Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign

The Kensington Welfare Rights Union is a multi-racial group of poor and homeless families struggling to survive and to end poverty in our community, state, country, and world. We are based in Kensington, a neighborhood in Philadelphia which is the poorest district in the state of Pennsylvania. Over the past seven years we have been joined by hundreds of poor families whose human rights have been violated. Through means both legal and illegal, we have fought for their human rights, including political equality and the basic necessities of life. In the course of this fight we have seen conditions for the ever-growing number of poor and homeless families in this country grow more and more desperate. Whether through corporate downsizing, "quality of life" ordinances which make it effectively illegal to be homeless, or harsh workfare requirements, the human rights of people in poverty of all races have been increasingly under assault. The rhetoric behind these attacks has played on and encouraged racist fears and myths, in violation of Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism, which condemns "all propaganda...which are based on ideas of superiority of one race...or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form." The effect of this propaganda has been to portray poverty as only a problem of racial minorities, when in fact most people in poverty are white.

In the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the Supreme Court found that Blacks had no rights which Whites were bound to respect.1 This ruling clearly encapsulated the meaning of slavery at that time. Slavery was the backbone of the southern plantation economy, and from that base the southern plantation owners dominated the politics of this country.2 Today, welfare reform similarly encapsulates the condition of low-income people in this country. Its message is that our society and government has no obligation to the human rights of those facing economic hardship. Between the effects of automation and the globalization of the economy, people of all races are unable to find jobs which provide the basic necessities of life.3 Today, it is this segment of our society who are being systematically denied their right to exist as human beings. But the welfare reform debate has diverted discussion of these conditions onto racial myths and stereotypes.

The particular conditions of slavery were a product of their time, as is welfare reform today. The southern agricultural system depended on a large manual work force. Slavery provided a cheap, immensely productive solution. All elements of southern society bent to support this system, from the courts to the churches.4

The civil war broke the dominance of the southern plantation owners. But a large agricultural work force was still needed for the southern agrarian economy. The system of sharecropping developed, along with new laws which denied the farm workers (both black and white) their economic, political and civil human rights. A fierce and violent climate of racism and legal segregation developed which helped keep Blacks and Whites divided.5

The advent of the mechanical cotton picker (together with similar technological advances) eliminated the need for a large agricultural work force. Millions migrated to northern industrial cities. This process set the stage for the civil rights movement, which won support from the government who found legal segregation an obstacle to industrial development in the South. At the time, our economy was a like a "rising tide which lifts all boats." The civil rights movement abolished legal segregation although de facto segregation and economic inequality continued.

Today, advances in technology and the process of globalization have resulted in unprecedented productivity. They are also eliminating much of the need for an industrial work force. Workers in this country are competing with computers, robots, and other workers around the world, including those in third-world countries.6 As a large, low-skill work force has become less and less essential, low-income people of all races are finding themselves without a place in today's economy - that is, without a place where they can get the basic necessities of life.7 As early as 1970, Sidney Willhelm observed that African-Americans were moving from "exploitation to uselessness," from being "an exploited labor force to an outcast" in our economy8 Welfare reform reflects these conditions. The class of people in this country who serve as day laborers for illegal labor pools, as prison labor, as sweatshop workers, as workfare recipients, or who can't find a job at all come from all races, but are increasingly denied their basic human rights.

In this new context of race relations, racism continues to play an important role, dividing this segment of society and obscuring their condition. In planning and implementing welfare reform, our government has been both promoted and been guided by racist distortions of welfare recipients, especially the idea of the "underclass." Special Rapporteur Maurice Glele-Ahanhanzo cited this debate in his report to the United Nations: "a new mythology provided the ideological cannon fodder for the attack on the poor and people of color. That mythology equates growth in poverty to growth in an underclass which is primarily Black, Latino and female. This was the basis for the myth of the 'welfare queen'. The increase in poverty is said to be the result of the growth of this sector of the population, not economic factors"9 Scholars like Charles Murray (who's book "The Bell Curve" was cited by Special Rapporteur Maurice Glele-Ahanhanzo as an example of racist propaganda10) gave credibility to this discussion. Although social scientists continue to differ on their definition of this underclass, "all zero in on inner-city blacks and Hispanics; all focus on behavior, values and 'culture' and all in fact converge around an overlapping list of behavioral indications" like teenage pregnancy, illegitimacy, and work ethic.11 "By articulating a definition of poverty that associated it explicitly with illegitimacy, then associating illegitimacy with race, the Right made it acceptable to express blatantly racist concepts without shame."12

