1. Mikaela Haley
MC 380-Paper 1
October 3, 2014
1
Social Security originally excluded many Americans but tends to expand rather than
contract, and over time, the success of Social Security will only increase. Means tested programs
are stigmatized and unpopular because many Americans do not receive benefits, in contrast to
universal programs like Social Security in which most Americans do receive the benefits. The
exclusivity of the means-tested programs draws excess attention to minority groups which only
fuel discrimination and provide excuses to cut or limit programs. Means-tested programs, like
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), never get fixed as well as “Old-Age”
pensions do, because of the debilitating stigma that rises with them but they do in fact get fixed
and expand. Universal programs eliminate stigma and therefore close economic gaps.
Discrimination and corrupt government and state workers hindered social programs’
ability to effectively help those who were in most need: “By 1935, ten southern states had lower
relief rates for rural blacks than whites, representing not actual need ‘but discrepancies in
administrative practices and standards’ in situations where there was a wide local discretion”
(Katznelson, 37). Katznelson cites a footnote from The American Dilemma further emphasizing
the blaring discrimination of the south: “’The observer is frequently told by white Southerners
that…whatever they get is a charitable gift…’” (Katznelson, 335-36). Welfare helped blacks less
than whites and only widened the already protruding economic gap by enforcing policies that
exclusively benefited whites (9/2/14, Social Policy). Even though Social Security neglected
African Americans, its popularity offered it plenty of room to expand and include them: “Social
Security, from which the majority of blacks excluded until well into the 1950s, quickly became
the country’s most important social legislation” (Katznelson, 143). Social Security was no better
than welfare benefits when originally helping African Americans, but universal programs
become so popular that they can expand without stigma.

2. Mikaela Haley
MC 380-Paper 1
October 3, 2014
2
Social Security and “Old Age Pensions” are directly based on the amount of income a
person received. However, the two jobs that were neglected from the programs were agricultural
and domestic jobs. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the majority of workers in agricultural and
domestic jobs were African Americans, thus creating a disproportionate amount of African
Americans not receiving benefits (Katzenelson, 38). Furthermore, Social Security is only eligible
for people 65 years old and older, African Americans life expectancy is lower than their white
counterparts by about ten years, which means ten years less of receiving the benefits that they
paid for (9/2/14, Social Policy).
In 1954 Social Security expanded to cover more occupations such as domestic workers
and agricultural workers, allowing a large majority of blacks to be covered under the program.
However, this was two decades behind the white population, and therefore the large economic
gap between races remained. African Americans are more likely to depend on Social Security
rather than private pension plans because they are statistically more likely to be poor. Social
Security works so that the later the worker retires the more benefits they would receive.
However, poor people tend to die at younger ages and therefore have less time to receive
benefits. Poor people are also taxed more relative to how much their income is. Blacks have a
lower life expectancy and are statistically less likely to be married, and therefore would not
receive spousal benefits (9/9/14, Social Security, Race, & Poverty: An Update). Although Social
Security does not cover African Americans as well as it could, it has much room to expand
without risk of stigma or resentment from other Americans and even though African Americans
tend to live less years, impoverished Americans tend to receive more in benefits than what they
are able to put in through taxation (9/9/14, Social Security, Race, & Poverty: An Update).

3. Mikaela Haley
MC 380-Paper 1
October 3, 2014
3
During WWII African Americans were originally not allowed in the armed forces due to the
enforcement of literacy tests and health exams. Because African Americans were more likely to
be impoverished, they tended to have poor health. When African Americans were allowed into
the military due to a need for man power, white officers would not call on black officers and
blacks were used more as errand boys rather than soldiers. During shortages, blacks would not
receive the supplies they needed (9/9/14, Social Security, Race, & Poverty: An Update).
Although this information does not directly tie into the amount of benefits African Americans
received, it does provide background as to how much discrimination and segregation still
affected the socioeconomic placement of blacks. The war provided an expansion of opportunities
for blacks due to the creation of literacy classes in the military in order to accept more soldiers.
Black soldiers left the military with better pay, higher educations, networking, and the GI Bill
(9/9/14, Social Security, Race, & Poverty: An Update). WWII created the American middle class
because veterans were able to buy homes, attend college, and get jobs. Vocational training and
admission to universities was provided to veterans, as well as mortgages for homes with a
capped interest rate and waived down payment.
Although the bill itself was not written to exclude African Americans, it didn’t benefit
them as much as it did for whites. Banks would not invest in black neighborhoods and white
southerners would not hire blacks as employees. Blacks were unable to attend white universities,
which had better supplies and education standards. The bill was undeniably more valuable for
whites, but the GI Bill expanded benefits for African Americans and created more opportunity
for them to gain economic success(9/9/14, Social Security, Race, & Poverty: An Update).
Gender roles are a significant piece of history because of how much it affected social
policies (9/4/14, Social Policy). Women have been kept out of important social programs such as

