The untold story: whites and welfare

Ebony, August, 1995 by Muriel L. Whetstone

It has become almost acceptable to characterize welfare recipients as irresponsible, negligent baby-breeders on a free ride, courtesy of the taxpaying public. Popular portrayals are of mothers dependent on the government for support, who breed babies for the sole purpose of collecting undeserved welfare checks. And what is implied--if not overtly expressed--by social scientists, politicians, the media, and many Americans is that the vast majority of these women are Black.

"It's clear that welfare has a Black face," says Dr. Mary Frances Berry, chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "Whenever you see television or news shows about welfare, only occasionally will they show someone who is not African-American," she says. "The assumption is that when you speak of welfare, you're speaking of Black people."

The facts, however, reveal an entirely different picture that underscores the difference between the rhetoric that would have one believe that most welfare recipients are Black and the reality that the majority of them are White. "I think welfare and crime are two of what I call 'racially loaded' issues," says Dr. Ronald Walters, chairman of the political science department at Howard University. "The social function that they perform is that they give people a way to talk about race without actually articulating the concept. It's a way of talking about Black people without actually saying 'those Black people.'"

Racist attitudes notwithstanding, it is a matter of record that White mothers receive more than half of the checks distributed under the auspices of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program--55.2 percent, compared to 39.2 percent received by Blacks. Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau reported in February that during an average month in 1990, 61 percent of major assistance program participants were White, compared to 34 percent who were African-American.

Although the American public most often associates welfare with aid to families, the government defines all entitlement programs funded through taxes as welfare. Consequently, Social Security fits that definition.

As of December 1993, 26 million Americans were receiving Social Security retirement insurance. However, only 7.7 percent of the beneficiaries were Black, while 90.4 percent were White. "We're talking about a system today that has made seniors in general, and Whites in particular, affluent," says Walters. "But most people don't look at [Social Security] as part of the welfare system."

And people don't consider the National School Lunch Program, which feeds millions of low-income school children as part of the welfare system. But it is and, again, Whites are the primary beneficiaries. Compared to the 17 percent of recipients who were Black, 75 percent of the children receiving reduced or free lunches are White. Whites also receive the majority of food stamps, Medicaid and Medicare assistance, housing subsidies and veterans' benefits provided by the government.

Also fitting the definition of welfare are the corporate subsidy programs that are funded with federal tax dollars. It's been estimated that Congress funds more than 125 programs that subsidize private businesses, the overwhelming majority of which are White-owned and operated, say experts, at a cost of more than $85 billion annually.

Across the board, in nearly every category, Whites, not Blacks, comprise the majority of Americans on the public dole. But why, despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise, does the negative stereotype stubbornly cling to Blacks? "[Because of] the legacy of racism," says Dr. Berry, "the definition of us as the 'other,' the negative. So that when you think of something negative in society, you think of Black people. When you think of something positive, you think of White people."

Personal histories indicate that the reasons why people, Black or White, apply for public assistance, and have difficulty surviving without it, are basically the same. A case in point is Deborah Watson of Chicago, a White divorced mother of two sons and a daughter who has been on and o welfare for the last nine years.

Watson worked at the local steel mill for 10 years before she was laid off. Her husband, who did not finish high school, had a job, but it paid less than minimum wage. With their youngest child Carrielyn on the way, the couple applied for public assistance to insure their medical expenses would be covered.

"Love flies out the window when poverty walks in your front door," says Watson, and it wasn't long before her husband was gone, too, leaving her alone to care for their children. In the interim, she has survived mainly on the cash assistance and food stamps she receives through the mail each month. "Health care is probably one of the biggest reasons why people cling to welfare," she says, "because they are so afraid of not having health care for their children."

Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun also thinks the lack of medical assistance is a major concern for most welfare recipients. "The current welfare debate is being framed by misperceptions and prejudices," she says in a recent statement. "The real problems that cause bloated welfare rolls--growing poverty, the lack of jobs in poor communities, and the lack of health care and child care--are getting lost in the crossfire."