Welfare policy developed with the intent of correcting the behavioral pathologies of this group of people, with the idea that those pathologies - not economic factors - caused poverty to exist in this country. The reason welfare recipients were not working, the argument went, was the lack of a work ethic, destroyed through decades of welfare dependency. The (arguably) high rate of illegitimacy and teenage pregnancy were also culprits.13 To fix such behaviors policies from workfare (forcing recipients to work, often below the minimum wage) to family caps (denying support to any children mothers had while on welfare) were developed. Some suggested denying benefits to teenage mothers. In any case, these policies indicate the content of the welfare debate - the pathologies of this "underclass." "Public concern for material poverty has been transformed into a concern over the behavior of the poor."14

The rhetoric behind the welfare reform debate has fostered a climate where "politicians and others who use racial fears to promote their campaigns usually base their demagoguery on myths about poverty, welfare and race, leading their followers to conclude that African Americans or immigrants are responsible for the nation's woes and demands for 'solutions' targeting specific ethnic groups."15 The reality behind this rhetoric is that most welfare recipients are white, have smaller than average families, and are unable to find work which pays enough to support their family;16 the inner-city "underclass" represents only a small fraction of welfare recipients. Under article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the U.S. government is obligated to condemn racist propaganda. "Public authorities or public institutions, national or local" are expressly prohibited from such practices. 17 But this is exactly what happened over the course of the welfare reform debate. "Celebrating after the passage of the House legislation, [Representative] Dan Mica made reference to the zoo sign, 'Don't feed the Alligators,' noting that alligators can feed themselves and their children when left to fend for themselves. GOP Representative Barbara Cubin of Wyoming took the microphone, comparing the 'induced' dependency of welfare mothers with that of caged wolves: 'What has happened with the wolves, just like what happens with human beings, when you take away their incentive, when you take away their freedom, when you take away their dignity, they have to be provided for.' Now, she said, it was time to liberate them to survive on their own.'"18 Charles Murray, who was very influential in the welfare debate had actually suggested that welfare should be abolished because it encourages "'dysgenesis,' the outbreeding of intelligent whites by genetically inferior African Americans, Hispanics and poor whites."19 The immediate consequences of this rhetoric have been serious economic human rights violations as welfare reform policies have begun to have their effect.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed new welfare law into effect. This comprehensive reform of the welfare system has serious implications for the well-being of our countries' most vulnerable people, especially children. It limited families to a five-year lifetime limit on cash support. In two years, people without work will be cut off.20 There has been little effort to address the conditions of poverty which welfare was supposed to ameliorate. In fact, the general trend of the last thirty years has been one of falling incomes, despite a steadily growing economy.21 A study by the Urban Institute projected that welfare reform will put further downward pressure on incomes in this country.22 Although the two-year and five-year limits have yet to have impact, states across the country are reducing their welfare rolls through sanctioning those who can't or don't comply with welfare department rules. In states like Mississippi, families are being sanctioned from cash assistance, food stamps, and even medical coverage.23

Immigrants were a special target of the welfare reform bill. Legal immigrants were denied welfare, Supplemental Security Income, foodstamps and other benefits in the new welfare law.24 The effect has been tragic and direct: many are starving or suffering other maladies associated with extreme poverty.25

It's difficult for us to convey the seriousness of these cuts, in terms of what has already occurred and what lies close ahead. The World Health Organization has described "extreme poverty as the world's most ruthless killer, and the greatest cause of suffering on earth."26 This is certainly true in the United States. The death penalty is a direct and obvious violation of the right to life, but the human misery and actual death caused by welfare reform is just as real. People are dying from poverty: They die of hypothermia from sleeping on the streets in the winter; from heat exhaustion in the summer; from house fires which start because people use an oven or kerosene heaters to warm their families once their heat has been shut off; or from illness after being cut off from medical care (e.g. many are being denied life sustaining medication they once depended on to survive). The increase of various social problems associated with poverty - domestic abuse, crime, etc. - are a virtually inevitable result of the denial of our economic human rights.

One fairly conservative study estimated that welfare reform would put over a million children into poverty, and worsen the conditions of poverty for millions more.27 Statistical data on the effects of welfare reform is slow in coming. It is clear that as a result of political pressure (supported by fiscal incentives) states have significantly reduced their welfare caseloads through sanctions. Nationally, the welfare rolls were cut by 20% in the first year of welfare reform.28 Most states were still designing their welfare plan during that time, and the rolls have continued to plummet across the country. However, what is not clear is where these families have gone. Our findings and experience are that very few are able to find work; for those that do, what work they find tends to be inadequate to provide for their families. Transportation, child care, education, and medical issues remain obstacles which few are able to overcome.

