The "W" Word

Here in the privacy of my own blog I guess I can risk spelling it out: I’m talking about that stigmatizing, weaponized word Welfare.

You might try this exercise before reading further—compose a fifteen-words-or-less answer to the question, What does “government welfare program” mean?

The first person I asked that question had a succinct reply: “Welfare is the government giving money to people who don’t work.”

Still curious, I posted the question on Facebook, getting back around twenty responses during one afternoon. All were passionate and thoughtful. The points made boiled down into five assertions:
1. Yes, welfare means giving cash to people who don’t work, and it is a bad thing. It destroys initiative and creates dependency.
2. Welfare was supposed to help people who are disabled and can’t work, but it has gotten way out of hand and now able-bodied cheats are drawing welfare checks.
3. Welfare is necessary because of our responsibility to care for the poorest among us. But welfare’s central flaw is that people receive benefits for such a long time that it becomes a pattern for many generations.
4. Welfare is a good thing, because most welfare recipients are children. Play and school are children’s legitimate work, and they did not choose to have poor parents, so most would agree they don’t deserve to go hungry or homeless.
5. People who don’t work are not the only ones on welfare: wealthy people with tax breaks, greedy investment bankers, government contractors and so on get huge government handouts. Then they complain about poor people on welfare.

There are a couple of problems here.

“Welfare,” according to sources that range from the conservative Heritage Foundation to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, designates any means-tested government program designed to assist low-income people.

Are you now, or have you ever been, on welfare? If you got a Pell Grant to help pay for college, the answer is yes. If your child attended a Head Start program or gets a free lunch at school, you’re on welfare. If you buy nutritious food at a discount because you are a pregnant woman, an infant or a child (WIC) you’re a welfare recipient. Also if you live in low-rent subsidized housing, have your health insurance through Medicaid, or use Food Stamps to help with the grocery bill. Doesn’t matter whether you’re working or not; doesn’t matter whether you’re disabled. If your income is low enough (that’s where “means testing” comes in) you can get welfare help until things improve.

These safety-net programs seem hard to argue with. All around us we see poverty amid plenty. Surely it benefits our society to have healthy citizens, children who are ready for school when they turn six, a shot at higher education as a boost out of poverty.

Not all government giveaways are means-tested. I myself—a wealthy woman--receive thousands from Uncle Sam every month, in the form of Social Security and Medicare. I choose not to work, I didn’t have to answer any financial questions , and the cash I rake in comes from taxes on people much needier than me. But I’m probably not what you think of as a welfare queen, and I’m not required to be ashamed of myself in the checkout line.

(Please explain to me why means-tested handouts are dishonorable but no-questions-asked handouts are virtuous.)

It’s also not true that welfare benefits are long-term. Not anymore. This false belief should have vaporized back in 1997, when Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC or ADC) was abolished under the Clinton administration. Its substitute, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) is a short –term cash program, stringently needs-tested and full of requirements that recipients work or lose benefit money. TANF also contains strong financial incentives for recipients to be married and living together with their children. The average TANF recipient draws benefits for two years or less, and the maximum lifetime eligibility is only 60 months.

Call it the safety net, call it the dole. One side sees humanitarian and societal reasons for helping the poor. The other side fears that taxation could choke the economy, and warns that feeding the hungry keeps them from learning to feed themselves.

But could we please keep in mind one other definition of “welfare”: the good fortune, health, happiness, or prosperity of a person, group, or organization. Or nation.