Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rpannier

(24,329 posts)
Sun Jun 19, 2016, 02:00 AM Jun 2016

The Fall of the “Welfare Queen” in California

After years of debate, California Governor Jerry Brown has finally given in to liberal legislators and advocates of the poor by eliminating a California welfare rule that many believe inordinately targets poor mothers of color. The rule goes by many names–the “Welfare Queen” rule, the family cap, and formally in California as the Maximum Family Grant Policy–and prevents families from receiving more benefits if they have additional children while receiving benefits.

California’s revocation of the policy is projected to cost the state a projected $220 million each year, and will eventually be funded by an account for inflationary increases to welfare benefits. With Brown’s decision, California joins a list of seven other states to repeal the rule, which once existed in some form or another in nearly half of U.S. states.

snip

Reagan ran a campaign largely based on the anecdotal evidence of a few criminals who defrauded the U.S. welfare system, with the conclusion that welfare fraud was a pervasive plague in the U.S. that could only be eliminated by cracking down on the “welfare stat

snip

“Welfare queen” rules emerged in the early 1990’s as a solution, with the belief that if women were to not receive additional benefits for additional children, that they would stop having additional children. Not only have studies found that the rules have no distinguishable impact on birth rates among mothers who receive benefits and are subject to a family cap, but the rules have been criticized as degrading and dehumanizing to poor mothers.

link:
http://lawstreetmedia.com/news/fall-welfare-queen-california/


One more Reagan-era piece of crap that is falling by the way side

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Fall of the “Welfare Queen” in California (Original Post) rpannier Jun 2016 OP
Thank God. That policy always seemed unconstitutional to me. Live and Learn Jun 2016 #1
Whoever wrote that law in the first place was insane... ReRe Jun 2016 #2
The Clintons CHAMPIONED that kind of welfare reform. djean111 Jun 2016 #3

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
1. Thank God. That policy always seemed unconstitutional to me.
Sun Jun 19, 2016, 02:33 AM
Jun 2016

How in the world can withholding benefits from the child simply because it was born after the family was on welfare be fair or legal?

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
2. Whoever wrote that law in the first place was insane...
Sun Jun 19, 2016, 05:00 AM
Jun 2016

... if you ask me. How would a law like that stop a man from impregnating a woman? Like the woman is solely responsible for the sex act and solely responsible for becoming pregnant. Start holding the fathers of the "welfare queen's extra children" responsible.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
3. The Clintons CHAMPIONED that kind of welfare reform.
Sun Jun 19, 2016, 09:11 AM
Jun 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

The welfare queen idea became an integral part of a larger discourse on welfare reform, especially during the bipartisan effort to reform the welfare system under Bill Clinton.[1] Anti-welfare advocates ended AFDC in 1996 and overhauled the system with the introduction of TANF. Despite the new system’s time-limits, the welfare queen legacy has endured and continues to shape public perception.


And would double down on it, if elected, IMO.
A reason I would not want to be here - I would likely would be seeing "Democrats" championing safety net cuts, because Hillary.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Fall of the “Welfare ...