By Lennlee Keep
A common mindset through modern American history is that people living in poverty simply don’t want to work.¹ For decades, politicians have used programs like food stamps, unemployment, social security, and Section 8 housing not as examples of a social good, but of lazy people wanting free money from harder-working taxpayers. Women who needed any of these social services were especially demonized, not only as lazy, but as sexually promiscuous, single mothers who would rather have more children than find work. And the term welfare has been racialized over the years, as well.
“Despite the fact that white Americans benefit more from government assistance than people of color, means-tested aid is primarily associated with Black people and other people of color—particularly when the term welfare is used,” wrote political scientist Ashley Jardina for TalkPoverty. “For many Americans, the word welfare conjures up a host of disparaging stereotypes so strongly linked to stigmatized beliefs about racial groups that—along with crime—it is arguably one of the most racialized terms in the country.”
The myth of the welfare mother was born from this prejudice, enabling decades of injustice that went largely unchallenged until the 1970s. The documentary Storming Caesars Palace takes an in-depth look at the life of welfare reformer Ruby Duncan and her fight to reform public assistance in America. But even before Duncan’s activism in Las Vegas during the late 1960s and early ’70s, the initial seeds of the social support net were planted at a time when Americans were working harder than ever.
MYTH: Women on welfare have more children to get more money.
FACT: The numbers on this bias simply don’t add up. The annual birthrate for every 1,000 women aged 18 to 44 on welfare was 45.8, compared with an overall national rate of 71.1.2
Origins of the “Welfare Queen”
In 1900, millions of hard-working people lived a tenuous existence in poverty. Two-thirds of New York City’s population—2.3 million people—lived in tenement housing.5 Tenements were cramped apartments, filthy and overrun with vermin and disease.
In the early 1900s, men worked 12 hours a day, six days a week. Women worked seven days a week, around the clock. Because they needed to care for their own children, they couldn’t work outside of the home, but they would make extra money by doing washing or sewing for others in addition to their daily household and family duties. While this didn’t provide a living wage, it was still work and it helped augment the family income.
Despite long hours and efforts, with the average pay at 20 cents per hour, a family could barely get by. If the man of the house died, it was a catastrophe for the remaining family. There were no food stamps, no widow’s benefits, and minimal options for women to earn income outside the home, which were still low-wage at best. In the wake of such a disaster, children were often given to orphanages or sent to live as servants in wealthy homes. If the breadwinner died, it didn’t just fracture the family structure; in some cases, it could sever family ties entirely.
During this time, religious charities and philanthropists were the only sources of assistance or support for the impoverished. In the early 1900s, these charities found themselves overwhelmed by the population’s needs and pushed for the government to provide aid.
MYTH: Most Americans won’t use the welfare system.
FACT: About two-thirds of all Americans will use welfare for at least six months, sometime between the ages of 20 to 65.4 By the time they turn 18, over half the children in America will have used food stamps (or SNAP). Approximately 21% of all Americans are enrolled in a welfare program.
Mothers’ Pension
There was little sympathy for the poor, especially immigrants. But mothers, particularly white, Christian mothers, were seen as “worthy” and deserving of compassion and support. It was from this that the Mothers’ pension was born.3 This cash benefit helped single mothers keep the family together.
While the pension was better than nothing, the criteria to receive the benefit made it difficult, if not almost impossible. There were requirements about the length of residency in a state, which varied state to state. But there were also more subjective criteria. A mother must be deemed “of good character” and “fit to raise children.” This language was used to disqualify any women of color, any family of non-Christian faith, or women who didn’t speak English. It could also be used to disqualify anyone else the local authority determined as unfit to receive the money.
MYTH: Welfare fraud is rampant and costs taxpayers millions.
FACT: For every 10,000 households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), about 14 contained a recipient who was investigated and determined to have committed fraud (via a 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service). Within SNAP, for every $10,000 paid in benefits, about $11 is determined by state agencies to have been overpaid due to recipient fraud.
To put this into perspective, the IRS estimates that for every $6 owed in federal taxes, $1 is not paid because of tax evasion or fraud.
