities, one needs money to afford
transportation. Many poor Americans experience difficulties in this car
culture, either due to an inability to afford a vehicle at all, or difficulty
in maintaining aging vehicles.
The “they don’t want to work
and have never held a job” myth
Many friends, family, and
students I’ve spoken with over the years simply assume that welfare benefits
are so generous that those benefitting from these programs don’t have to work.
This assumption can be soundly rejected for a number of reasons. First, if one
looks at those benefitting from the main state welfare program in the U.S. –
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) – work requirements are at least
30 hours a week as an individual, or 50 hours a week as a couple, in order to
receive benefits. Furthermore, these benefits have a five-year lifetime limit
(less in some states). In short, there is no way that TANF recipients can avoid
holding a job because of the extremely short-term nature of this program, and
due to its built-in work requirements. TANF benefits themselves are quite
meager too, ensuring that surviving on them is next to impossible. The average
TANF beneficiary in a family of three in the poorest 20 percent of the U.S.
income distribution receives an average benefit of $42 a month, hardly enough
to afford not to work. The claim that welfare recipients benefit from programs
so generous they don’t have to work is silly, naïve propaganda, and supported
by none of the available evidence. Two-thirds of TANF recipients are on the
program for less than one year, and the average food stamps and Medicaid
beneficiaries are on the programs for between one to three years.
The “welfare enables laziness
among the poor” myth
Recent statistics on welfare
recipients suggest that the vast majority hail from demographic groups that
would be expected for obvious reasons to need federal or state assistance. The
vast majority of recipients are not able bodied adults who refuse to work. More
than 90 percent of welfare recipients fit one of the three following
descriptions. They are A. already employed, and have earnings so low that
they’re classified as the “working poor” and eligible for public aid; B.
disabled, and unable to perform the same physical or occupational tasks as
able-bodied or able-minded individuals; or C. elderly, and are on fixed incomes
from retirement savings based on 401K benefits, Social Security, and other
benefits. The vast majority of these individuals in the third group worked
their entire adult lives, so the claim about laziness simply doesn’t hold.
The “they just want to have
lots of babies to get more benefits” myth
One of the nastiest myths
against welfare recipients is that they have large numbers of children, simply
to pump up their benefits so they don’t have to work. Having known many people
on welfare (and having been on welfare myself), I have yet to meet someone in
my entire life who fits this description. Nonetheless, the repetition of this
claim is a near constant among most welfare opponents I know. The average size
of a family on welfare is 3.7 people, which is the same for non-welfare
families. Looking more closely at family size by income, one sees that there is
little evidence of poorer Americans having larger families. The median
household size in the U.S. is 2.54 people.
The data suggest that larger
family sizes are most common among higher income families, as the three groups
with the largest percentage of families of three or more are the very top of
the income distribution. Those earning less than $10,000 a year are the fourth
largest group with families of three or more, but the three groups with the
smallest number of families of three or more people are under the national median
family income of $50,000. In summary, the evidence here suggests that most
individuals with lower incomes are actually likely to have smaller families
than those with higher incomes, and welfare-receiving families are no bigger on
average than non-welfare receiving families.
The “welfare benefits are so
generous that the poor are now rich” myth
This myth should by all rights
be too stupid to even discuss, considering the obvious chasm between the image
of the Cadillac driving welfare queen, and the reality of welfare recipients
living in poverty. And yet such stereotypes are very common today among many
embracing reactionary political values. To provide a much needed corrective on
this misinformation, consider the following statistics. 1. The vast majority of
families on welfare – 75 percent – are renters, not homeowners. In contrast,
more than 75 percent of non-welfare families own their homes. 2. The average
income of those in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution – those
most likely to rely on welfare – is quite meager. Their incomes as part of the
working poor averaged just $11,490 a year in 2012, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau. Their small incomes were supplemented by much needed welfare benefits,
although these benefits were also meager. According to the Census Bureau, for
families of three in the poorest 20 percent of the income distribution,
benefits from the 10 largest welfare programs, including Medicaid, Women and
Infant Children, public housing subsidies, food stamps, TANF payments, state
child health insurance, the Earned Income Tax credit, the child tax credit,
“Obamacare” health insurance subsidies, and the dependent tax exemption,
averaged just $9,000 a year, or $3,000 per person. For a family of three in the
lowest income quintile, income and welfare transfers combined to an average
income of just $20,490 a year. It’s a serious victory for propaganda that a
family of three with such a low income could be framed as part of the American
elite.
The “people on welfare would
rather do drugs than work” myth
This myth should be
permanently laid to rest in light of recent data tracking drug use among
welfare beneficiaries. When Tennessee instituted mandatory drug testing for
welfare recipients, many thought it represented a step toward greater
accountability in government. To the contrary, the testing found that drug use
among welfare recipients was non-existent, statistically speaking. Just one in
800 people on welfare tested positive for drugs, or .1 percent of total
beneficiaries.
Other states, including
Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Utah also implement drug
testing. The testing in these states reveals that, on average, positive drug
tests are found in between .002 percent to 8.4 percent of welfare beneficiaries,
despite surveys suggesting that the national drug use rate is 9.4 percent.
Conservative officials claimed that drug testing would save states tons of
money by kicking countless addicts off the welfare rolls. But the
attempt to demonize welfare recipients as drug addicts is a red herring.
Many Americans will refuse to
reconsider their ill-informed hatred of the poor. It is too deeply engrained in
their psyche and identity to simply cast aside. But as progressives, we have a
responsibility this election season to debunk this nonsense whenever we can,
regardless of the source. The stakes are too high for those relying on
government aid to be demonized, needlessly, by political elites in pursuit of
their own narrow, upper-class agenda.
For interested readers, the
data from this article was derived from the following sources:
Arloc Sherman, Robert
Greenstein, and Kathy Ruffing, “Contrary to ‘Entitlement Society’ Rhetoric,
Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households,”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 11, 2012, http://www.cbpp.org/research/contrary-to-entitlement-society-rhetoric-over-nine-tenths-of-entitlement-benefits-go-to
Bryce Covert, “Your
Assumptions About Welfare Recipients are Wrong,” Think Progress, December 18,
2013, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/
Tax Policy Center,
“Household Income Quintiles, 2000-2012,” June 25, 2014, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=330
LZ Granderson, “Poor and Fat:
The Real Class War,” com, June 8, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/granderson-poverty-health/
Glenn Kessler, “A Misleading
Chart on Welfare Spending,” Washington Post, February 21, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-misleading-chart-on-welfare-spending/2013/02/20/1b40bcde-7ba4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_blog.html
Pew Research Center, “January
2014 Political Survey,” January 15, 2014, http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/19/january-2014-political-survey/
Bryce Covert and Josh Israel,
“What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing
Welfare Recipients,” Think Progress, February 26, 2015, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/
Heidi Goldberg, “State and
County Supported Car Ownership Programs Can Help Low-Income Families Secure and
Keep Jobs,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 28, 2001, http://www.cbpp.org/archives/11-8-01wel.htm
Darlena Cunha, “Why Drug
Testing Welfare Recipients is a Waste of Taxpayer Money,” Time Magazine, August
15, 2014, http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/
Arthur Delaney, “How Long Do
People Stay on Public Benefits?” Huffington Post, May 29, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/public-benefits-safety-net_n_7470060.html
Anthony DiMaggio holds a
Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Illinois, Chicago. He
has taught U.S. and global politics at numerous colleges and universities, and
written numerous books, including Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2009), When
Media Goes to War (2010), Crashing the Tea Party (2011), and The Rise of the
Tea Party (2011). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment