The Truth Behind the Welfare Queen Myth

[roddma]

Interesting articles about the 'welfare queen myth'

[link=]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/14/welfare-queen-myth-must-die/[/link]

[link=]http://womenslawproject.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/debunking-the-myth-of-the-%E2%80%9Cwelfare-queen%E2%80%9D-who-actually-receives-tanf-benefits/[/link]

I will find some more later but I think these two sum it up.

[flojo]

Thank you for sharing these. The whole myth of the welfare queen is so damaging and dehumanising to peope who need government assistance for whatever reason.

[itsnikki05]

Yeah, we have had to get the SNAP card, and had WIC. It amazed me the people that looked down on us! I didn't tell a soul, but we have family that have loud mouths. I don't care to post it anymore because I know that it killed us to get it. But if it comes between putting food in our families mouth or starving... ;) Ya know? (We didn't have internet then, dh was between jobs and I JUST had dd, hard pregnancy could not go back to work. We could not HELP it.)

[snarkbillie]

I was on WIC due to my child needing very expensive formula that we just could not afford. When the choice is watch my kid fail to gain weight and possibly die or take government assistance I took government assistance. I am not ashamed and I do not mind paying in so others have the choice to take some help too.

[rock_girl]

Welfare queen? Even in fairly liberal countries welfare isn't enough to do much more than just exist. I know fraud is occasionally an issue, but even the fraud is not about claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars you're not entitled to. Most cases of welfare fraud I've seen publicised (and I'm going to assume these are the worst of the worst; newspapers love a scandal!) are nothing more than an extra payment being claimed or a woman not notifying the appropriate department that she's now partnered. Wow, an extra 7-10k a year. That'll definitely bump you up into flashy car and diamond encrusted loo seat territory!

[Rosa]

You know, the one and only welfare fraud case I know of personally was a guy who worked at my old company; he and his wife had a ton of kids and they got divorced so she could get welfare but he continued to live with the family, which made it fraud.

[Lillybee]

I am a retired eligibility worker in California. I did about 500-600 applications a year for any combination of TANF, food stamps and medicaid.

Most of my clients were legit. Many were people trapped in the generational cycle of dependency. I think about one or two a month were scamming the system. Some of them were amusing. For example, a woman who is pregnant with her first is only eligible for the last three months of her pregnancy. I had one woman apply having stuffed her sweatshirt with another sweatshirt. It was the lumpiest pregnant belly ever.

There was another one, who was applying for her baby and herself. She did not have the baby's birth certificate or social security number, even though the baby was supposed to be over one. She claimed that the baby was born in Arizona, so I called Arizona and they had no record of the baby being born there. I sent the investigator out to where she lived and guess what no baby.

I had another woman who had active applications in three other counties and both Washington and Oregon states. It took a long time to clear that up. It was determined that she was receiving benefits from Canada.

But the majority of my cases were people who were applying because they lost a job, or needed a handup. Most families stayed on welfare for just about a year.

It was a great moment for me when one of my prior clients who was fleeing a domestic abuse situation sponsered a family for Christmas a few years ago.

The welfare grant for a family of four when I was working was about 640 a month, and that income is used in the food stamp budget.

Living on welfare is hard and one is not living well.

[Lillybee]

You know, the one and only welfare fraud case I know of personally was a guy who worked at my old company; he and his wife had a ton of kids and they got divorced so she could get welfare but he continued to live with the family, which made it fraud.

Sometimes, if that were my client, I would have sent the investigators out to verify that he was not in the home.

One of my clients, who was divorced found her ex's paycheck on her MIL's fireplace mantle. He was doing security in Iraq and earned about 7k a month and paid no child support. I copied that paycheck and sent it to the person who was handling her child support case for the DA.

[rock_girl]

Sometimes, if that were my client, I would have sent the investigators out to verify that he was not in the home.

One of my clients, who was divorced found her ex's paycheck on her MIL's fireplace mantle. He was doing security in Iraq and earned about 7k a month and paid no child support. I copied that paycheck and sent it to the person who was handling her child support case for the DA.

I imagine that if you compared men failing to pay child support with women who were fraudulently claiming welfare you'd find that by far the biggest drains on the public purse were the men. After all, if a father isn't contributing financially to the care of his blessings, the mother is probably going to need to turn to public funds to pick up the slack. To me that's a far bigger scandal than a non-existent welfare queen. And yet we never talk about deadbeat dads taking more than their share and messing with the economy, it's always their ex-partners who are looked down on for daring to claim welfare.

[Lillybee]

I imagine that if you compared men failing to pay child support with women who were fraudulently claiming welfare you'd find that by far the biggest drains on the public purse were the men. After all, if a father isn't contributing financially to the care of his blessings, the mother is probably going to need to turn to public funds to pick up the slack. To me that's a far bigger scandal than a non-existent welfare queen. And yet we never talk about deadbeat dads taking more than their share and messing with the economy, it's always their ex-partners who are looked down on for daring to claim welfare.