4. Mikaela Haley
MC 380-Paper 1
October 3, 2014
4
Social Security because their benefits were directly tied to their husbands. Women were not
viewed as people to the government, but rather as property of their husbands’. Social programs
nationally promoted marriage, which further pushed women into the societal standards of getting
married. Social Security benefits people who work, or people who are married to someone who
is working. Social Security provided the impression that women should stay at home as
housewives. Working women basically paid for the benefits that were received by married
women who stayed at home, and the women who did work made so little money that they
normally did not qualify for Social Security, giving more reason to choose marriage over work.
Social Security was sent to the husband, and the wife only signed it to prove that she was alive.
Married couples who were 65 years old got 150 percent of what the husband would receive on
his own. If the wife died than the husband received 100 percent of the benefits, but if the
husband had died than the wife would only receive 75 percent (9/4/14, Social Policy). Women
were influenced to get married and depend on their husbands, but if their husbands died, they
were left with little help to survive. Currently if a person is married they receive higher benefits
because they receive pay based on which income is higher-their own or their spouses (9/4/14,
Social Security, Race, & Poverty: An Update).
When women did receive benefits, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), it
was only for widowers who had children less than eighteen years of age and the benefits stopped
once the children turned eighteen, effectively leaving the mother impoverished (9/23/14, Social
Policy). Benefits were not about women, but rather about men providing for their families. This
way, husbands could provide for their families even after they had passed. Women contributed
economically to society by raising the future labor force. If women were forced to depend on

5. Mikaela Haley
MC 380-Paper 1
October 3, 2014
5
their own earnings, they would not be able to survive or raise their families because there were
only low-paying jobs available (9/4/14, Social Security, Race, & Poverty: An Update ).
What help women did receive from social programs, was only temporary and minimal,
and primarily white women received that help (Kessler-Harris, 93). White women were viewed
as beings who were not supposed to work outside of the home, and whose sole purposes were to
cook and clean for the home. In contrast, black women were more likely to have domestic jobs
because they were not viewed in the same fragile and pure light as white women commonly were
in American society. Even poor white families were known to have domestic servants. People
who aren’t expected to work are normally those who receive federal aid such as Social Security
and Medicare, but black women were expected to work even though white women were not
(9/2/14, Social Policy). Sixty percent of people who were excluded from benefits were female.
This presented a double whammy for black women because blacks were typically excluded from
Social Security due to their agricultural and domestic jobs, therefore, neither the wife nor the
husband was covered (Kessler-Harris, 92). The NAACP claimed that the refusal to provide
agricultural and domestic workers with benefits was racial subordination because of the amount
of workers that were African American.
In 1975 spousal benefits went not only to the husband, but to also the wife. Working
spouses now received their own benefit or 50% of their spouse’s benefit, depending on which
was higher. Although this created more equality for women, it still promoted the traditional
institution of marriage (9/9/14, Social Security, Race, & Poverty: An Update). This excessive
promotion of the institution is debilitating because it allows for the continued stigma toward
women who choose careers over marriage. Women may now get aid as individuals from the
AFDC, and are the majority of recipients. Unfortunately, politicians, journalists, and academics

6. Mikaela Haley
MC 380-Paper 1
October 3, 2014
6
refer to AFDC as welfare, a name that comes with a large stigma in American society: “AFDC or
‘welfare’ was designed for low-wage workers with children who have never been in regular
employment or who only work intermittently. White most recipients of unemployment benefits
are men, the overwhelming majority of AFDC recipients were women (Midgley, 3-4). The
stigma that partners with the term welfare provides a further impression that women should have
men to provide for them whereas Social Security is something viewed as money earned
independently.
Means-tested programs are stigmatized and unpopular and although they provide
financial help to recipients, those people still suffer socioeconomically. However, as proven by
the evidence aforementioned, those programs have expanded and poor families are better off
than they previously were: “The National Welfare Rights Organization lobbied tirelessly to
expand the number of welfare beneficiaries and frequently sought redress through the courts to
ensure that local bureaucrats and policy makers did not obstruct this goal” (Midgley, 7).
President Johnson’s War on Poverty and Great Society initiatives helped shape the expansion of
programs and created many programs to assist poor families (Midgley, 7). Although welfare has
expanded, means-tested programs’ negative connation has only increased due to stigmas further
enforced by President Reagan by drawing on racial and gender stereo-types and claiming that
government intervention had only harmed the American economy:
“Reagan frequently echoed Murray’s claim that government had actually made things
worse and that the nation had ‘lost ground’ as a result of its social programmes. He
ridiculed the Johnson administration’s War on Poverty by announcing that contrary to
its promise, poverty had won. But it was his imagery of the ‘welfare queen’ that had a
particularly effective impact. Based on an actual case of an African American woman

7. Mikaela Haley
MC 380-Paper 1
October 3, 2014
7
in Chicago who had extensively abused the AFDC system, he communicated the
notion that the vast majority of welfare recipients were indolent cheaters who had
unashamedly exploited the altruistic generosity of the nation’s taxpayers. Although
the president avoided any reference to race, most white Americans understood the
insinuation and welfare was now irrevocably racialised and gendered” (Midgley, 8).
The vast stigma that Reagan promoted only fueled harmful stereo-types and allowed more room
for an economic gap between welfare recipients and the middle-class, further showing how
means-tested programs are not completely beneficial.
Means-tested programs, otherwise referred to as “welfare” are stigmatized because only
a minority of Americans receive such benefits, drawing further attention to the recipients and
allowing them to be easy targets for conservative politicians who claim them to be lazy,
irresponsible, or cheating the government. Means-tested programs are not successful because so
little Americans receive the benefits, allowing for an environment full of resentment. Universal
programs like Social Security did not include many of American citizens, but have since
expanded in tremendous amounts whilst promoting American traditions of marriage and working
hard for the American dream. Universal programs are the best choice for America because
historically they have proven to always expand and although many Americans are not granted
equal treatment, the programs will continue to expand, without the stigma that means-tested
programs provide.