Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit and observe an 11th grade AP English class. They were doing satire presentations, which included everything from posters to videos to poems. One such poem – a very good one in spite of its content – poked fun at people on welfare, and featured an African-American mother with 7 kids who has her kids steal from stores because they have no money. When confronted by security, she responds by saying “You can have my welfare check.” A local crackhead enters the picture, at which point one of the children exclaims “That’s my daddy!” The mother confronts the crackhead, asking for money, who responds and ends the poem by repeating the punchline “You can have my welfare check!”
Now for some demographics. The vast majority of students in this classroom were Euro-American, the exception being two African-American girls. One of these two girls was the one reading the poem. In case the gravity of that escapes you, there were three things very wrong with this scenario. First was that the girl has been given a totally skewed view of the demographics of welfare. She has bought into the idea that African-Americans receive the lion’s share of welfare benefits, to the point of believing Reagan’s myth of the “welfare queen“.
Second, whatever little bit of privilege she’s experienced out here in the desert (more on that later), she apparently has no concept of the historical inequalities that created the need for socioeconomic support for minorities. Third, she felt comfortable enough in a room full of white peers to perpetuate this vicious stereotype. As if when lines of class and race are drawn, she would stand with them, and they’d all laugh together.
A little while ago I intuited that the African-Americans in this state had mostly “assimilated”, for their lesser numbers (measured versus the national proportion and especially the east coast), and for the fact that the much larger Mexican minority serves as a greater threat to the white majority.
So my speculation has been that African-Americans in the West, much like Latinos and Asians in the east, for their non-threatening numbers and significantly improved socioeconomic distribution, have been afforded a sort of “hostility waiver”. In other words, they are acceptable so long as they do not grow too large, act too radically, or cost the average taxpayer too much in social programs. A controlled minority is a tolerable minority. Those Hispanics on the other hand…
In plain speech, because there are so many Mexicans in the state, they are the group that white people fear, hate, and resent, rather than African-Americans. So African-Americans out here decided to throw in their lot with the white people. And why not? Because as long as the Mexicans are the focus of white fear and rage, they can slip in under the radar and point the finger, too. It’s just good politics, right?
What this situation highlighted for me was the overall misconception about so-called “welfare” in the United States. As this young lady and many others around the country seem to think, people of color gorge from the national bosom, having excessive amounts of children while refusing to work, so that they might benefit from so many “hand outs”. The contention, especially for white Americans, is that their hard-earned tax money is being spent disproportionately on undeserving minorities.
This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of welfare, in terms of the allocations by ethnicity, and just how much welfare takes away from the overall federal budget. From 1935 to 1996, that which we call welfare fell under the federal assistance program known as Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). From 1996 onward, after welfare reform by President Clinton, the program was renamed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), reflecting a new policy of limiting assistance to a maximum of five years. The statistics of AFDC recipients by race varied from year to year throughout the life of the program, but a brief from the census bureau provides a snapshot:
About 1 in 4 Black mothers of childbearing ages (1.5 million) were AFDC recipients, higher than the 7 percent of corresponding White mothers (2.1 million). Despite these differences in recipiency rates, Black AFDC mothers did not have significantly more children than their White counterparts.1
I selected African-American families for my comparison for two reasons – first, because the “welfare queen” was portrayed as a black woman, and because the statistics for “Hispanics” are troublesome, in that linguistic classification may apply to families who are also categorized as white for the purposes of the census. These numbers show that, contrary to popular misconceptions, there were a larger number of white welfare recipients than African-American families. This goes against any idea that welfare is a particularly “black” problem, or even that African-Americans form the majority of people on welfare. Now here someone might point out that a higher proportion of African-American families received welfare, which is true, but it is a fact taken without consideration for historical inequality – from hiring to housing, part of the greater socioeconomic legacy of racism throughout this country’s history.
The demographics of AFDC or TANF are hardly the main thrust of my argument, however. That comes with how we even define “welfare”. If the issue is the federal government providing funding to people who have not earned it, then our definition of welfare must be expanded to include all of the corporations who received subsidies through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (otherwise known as the “bailout”). These corporations together – and lest we forget, corporations are recognized as “people” – were allocated tens of billions of dollars. So here I ask you, who is more “deserving” of assistance – a poor family, irrespective of ethnicity, or a corporation whose executives directly facilitated our current economic meltdown?
The primary opposition to welfare comes from conservatives. And at least we can say that they are consistent in their stance, critical of both social welfare provided to families, and the bailout. Until we consider another major recipient of welfare, who they almost unanimously support: the state of Israel.
According to the Jewish Virtual Library, a site amicable to Israeli interests and continued U.S.-Israeli cooperation, “Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country…”, nearly $100 billion since 1974.2 The point of mentioning this is not to make a political statement against U.S. Aid to Israel, although in the interests of full disclosure I must admit that I am opposed to this financial assistance. The point is to put things in perspective, as it concerns just how much money the U.S. spends on “welfare” as a whole.
Projections for U.S. financial assistance to Israel were $2.55 billion for fiscal year 2009, and $2.7 billion for 2010, totaling $5.25 billion across the two years. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the payout for TANF is capped at $5 billion for the same two years.3 So, it is nothing short of hypocritical for politicians, pundits, and ignorant citizens to condemn poor families – particularly the disenfranchised poor – while directly or implicitly sanctioning U.S. aid to Israel, all of which is used by their military, not for any financial hardship. Average citizens may be excused for not knowing about these allocations to Israel, but in these cases their hypocrisy revolves around the rigor with which they condemn poor minorities while not investigating the full scope of U.S. “welfare”.
This imbalance in focus undoubtedly stems from racism, with the idea of minorities disproportionately leeching from the national coffers just another affirmation of already negative preconceptions. Such ignorance is common enough amongst white Americans, especially in a conservative state, and bears relatively little impact. But where a young African-American student can buy into the stereotypes levied against girls much like her - even the girl herself under slightly different circumstances – the situation becomes grave. It provides a sobering insight into just how institutionalized and deeply entrenched racism has become.
«