I agree. But a lot of my clients' baby daddies are in prison or so drug addled that they are unemployable. There are a few who are working under the table and some who are child support proof because they are on SSI.We did have a program to help the employable dads find jobs.

[kb2]

I imagine that if you compared men failing to pay child support with women who were fraudulently claiming welfare you'd find that by far the biggest drains on the public purse were the men. After all, if a father isn't contributing financially to the care of his blessings, the mother is probably going to need to turn to public funds to pick up the slack. To me that's a far bigger scandal than a non-existent welfare queen. And yet we never talk about deadbeat dads taking more than their share and messing with the economy, it's always their ex-partners who are looked down on for daring to claim welfare.

Not to mention, even well-off men (and women) complain about child support being too high. There's the stereotype of women using child support/alimony to buy fancy cars and hairstyles, because children aren't really that expensive or anything!

[rock_girl]

Not to mention, even well-off men (and women) complain about child support being too high. There's the stereotype of women using child support/alimony to buy fancy cars and hairstyles, because children aren't really that expensive or anything!

That shit kills me. Children are expensive, full stop. When one household splits into two, the expenses rise while the income stays the same. But apparently child support is a terrible burden because dad can't revert back to the single lifestyle he had pre-kids. Meanwhile the ex-wife is living it up on her thousand or so a month. Oh yeah, you can really do a lot with that sort of cash. Personally I love the "give me the receipts so I can scrutinise every single thing you buy" types. Better make sure the little blessings aren't enjoying brand name tuna for dinner.

[roddma]

Thank you for sharing these. The whole myth of the welfare queen is so damaging and dehumanising to peope who need government assistance for whatever reason.

Your welcome. I always believed the 'welfare queen' was blown out of proportion. Even if there are a few cheaters and I know a few but it pales in comparison to the bailouts received by corporations and government wastes. At <$600 in benefits, it would take over 40 years for recipients to match 700 billion. There are cheaters in everything . People cheat on taxes. They take advantage of charity and tax loopholes. Workers are cheated out of jobs by large companies moving overseas. I frequently bring this up with Duggar leg humpers. They probably received more in charitable donations worth as much as those on welfare and foodstamps combined anyway. Furthemore, the Linda Taylor chic who supposedly was the 'welfare queen' that got caught would have a hard time cheating today with all the modern technology available. The main problem was the food stamps being sold and it got changed to cards. And I hardly doubt anyone had more kids to get an extra $83. I can't understadn the ruckcus when the government and greed are the biggest causes of waste and poverty.

[marmalade]

I remember the speech and in retrospect Reagan got away with it because most of his peeps were long gone to the 'burbs and had NO CLUE about REAL people on welfare. Actual live people had to go to impoverished areas to get news and that is all the information most people had of the "welfare queen" culture.

Even as lazy as people still are about finding out the real story, that speech would NEVER fly now. People on welfare could use cameraphones (not their own, of course) to show people what poverty really looks like.

[roddma]

I do think food stamps can cause the most problems. I say this because I know people on them, buddies of husband. They have three kids and the kids always seemed to be starving. Their aunt mentioned the kids begged neighbors for food and raided the grandmother's refrigerator. They lived in a rural area then and neighbors were their relatives. Someone finally called CPS on them because the place was a mess. I am not blaming the kids by no means or against food stamps. Instead of letting them be an annoyance to those who may be financially strapped as well, at least ask a person if they would feed your kids because you are running short this month on food stamps or not. It is a much better approach than putting someone on the spot. One bad apple doesn't mean the rest are rotten.

[SayNoToMullets]

I remember the speech and in retrospect Reagan got away with it because most of his peeps were long gone to the 'burbs and had NO CLUE about REAL people on welfare. Actual live people had to go to impoverished areas to get news and that is all the information most people had of the "welfare queen" culture.

Even as lazy as people still are about finding out the real story, that speech would NEVER fly now. People on welfare could use cameraphones (not their own, of course) to show people what poverty really looks like.

In one of my classes (MSW program) we read a participatory action study about trying to eat well on food stamps. The participants, who lived in Harlem, were given disposable cameras (this was around 2003) and they came back with pictures of overpriced, wilted produce at their local markets, and odd meat parts. One woman took a picture of a shopping cart filled with prepackaged junk food, because that was all she could buy with that money that would last the month.

[Deleted03]

to be honest the people I know who abuse the system - for instance hold off officially launching a business to get every single month of unemployment benefits for new entrepreneurs while working 70 hours a week on this new business and gathering income and clients - are also the most conservatives and the more prone to complain about people abusing the system.