Reagan vs. the “Welfare Queen”
In 1976, Ronald Reagan was running for president. While on the campaign trail, the charismatic former actor, a consummate storyteller, kept audiences rapt with tales about people on welfare and their extravagant lifestyles. Less important to candidate Reagan was whether the stories were completely accurate. Crowds would boo along when he’d talk about families in inner cities, who lived in luxurious public housing apartments, with six bedrooms, 11-foot ceilings, a swimming pool, and a gym, all for a mere $113 per month in rent. He picked up on a story from the Chicago Tribune in 1974 about Linda Taylor, the so-called “Welfare Queen.”
“There’s a woman in Chicago who has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and is collecting veterans’ benefits on four nonexisting deceased husbands. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax‐free cash income alone is over $150,000.”6
Linda Taylor was a real person who did commit welfare fraud; that much Reagan got right. However, his numbers were misleading and only told part of the story. It’s estimated that Linda Taylor took about $40,000 from welfare over several years, not $150,000 in one year. And yes, she was convicted of welfare fraud, but only to the tune of $9,000. Reagan also omitted some of her more salacious and notorious crimes: kidnapping, burglary, and insurance fraud.
And if that weren’t enough, she may be behind one of Chicago’s most legendary unsolved murders. Linda Taylor (possibly not her real name) was a master criminal, but welfare fraud was the least of her crimes.
But Reagan’s hyperbolic stumping was focused on welfare, and gave America a target and a reason to be unsympathetic to the poor and needy—and it worked. A 1978 poll of Illinois voters found “that 84 percent ranked controlling welfare and Medicaid fraud and abuses their highest legislative priority.” Who wants to work hard every day, when someone who does nothing can wake up in a penthouse and get a six-figure, tax-free income?
Taxpayers are loath to think that their hard-earned money is being wasted, or worse, stolen, but the fact is that welfare fraud is shockingly rare. A story in The Atlantic suggests that “fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments.” A 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service found that for every 10,000 households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), about 14 contained a recipient who was investigated and determined to have committed fraud.
Additionally, they found that within SNAP, for every $10,000 paid in benefits, about $11 is determined by state agencies to have been overpaid due to recipient fraud. On the other hand, the IRS estimates that out of every $6 owed in federal taxes, about $1 is not paid because of tax evasion or fraud.
Politicians of all parties have many talking points around government financial support, which often begs the questions: “Who will pay for it?” and “How do we keep people from becoming dependent on it?”
But the real questions underneath it all—“Who deserves our support?” and “Who is ‘worthy’?”—are questions America has had a hard time answering. We like our legends and stories, even when the numbers don’t support our bias.
Lennlee Keep is a nonfiction writer, filmmaker, storyteller, and reticent D&D player. Her writing has appeared in The Rumpus, The Southeast Review, and ESME. Her films have been shown on PBS, A&E, and the BBC. The ex-wife of a dead guy, she talks about death more than most people are comfortable with. She is working on a memoir about addiction, grief and a literally broken heart. She lives in Austin, Texas with her son and their guinea pig, Chuck Norris.
Sources and Further Reading
1 Population Reference Bureau: “American Attitudes About Poverty and the Poor”
2 Los Angeles Times (1989): “Study Finds Women on Welfare Have Fewer Children Than Others”
3 “The Historical Perspective: Mothers’ Pensions” +
4 Washington Post: “5 Myths About the Safety Net”
6 New York Times: “Welfare Queen Becomes an Issue in Reagan Campaign”
The Conversation: “How racism has shaped welfare policy in America since 1935”
U.S. Census: “Who Is Receiving Social Safety Net Benefits”
PBS NewsHour: “The true story behind the ‘welfare queen’ stereotype”
Harvard Kennedy School: “Dispelling the Myth of Welfare Dependency”
US Government Spending: “Welfare Spending History”
USAFacts: “How is the American middle class doing? What support does the government provide people?”
GitNux Blog “Welfare Recipient Statistics 2023: Insights and Trends”
Books:
Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform by Sharon Hays
The Myth of the Welfare Queen by David Zucchino
The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth by Josh Levin