Welfare reform ended the 61 year old entitlement to Federal aid "and transferred money and authority to the states."29 In today's economy, states are competing with one another to create the most attractive climate for business investment. Welfare reform is one arena of this competition; states with the toughest welfare reform are able to provide the most desperate and docile labor force, with workers prepared to take jobs which pay slave wages. Mississippi's welfare plan is an instructive example of state welfare policies. It is the poorest state in the country, but provides the lowest welfare benefits. As state welfare plans are designed and refined, Mississippi's policies will influence the rest of the South and nation: According to an article in the New York Times, "It's detractors feared the state would lead a 'race to the bottom' characterized by dwindling support for the poor."30

The question of welfare in Mississppi is racially charged. Black families make up over 80% of the state's welfare caseload, and in many places whites run most of the businesses. Mississippi's white governor, Mr. Fordice "staged an upset victory in 1991 in part by running a stark anti-welfare commercial."31 Although Mississippi's welfare policies have been strongly supported by racial prejudice, as its harsh policies influence other states welfare recipients and low-wage workers across the country - most of whom are white - will be harmed.

The effects of welfare reform have been especially dire in the Mississippi Delta, the poorest area of the state. "The welfare rolls have fallen sharply across this 200-mile stretch of cotton fields and catfish farms, as they have in most of the country. But with unemployment rates hovering at 10 percent or more, many of those leaving the rolls are failing to find jobs. Indeed, during one recent period, the families dropped for violating the new work rules outnumbered those placed in jobs by a margin of nearly two to one."

This is the increasingly the reality of welfare reform across the country. New Jersey's Work First program is expected to result in over three times as many job seekers as there are job openings. The numbers are similar across the country - Milwaukee, Chicago, Minnesota, etc. For entry level jobs, the job gap is even worse.32 The jobs that people do find generally do not pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Even if they are able to find jobs, few are able to sustain them. In the Delta, "about 42% of the participants found jobs. But only half of those - or 21 percent of the total - were still working after the program's 15th month." "Frank Howell, a researcher at Mississippi State University, recently examined the job prospects of welfare recipients in the five-county area surrounding Greenville, the Delta's most populous town. He projected the development of one new job for every 254 families leaving the rolls."33 Without those jobs, cutting families off welfare is a violation of human rights. Cutting the welfare rolls, however, is the area in which welfare reform has been unquestionably successful. In the first year since the federal welfare reform bill was passed, Mississippi's statewide welfare caseload fell by 33%. Other states cut similar numbers; 40% of Wisconsin's welfare rolls were cut in that first year.34

Behind those numbers are story upon story of human rights violations. The New York Times gives one tragic example: "Among those dropped from the rolls this year was Carrie Ann Bridges, a 26-year-old mother of four. 'She had been cut off cause she wasn't working,' said her father, Elijah Bridges. 'She had to get a job.' She found one on the second shift at the Water Valley plant, sharing the round-trip drive of three hours with her aunt, Geneva Bridges. The two were driving home after midnight in July when Carrie Ann fell asleep and drove into a ditch, killing them both. Accidents happen everywhere, of course. But the long, late-night commute highlights the added challenges that work programs face in a region starved for jobs." 35

The root of these violations of civil and political rights, including the violations of the race covenant, is nothing else than the growing economic polarization between extreme wealth and extreme poverty in this country. It follows that a consistent struggle for civil and political rights, one which attacks the most vulnerable point of these conditions, must necessarily include a struggle for economic human rights. Article 5 of the Race Covenant indicates that everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, should be assured all of these basic human rights.36 This is the fight which the Kensington Welfare Rights Union is engaged in, together with others across the country struggling for human rights. The spirit and objectives of this fight are clearly expressed in the preamble of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "...in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the idea of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."37 That racial fear and prejudice are used to undermine these human rights is a serious crime for which no one has been held accountable.

1 David Shi and George Brown Tindall, America, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1993.

9 African American Human Rights Foundation report to Special Rapporteur, 12 October 1994.

12 Lucy Williams, "The Public Eye," Political Research Associates Newsletter, Fall/Winter, 1996.

18 Charles Derber, "The Politics of Triage: The Contract with America's Surplus Populations," Tikkun, May, 1995.

22 Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. "Urban Institute Study Confirms that Welfare Bills Would Increase Child Poverty." 26 July, 1996.

23 Jason DeParle. "Welfare Law Weighs Heavy in Delta, Where Jobs Are Few," New York Times, 16 October, 1997.

24 Sandy Lyons, "Immigrants Hit Hard by New Welfare Law," Survival News, Spring 1997.

26 Final report to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by special rapporteur Liandro Despouy.

28 DHHS Administration for Children and Families. "Change in Welfare Caseloads Since Enactment of the New Welfare Law." September, 1997.

34 DHHS Administration for Children and Families. "Change in Welfare Caseloads." September, 1997.

Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign

e-mail: kwru@kwru.org

Technology training for KWRU provided by Human Rights Tech

Education