[slickcat79]

to be honest the people I know who abuse the system - for instance hold off officially launching a business to get every single month of unemployment benefits for new entrepreneurs while working 70 hours a week on this new business and gathering income and clients - are also the most conservatives and the more prone to complain about people abusing the system.

I find this to be an issue lately too. I have a friend who's really gone off the deep end lately and has apparently revised history in order to come out as a Romney supporter. She "doesn't remember" getting any tax cuts in the last 3-4 years, so therefore it didn't happen...except it did. She's pissed that the government doesn't give her more money, but she was owed hundreds of dollars in mileage reimbursements from her company that she didn't get because she couldn't be bothered to turn in the paperwork for 4 months. How come "personal responsibility" only applies to people in poverty?

[lilwriter85]

I have a paternal uncle who just recently retired from being welfare office case worker. He said a couple of years back that welfare fraud cases weren't frequent at his office. I have a cousin on my mom's side who scammed food stamps and a few other assistance programs for several years because she claimed that the father of her two sons wasn't paying child support when he was. A few months back another relative of mine posted some picture thing on Facebook about welfare queens having manicures, cell phones, and designer clothes. When I saw that pic it reminded me of an incident back in college. There was one semester in which a group of friends and I would eat lunch at one of the campus SUB buildings once a week. There was one time when the topic of welfare came up during our meal and one friend mentioned how she used to know kids whose moms were on welfare and she said the kids she knew always Tommy Hilfiger, FUBU, etc clothes back in the late 90s when she was in middle school. Another friend and I stayed quiet during most of the conversation.

The friend who stayed quiet later told me that the welfare conservation made her feel uncomfortable. She said there was a period of a a year and a half when her family was on assistance after her father was disabled due to a construction job accident. During that time, several relatives helped out her family with different expenses. She said that one of her aunts took her and siblings clothes shopping at a mall and the aunt bought them several brand name items. Since then, I try not to judge a welfare receiptant who might have something nice. There is always the possibility that a friend or relative gave them things.

[Rosa]

For the record, the dude I worked with got caught - we all found out about it because his mug shot showed up in the newspaper.

[JesusFightClub]

I used to work (briefly, I hated it) for the DWP and have comrades who still do. We all have hair-raising stories, but they are few and far between, and we remember them because they are rare. Most of my clients were a little bit sad (because this wasn't where they wanted to be with their lives) and very often embarrassed about going on the dole. If they did perhaps not always declare everything they were supposed to, it's not going to earn them megabucks.

I remember (and I've told this here before) an upset couple who were obviously both people with learning difficulties. The husband lost his job as a cleaner and he was basically illiterate - his wife could fill out some of the benefits forms for him but needed a lot of help. He kept saying "But I don't understand, what did I do wrong? I done it nice for them, I did what I was told..." and getting a bit tearful at the thought. He had obviously been very proud of his job, and his wife had been proud of him too.

Total enemies of all that is good there. :doh:

[Someonetocall]

... The husband lost his job as a cleaner and he was basically illiterate - his wife could fill out some of the benefits forms for him but needed a lot of help. He kept saying "But I don't understand, what did I do wrong? I done it nice for them, I did what I was told..." and getting a bit tearful at the thought. He had obviously been very proud of his job, and his wife had been proud of him too.

This bothers me. Failure to manage employees is not a failure by employees. If someone is capable of doing a job (as he would have been), a good manager/supervisor can explain what needs to be done. The thought that he was let go and the reasons were not explained to him makes me quite angry right now. (I'm sitting here, presumably years later and an ocean away, close to tears of frustration because of the thought of this. I might need a hug IRL today.)

It is ludicrous to believe that people go on welfare because it is more convenient. The majority need the help. Judging people for using services provided to help people in need is unbecoming of anyone. My partner won't read news stories to me anymore (he's constantly on his phone reading news sites so I'll ask what he's reading) because I talk him through his prejudice and change some of the settings so he sees it with more sympathy.

[YPestis]

I have worked with people in underserved areas and yes, they do come in name brand clothing and cell phones. However, you can buy name brand stuff at Goodwill, or have it gifted to you. People can have cell phones when they are poor because it's cheaper than having a landline or they are on a family plan. I've been poor and know poor friends. I feel if people have lived comfortably all their lives, they may not realize that you can buy great items on the cheap and second hand.

