California may repeal ‘welfare queen’ law

February 23, 2015

baby-money1_0California Democrats are calling for the repeal of a law that bars families from receiving increases to their welfare checks if they give birth to an additional child while on benefits. [Sac Bee]

Sen. Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles says the law is based on the pejorative concept of a “welfare queen,” who has babies in order to collect more cash. Mitchell has authored Senate Bill 23, which calls for the repeal of California’s welfare limit rule.

Mitchell said the existing law was crafted to discourage welfare recipients from having children. Rather than accomplishing that, the rule helped California achieve the nation’s highest poverty rate, she said.

“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”

If the “maximum family grant” rule is appealed, families receiving welfare benefits would be eligible to collect about $130 a month per child. The change is welfare rules would cost the state about $205 million in the first year, according to a budget analysis prepared last year.

Mitchell has twice before tried unsuccessfully to repeal the welfare limit law, but she now has support from a host of organizations and from Sen. President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon.

Senate Republic Leader Bob Huff opposes the effort to overturn the welfare rule. Huff said the $200 million should go to a better use, like job training or childcare for working mothers.

Other opponents of Mitchell’s bill say that reinstating the $130 monthly payments will not lift welfare recipients out of poverty.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I have personally and professionally worked with the welfare mom population.

What I have noticed is that most are quite comfortable. WIC, medi-cal, cal fresh, cash aid. If you are one of those lucky enough for housing, well then why bother working? The standard of living won’t substantially change for them when they get a job, so why should they?

I get that people need help. Truly, I do. It is amazing that we have a population of people who cannot cook very basic meals, do not know how to clean, how to make a budget. They dress for court and job interviews like it’s ladies night at the Grad.

These families know there are a ton of social programs available. Free birth control, etc. They also know they will not get more $$ for each baby.

Bringing back the financial incentive will not help. Getting these women employable will. Feeling the consequences of their poor decisions will too.

This person wanting to repeal this rule is a total fool.

How about they stop f—ing and stop having kids and get a job! I’m 26 yrs old, work my ass off since I was 14, and I have never received any sort of benefits. These lowlife “welfare queens” and “anchor baby” moms need to get with the program, keep their legs closed and get to f—ing work!!! Stop throwing away money encouraging negative behavior. It needs to stop! Wake up sheep!

find any CIVIL SERVANT and you have found your true WELFARE QUEEN.

what a joke. Let’s focus on $130 per kid per month. what a joke.

I would rather focus on the ten k per month pensions that hundreds of thousands of civil servants are pulling in and the number grows every time one of these azz clowns hit 51 years of age.


It seems to me that we have already tried this–paying for each child born. Hence, the rise of baby daddies and baby mommas, instead of families where there is a married mom and dad.

How is it going to help a child in a family of 4 children to become a child in a family of 5, 6, or 7 children. Will they get more attention or less. And unless we pay $500/month in California, they will still be poor. We already know that this old type of welfare system led to generations of welfare recipients with little motivation and no hope for success.

It’s a sad state of affairs when Black leaders like Holly Mitchell push more welfare instead of benefits, education, and childcare for people getting off welfare or the working poor.

Also, her statistic analysis is bogus. She doesn’t cite any welfare statistics, she only refers to general statistics that would include children of illegal immigrants newly arrived, children of parents in economic crisis during the recent recession, etc.

Arguments about conflicting incentives do make logical sense, but what do we do when the demand for labor continues to decline? Productivity will continue to increase, firms will continue to become better at solving problems, and in turn people will be required less and less as factors of production. In the future difficulty finding jobs won’t just be a problem for the shiftless and lazy. While it’s bad for people to pop out kids they can’t afford, what happens to the system when too many people can’t provide for themselves and their families? Should the government step in and provide them jobs instead of handouts? This solution also comes with a whole host of potential problems and will meet a lot of resistance from competing/impacted firms, and might imperil the system in its own right. Things will definitely become tricky over the next 2 decades.

The inherent problem with a ‘system’ is being a system.

One size never fits all.

Different forms of slavery are still slavery. There was the complete form: ownership as chattel, …feudalism with serfs and lords, …capitalism with employers/bosses/oligarchs ( what we have now ).

Right wing economics is just the latest iteration and euphemism for slavery.

Will the slaves ever wake up and revolt, as they should and have every right to ?

I don’t know. The general masses have been content to remain stupid for centuries.

(from SF):

“The general masses have been content to remain stupid for centuries.”

While YOU, Slowerfaster, know best and remain above the fray in your ivory tower of intellectualism and socialistic control. No thanks, gimme freedom and my station in life down here with the other investors and capitalistic common rabble. Clingin’ to muh guns, too

Less about each other.

Much less.