This Week:

Quote of the Week

Race, Crime, and The Presidential Vote

Myths and Facts about Welfare

New Realities: Welfare at the Turn of the Century

Greetings,

Welcome, once again, to all the new readers this week. I hope you will feel free, as many of the Nygaard Notes "Old-Timers" do, to write me with your thoughts and ideas for Nygaard Notes.

A few people from other parts of the country have complained that the Notes is sometimes too "Minnesota." What can I say? I'm a Minnesota kind of guy. But the larger point is that many of the lessons that can be learned from observing what is happening in Minnesota can be easily applied elsewhere. And, of course, you're always free to skip the boring stuff.

But it might be worth your while to read them; here's why. In many cases, Minnesota is at or near the top in the U.S. in terms of economic and social performance among states. This is not to say we are doing what we should be doing, but only that we often compare well, in relative terms, with other states. So when I point out the shortcomings and challenges facing Minnesota, in many cases the situation is the same – or worse – in your state.

Since I can't resist the occasional promotion of a local group or event that I think is particularly noteworthy, what you folks in other states need to do, I think, is use these stories for inspiration and start looking for similar groups and organizing efforts in YOUR area. Or, if you write to me I can likely direct you to good resources near where you live. I may be a Minnesota guy, but I am also a United States kind of guy. So ask for help if you want.

See you next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

"Relief [i.e. welfare] arrangements are ancillary to economic arrangements. Their chief function is to regulate labor, and they do that in two general ways. First, when mass unemployment leads to outbreaks of turmoil, relief programs are ordinarily initiated or expanded to absorb and control enough of the unemployed to restore order; then, as turbulence subsides, the relief system contracts, expelling those who are needed to populate the labor market. Relief also performs a labor-regulating function in this shrunken state, however. Some of the aged, the disabled, the insane, and others who are of no use as workers are left on the relief rolls, and their treatment is so degrading and punitive as to instill in the laboring masses a fear of the fate that awaits them should they relax into beggary and pauperism. To demean and punish those who do not work is to exalt by contrast even the meanest labor at the meanest wages. These regulative functions of relief, and their periodic expansion and contraction, are made necessary by several strains toward instability inherent in capitalist economies."

- Chapter 1, paragraph 2, from the classic book "Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare," by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. 1971, Pantheon Books

Race, Crime, and The Presidential Vote

In Nygaard Notes Numbers 66-68 I talked about crime in America. I pointed out that more than 4.1 million people are under the care or custody of correctional agencies, 61% of whom are people of color. 87% of criminal offenses nationwide are non-violent, with two thirds of federal prisoners being drug offenders. African Americans constitute 12% of the U.S. population, 13% of the drug using population, but an astonishing 74% of the people sent to prison for drug possession. Keep these facts in mind as I say a few things about the Presidential election. (I know, I said I was done talking about the election, but no one else has pointed this out, I don't think.)

First of all, it looks like the presidential election was decided by less than 300,000 votes in the entire country. Note that many states in the U.S. forbid ex-felons (that is, people who have done their time in prison and have supposedly "paid their debt" to society) from voting, regardless of the nature of the offense. In this year's election, almost 2.9 million people were thus forbidden from voting. 1.4 million of them are African American. Five states—Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia—each disenfranchise more than 125,000 ex-felons.

But let's look at everyone's favorite state these days: Florida.

• One-third of all disenfranchised ex-felons in the nation are in Florida.
• 31 percent of all black men in Florida are permanently disenfranchised.
• There are 204,600 African Americans in Florida who have been disenfranchised for committing a felony; roughly 185,000, or 90% of them are out of prison, being on probation, on parole, or having completed their sentences.
• 94% of African-American voters in Florida voted for Gore in the recent election.
• The Presidential vote margin in Florida, as everyone knows, appears to be less than 1,000 votes, in favor of Bush.

OK, now let's do the arithmetic: If those 185,000 African-American ex-offenders were allowed to vote in Florida (ex-felons are allowed to vote in many states), and even ONE PERCENT of them voted, following the pattern of the rest of the state, there would be absolutely no dispute about the result. And, as it appears, the United States would have a different President for the next four years.

Myths and Facts about Welfare

One problem with organizing to improve welfare, or more generally to improve the quality of life for poor people, is that there are so many crazy ideas floating around among the general population. Where these ideas come from is an interesting issue that I will leave aside for a moment. For now, here are a few common myths about welfare (there are lots more where these came from!), and the facts that counter them:

Myth: Spending on welfare programs to aid needy families is a major part of the federal budget.
Fact: Federal spending on AFDC (pre-1996) was under 1% of federal spending; no doubt it's less now. 1996 spending on ALL the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounted to about 6% of the total federal budget.

Myth: Welfare grants are too high
Fact: Welfare income for a household of three is $532 (Minnesota). The Federal Poverty Level for that household is $1,179.

Myth: Welfare families are too big
Fact: 20.3% of families in the general population have three or more kids. In the welfare population that number is 15%. 41.1% of families in the general population have 1 child; in the welfare population that number is 43.9%.

Myth: Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.
Fact: Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. Furthermore, the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population.

Myth: Most welfare parents are teenagers.
Fact: Only 6% of parents in welfare families are under age 19

Myth: High welfare benefits cause poverty by making people lazy.
Fact: No study has proven this general statement, and studies have shown that Europe's far more generous welfare programs promote ESCAPE from poverty. The numbers show that LESS generous welfare benefits tend to keep people in poverty longer.

Myth: Families stay on welfare for a long time.
Fact: Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time.

