Backlash against Welfare Mothers: Past and Present

6. Western and Northern Welfare Backlashes: California and New York

6. Western and Northern Welfare Backlashes California and New York 86 The 1950s welfare backlash was not simply shaped by black-white race relations , nor was it confined to the South. In northern and western states, welfare critics appealed to racist resentment over blacks’ civil rights gains and the in-migration of blacks, Puerto Ricans, or Mexicans. This chapter explores how racism interacted with other factors to shape the welfare backlashes in California and New York. Attacks on welfare mothers were more powerful in California than in New York, mainly because large farmers played a politically dominant role there. Although only 7 percent of California ’s labor force was employed in agriculture in 1950,1 the sheer size of agribusiness gave it a significant role in the state’s economy.2 Agricultural products—processed foods and lumber—were also among the state’s principal manufactured products.3 More importantly, rural legislators dominated the state senate. California’s four largest urban counties made up 59 percent of the state’s population but were represented by only 10 percent of senate seats in the 1950s.4 This gave the “farm lobby” considerable influence as it and its allies lobbied for welfare cutbacks. California’s welfare critics appealed to antiblack and anti-Mexican sentiment, as well as anticommunism and taxpayers’ interests, to justify welfare cuts. Welfare opposition also emerged in the northern, highly industrial state of New York, where less than 3 percent of the labor force was employed in agriculture in 1950. There, farmers, business groups, and upstate rural residents pressured legislators to restrict welfare eligibility. Welfare critics appealed to racist resentment toward the blacks and Puerto Ricans entering the state, suggesting that they came to take advantage of the state’s generous welfare programs.They mainly lobbied for a residency requirement for welfare so as to deny aid to newcomers. However, organized labor, the state’s highly developed network of private social agencies, and liberal Republicans and Democrats mobilized considerable opposition to this proposal. California’s Welfare Backlash The Rise of Welfare Opposition At first, welfare opposition in California was provoked by a successful campaign to expand old-age assistance by the California Institute for Social Welfare (CISW).5 CISW was one of a series of old-age pension movements in the state that included Upton Sinclair’s unsuccessful bid for governor under his “End Poverty in California” platform, the Townsend movement,6 and the “Ham and Eggs” movement.7 George McLain, a former “Ham and Eggs” organizer, founded CISW in 1941.8 By 1948, the group claimed a hundred thousand members, most of who were old-age pensioners living in lower-middle-class neighborhoods.9 CISW’s biggest policy victory was the passage of Proposition 4 in 1948, an initiative supported by labor unions and liberal politicians.10 Proposition 4 made the director of aid to the aged and blind programs an elective position and named a CISW leader for this position , increased benefits to old-age and blind pensioners, and broadened eligibility for benefits.11 Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, were concerned about the proposition’s cost and launched a five-million-dollar campaign to repeal Proposition 4 by Proposition 2. To broaden support for their campaign, they allied themselves with women’s organizations and social welfare groups that expressed concerns about how the measure might affect welfare administration, especially CISW leaders’ authority over it.12 Opponents of CISW depicted it as a corrupt organization dominated by a power-hungry man.13 Two senate committees investigated corruption charges against the organization,14 and several unsuccessful lawsuits were filed against CISW.15 Following these highly publicized attacks and a five-million-dollar campaign, voters repealed Proposition 4 by a fairly wide margin in 1949.16 The campaign against Proposition 4 helped unite business leaders around an antiwelfare agenda. Buoyed by their victory, they quickly turned their attention to ADC, which had been dramatically expanded in 1949 by a new state law that significantly broadened the definition of a “needy child” to conform to federal guidelines.17 Welfare officials and organizations,18 Catholic leaders, and urban officials actively supported the bill.19 County and state supervisors’ associations also sent letters and telegrams in favor of the bill, which promised to reduce the number of families receiving countyWestern and Northern Welfare Backlashes / 87 funded general relief.20 With so much support, the bill passed the legislature by...