We all have our stereotypes. They circulate because each contains a kernel of truth. We’ve all known a heavy person who is jolly. But are all heavy people jolly? Heavens, no! We know heavyweight grouches. Or maybe we have love handles ourselves ”“ and we know we’re not always jolly.
In the same way, “welfare queens” are a stereotype. You’ve read about them, and may have even known one personally. They exist: The woman who doesn’t work and spends welfare monies meant for her children on beer, cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, nightlife and gambling. But are all ”“ or even most ”“ of those receiving benefits welfare queens?
The statistics ”“ the actual data, from records kept by government accountants ”“ say only a small percentage of welfare recipients abuse the system. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go after welfare queens, even if they compose, say, only 1 to 8 percent of the total. We decidedly should.
But what happens when we get carried away and begin slashing welfare based on a collective stereotype that harms the innocent? We wind up with hungry families, and an ironic truth: that we’ve spent more to catch a few cheats than their fraud has cost the taxpayer.
There is currently a push to slash welfare rolls in several states because they’re having budget shortfalls. One such state is Kansas, which is facing a $143 million budget shortfall for 2016. As a result, lawmakers and Gov. Sam Brownback are looking for spending cuts. They’ve chosen the poorest among them to take the cuts.
But, before I give you the details of the Kansas Legislature’s welfare cuts, I need to mention a program to purge drug users on welfare, because it’s relevant. There is a perception that a good percentage of welfare recipients are drug users. Identifying and tossing them off the public assistance rolls could save millions of dollars, it was figured.
According to the conservative National Review, 12 states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah) instituted drug-testing programs for welfare recipients. Think Progress, a liberal publication, identified seven.
Both magazines gathered studies that found that rates of drug use among recipients was the same (and in some cases, less) than drug use by the general population. The total cost of identifying drug users was $7,000 per person. In Kansas, 11 welfare recipients out of a total 2,783 applicants tested positive for drugs, at a cost of $40,000.
These are monies, amounting to over $1 million for all the states, that could be spent better on hungry children. As the programs continue, the costs will grow. All this because of a stereotype of the poor. Of note: Middle class and wealthy recipients of government cash are not tested for drug use.
Now, to the Kansas “reform” plan: Citizens who qualify, based on low income, will be limited to withdrawing $25 per day from their benefits, capped at three years. Lawmakers added a ton of restrictions where the withdrawals cannot take place: movie theaters, nail salons, pools, spas, liquor stores, jewelry stores, casinos, racing facilities, tattoo parlors, cruise ships, and so forth. Fair enough, even if the liquor store’s ATM is closer than a bank.
What isn’t fair is the belief that Kansans are actually spending their welfare benefits in spas and liquor stores, even if they withdraw their benefits there. Jordan Weissmann, writing in Business Insider, reported on a 2013 study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, using welfare tracking data. The finding: Welfare recipients spend their money pretty much like the rest of us, that is, on rent, food and transportation.
Actually, those receiving public assistance spent less in every category than the general public. Many are working poor (welfare has work requirements). Those who don’t work are children, elderly or disabled.
Yet, the stereotype persists of luxury spending on items the rest of us can’t afford. It’s not just a bad rap. The justification for these restrictions, like supposed widespread drug use, is based on urban myths.
Speaking of urban myths, Arthur Delaney, in the Huffington Post, uncovered a dozen claims in letters to the editor, news stories and even a congressman’s speech on the House floor that follow the same theme: An overweight welfare recipient buys 10 to 20 pounds of king crab legs in front of a seething, non-welfare-receiving customer who can’t afford them. A persistent coincidence.
There is fraud in welfare. Some make unwise choices; others are spendthrifts. But the vast majority receiving benefits are like the rest of America: hard-working, paying their bills and buying (as inexpensively as they can find), nutritious food to feed their families.
But the Kansas Legislature, going on urban myths, is reducing public assistance to balance a budget, in a state where the poor have increased, and the wealthy escape being asked to help out.
Something about this strikes me as simply unfair.
— Donna Brazile is a senior Democratic strategist, a political commentator and contributor to CNN and ABC News, and a contributing columnist to Ms. Magazine and O, the Oprah Magazine.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