Myth: The government doesn't subsidize middle-class families.
Fact: Not only do families receive a $2,450 tax deduction for each dependent child, but the mortgage tax deduction is a huge benefit extended to families lucky enough to own their own home.

New Realities: Welfare at the Turn of the Century

In 1996 President Clinton signed into law the cynically-named "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)" Also known as the Welfare Reform Act or the Welfare to Work Act, the passage of this act marked "the end of welfare as we know it," just like the President promised in his 1992 campaign. I suggest that the passage of this Act had a lot to do with Vice-President Gore's failure to resoundingly defeat a man who was undoubtedly the weakest Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964.

I list above some of the most common myths about welfare. Here I will try to give a sense of the magnitude of the changes wrought by the PRWORA, and the look of the landscape in the Brave New World of welfare.

Welfare rights activists have said that the passing of the 1996 law "marked the greatest attack on the safety net for poor families in 60 years." When you look at the changes brought about by that law, it's easy to see their point. Here are a few of the new realities:

1. NO FEDERAL GUARANTEE. There is no longer a guarantee of any help from the federal government for poor people. For 60 years the federal government said that they would offer to supplement the income of any American if their income fell below a certain level for reasons beyond their control. Now that is not true.

2. ALL POWER TO THE STATES. The federal welfare system that we used to have, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC, has been replaced with a system of block grants to the states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF. States have enormous power to direct those grants in different ways. Evidence so far shows that different states have directed them in very different ways, resulting in great disparities in both types and levels of aid provided.

3. NO RIGHT TO WELFARE. Under prior law, when the nation went into a recession, federal spending rose automatically to help meet increased needs for public assistance. Now the levels of federal funding channeled to the states is limited to a set number of dollars, based arbitrarily on the previous levels of need in each state. The problem is that the base year was 1994, a year of economic expansion. In the words of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The [1996 Welfare Reform] bill provides some additional ‘contingency funds' if need increases in states, but the contingency funds are likely to prove inadequate if a recession occurs. Between 1990 and 1992 when unemployment climbed, federal AFDC expenditures rose $6 billion above the amount expended in 1989. The bill's ‘contingency fund,' however, includes only $2 billion — or one-third as much. The contingency funds are likely to run out part way into the next recession." We haven't had a recession since the passing of the law, so we have not yet been forced to deal with the inevitable shortfalls written into that law.

4. TIME LIMITS. There is now a time limit placed on welfare benefits. By federal law, no federal money can be spent to provide welfare benefits to anyone who has received benefits for longer than a total of 5 years in their entire lifetime, regardless of their circumstances. While states have the option of spending state money beyond that limit, they also have the option to shorten the limit to less than 5 years, which some states have done. Five years have not yet passed since the PRWORA became law, so we have still to see the effects of this part of the law.

5. SANCTIONS. It has now been written into the law that any failure to comply -- to the letter -- with the welfare rules will result in a recipient having part or all of their benefits taken away. These punitive takeaways are known as "sanctions," and are applied to welfare recipients in order to punish them. There are reports in Minnesota that as much as 80 percent of the time that sanctions are applied, they are applied illegally (that is, in discriminatory or arbitrary fashion). It is worth noting the contrast between treatment of the poor and treatment of the wealthy in this regard. Corporate leaders and other wealthy people make decisions on a daily basis as to how to use their wealth. These decisions dictate, among other things, the location, nature, and quantity of the work we do, and this is real power. Yet they are not "sanctioned" for failing to invest in the poorest neighborhoods. Rather, they are presented with "incentives" which, it is hoped, will "persuade" them to do the socially-responsible thing with their power. So we see that powerless people are disciplined with force; powerful people are "encouraged" to use their power for the good of all.

6. WORK REQUIREMENTS. The reduction of poverty is not one of the goals of welfare reform, and the "success" of the program about which our political leaders speak is the success in expanding the low-wage labor force and the reduction in public expenditures for the program. Making explicit the relationship of public welfare programs and the regulation of the labor market mentioned in this week's Quote of the Week, welfare law now places reduction of the welfare rolls and the entry of recipients into the workforce above all else.

Welfare Reform Affects Us All

Many people consider it surprising that the tight labor market has not resulted in rapidly-rising wages for those in lower-wage occupations. Creating a pool of workers that are forced to work at any wage, as is true in what is called "workfare," drives down wages for all workers. In New York City, for instance, thousands of jobs that were once good-paying union jobs are now being done by welfare recipients, at welfare-level wages.

By writing into law the ideology that says human activity is not worth anything unless it results in a paycheck, welfare reform perpetuates the discounting and devaluing of what some call "women's work," the most obvious example being the raising of children. This hurts all women, poor or not.

Finally, the using of welfare recipients as scapegoats makes it easier for politicians to avoid dealing with many of the real issues in today's economy. These issues include a pronounced transfer of wealth from wages to profits, reductions in workplace benefits -- from retirement to health care to time off -- in many industries, the crisis in affordable housing, and escalating costs for the education we are told is needed by today's worker.

The good news is that all of this backsliding by our "leaders" is not necessarily supported by the public. In one survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has "a responsibility to try to do away with poverty." The same survey showed that 29 percent of Americans believed that spending on welfare should be increased, while only 21 percent believed it should be cut.

The even better news is that many people all over the country are organizing what looks like it could be a very important "poor people's movement" in response to the attack that some people have called a "war on the poor." Next week I will report on a few of these efforts, in Minnesota and around the country, complete with contact information so you can send them money or, better yet, volunteer some time to help them in their attempt to reorganize the priorities in this country.