That said, I've seen abuses and poor choices made by welfare recipients. It's not fraud or illegal, more like reckless behavior that contributes to economic dependency. I've seen patients who continue to have children despite being unemployed/single parent/struggling already/uninsured. I've seen patients who complain that they can't afford meds on the $4 list for their blood pressure yet continue to have a pack a day cigarette habit. My husband used to get so many patients like that as an intern that he gave up counseling patients to stop smoking and use that money to pay for their meds (because some people can't understand that priority). There are parents are only compliant with well child visits / vaccinations for the free stuff they get as a reward for their compliance----I feel people should not have to be bribed to care for their children. So while I agree that programs are needed...some people will try take advantage of everything and continue to live carelessly. I've also met patients who have heartbreaking stories, in incredibly tragic situations. It really makes anything bad in my life pale in comparison. There are people who've lost everything, who have ill family members to care for, who were abused, who were neglected. For some people, the welfare system doesn't cover their needs at all and you send them away with little more than a hotline to call and well wishes.

Welfare recipients, poor and indigent population are a mixed group,. Some try to be responsible, others not so much. Some make bad decisions, others learn from theirs'. The welfare debate fails to see people in all their dimensions. Abuses happen anywhere. It doesn't matter if it's corporate welfare or WIC programs. The debate should be centered on how to tighten restrictions so as to prevent abuses, and how to get people off of welfare programs. Believing in the importance of our welfare system does not mean I don't believe in personal responsibility. Welfare's primary goal is to tie people over until they get back on their feet. That means transitioning people to work, to school, to bettering their lives. Right now, we do ok in providing very basic stuff for most poor people, but we still get stuck at getting people out of poverty and into a better life. In that way, I'm kind of a mixture of liberal and conservative ideology. I believe that we need the welfare system, but I also believe in getting people off of it as soon as possible.

[patsymae]

Any system can be abused, and there will always be some people who abuse it. In the case of welfare, the abuse is very little of the national budget compared to say, corporate abuse (everything from taxes to fraudulent contracts to charging the Pentagon hundreds of dollars for toilet seats). The insanity is that the very small amount of welfare abuse is used as an excuse to promote very poor public policy. And that policy of course takes advantage of the American Puritanical strain--social benefits are fine as long as they go to the really good people who deserve them (usually me, my family, and/or people I know) and not to the bad, irresponsible people who don't (everybody else).

The welfare system is not set up to get people off of welfare and be self-sufficient--in fact, quite the opposite. Any effort to improve your situation is punished by loss of benefits--including counting the wages of teenagers who are working to save for college as part of the family income. In most cases, school is not considered a work activity. The system is designed to keep people in poverty and to provide a low-wage temporary work force for seasonal work (back when there was such a thing), keep the military supplied with recruits who have no other (legal) option to make a living, and provide public entities with free or low-cost workers to replace previously higher paid, probably unionized employees.

Welfare was not originally designed to help people get on their feet, it was to help single parents (mostly women) who were widowed or abandoned with the very limited income of the missing wage earner so that the parent could remain in the home and care for the children. It was the combination of the Reagan era and mentality, plus middle-class women entering the workforce and not wanting to pay for other women to stay at home, that led to the change.

What is lost here is that TANF goes to support children--none of whom, by definition, are abusing the system. Yes, maybe their parents made/make poor choices or shouldn't have had so many children, but those kids are here, so what about them? My father was an irresponsible, alcoholic jerk and a deadbeat, but that wasn't my fault. I got the same public education as everyone else and after he died my mom got social security benefits (and I think welfare for a time, although she'd never admit it)--and all of us are working people, a couple college educated, who have paid back far more in taxes than we received as kids.

More to the point, because we were not marginalized, we feel part of this society--own homes, work, vote, pay taxes, support our own kids (but I did take government help when I needed it and I don't feel a twinge of guilt about it--again, both me and my kid have put back way more than we took). If we deny children the basic necessities of life because we don't like how their parents are behaving, then we shouldn't be surprised when a whole demographic grows up with zero interest in playing by the rules. If you know that the game is rigged from the start and there's no chance that you can win, logical step is to stop playing the game.

I'm reminded of one response to this "debate" back in the Reagan era. Someone had written (and I still see these types of things today) a scathing letter about the "welfare queens" and the fact that people use food stamps to buy things other than dried beans and rice: saw someone use foodstamps to buy a chocolate cake, outrage, how irresponsible, etc. A woman wrote back: "I am that woman you were behind in line. We gave up some other things in order to buy the cake. It was for my daughter's fourth birthday, which will be her last."

Yeah, create a whole lousy social system because the most important thing is making sure that some irresponsible parent doesn't waste $6 in foodstamps for a birthday cake for a dying child.

[Lillybee]

JFC, I have a question about the dole. I had a British couple come in and apply. Mrs. had accepted a job as a head nurse in a California hospital that paid over 60K a year and also received a huge bonus. Mr. quit his job in London to move with his wife. They thought that since Mr. had no income we would give the family welfare. They claimed that he would have received aid in Britian and thought that we were being mean for not giving them cash aid. Would they have qualified for aid in England?