User:Fitznick24/Nixon Family Assistance Plan(1969)

The Need for the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) - Controversy Surrounding the AFDC
When President Nixon took office in 1968, Issues pertaining to poverty and welfare in the United States had been at the forefront of many political discussions, largely stemming from prior President Johnson’s proclaimed ‘war on poverty’ in 1964. Welfare and social insurance had been a federal responsibility as early as the 1930’s, when state-sponsored welfare was replaced with ‘social security’ networks headed by the Federal government which included commonly considered aspects of welfare support such as unemployment benefits, workers compensation, and veteran’s payments. The Social Security Act of 1935 dictated welfare as a ‘layered system’ in which five ‘layers’ of income protection - ranging from private insurance, social insurance, and categorical assistance - acted to reduce the threats of poverty. Those that created the bill hoped that the act would create a dynamic that would not only reduce the amount of poverty in the nation, but in doing also reduce the need for social insurance as more and more citizens became able to support themselves free of welfare aid.

However, by the 1960’s, a program that had been created with the Social Security Act of 1935 to support families at risk, the AFDC (Aid to Assist Families with Dependant Children), had only continued to expand. From 1965-1970, the ADFC experienced an expansion of 110 percent, and its rapid growth  had become a heated topic of debate for both the Democratic and Republican party as welfare costs for the government increased. By the time Nixon came into presidency, the projected cost of the AFDC was 6 billion dollars annually, straining already tight state and federal budgets. The rapid expansion of this program stemmed largely from the liberalization of its requirements through the 1950’s and early 1960’s, in which the eligible age for a child to be a dependant to 21, and the eligibility of families whose primary ‘breadwinner’ had been unemployed for long periods of time. At the time of Nixon’s FAP speech in 1969, the primary beneficiaries of the AFDC were families who had undergone a breakup through divorce, desertion, or illegitimacy - which were decisively more common than families needing assistance for unavoidable hardships like the death of a father.

The rising costs and liberalization of the AFDC not only caused congressional backlash but also brought with it racially charged and negative responses by states burdened with increasing numbers of AFDC recipients. Indications within congress and the public began to hint at a perception of rising welfare issues to be a largely minority or immigrant issue. Legislation was passed in Louisiana which declared children born out of wedlock or families cohabiting without an official marriage license to be inadmissible for AFDC benefits. Around 6,000 families were dropped, only 5% of whom were of caucasian background. In 1961, aggravations revolving the AFDC came to a head in the small town of Newburgh, New York in what popularity became known as the ‘Battle of Newburgh’. Facing a sudden spike in welfare applicants due to tough economic conditions during the winter of 1961, City Manager Joseph McDowell Mitchell placed the blame on this rise in welfare costs primarily on immigration into the city. Mitchell proposed changes to the AFDC which included a requirement of proof that the beneficiary was entering Newburgh with a work position, a change to aid divied out by voucher rather than cash, and denial of aid to those not working or to new children conceived while the family was receiving welfare assistance.

While Newburgh was only a small town of 30,000, the controversial proposals made by Mitchell received national attention, and polls conducted by Gallup showed that up to 74% of the population surveyed agreed with Mitchell that welfare should only be given to immigrants who came with a definite job opportunity and means of work. Further Gallup polls in 1964 found that over 50% of participants believed a 60-day residency should be required before an individual could be able to apply for AFDC welfare. Many also began to  attribute the need for welfare as laziness, or a combination of misfortune and laziness. A common idea that began to spring up in discussions was the split between those ‘deserving’ or ‘undeserving’ or welfare. Highlighting this split was the notion that those ‘undeserving’ of welfare assistance were largely not working and instead coasting off of the benefits received. Some believed women were having children precisely to play the system and further the benefits they were receiving from AFDC. Indeed, this cultural divide between the deserving and underserving would continue to underscore public opinion on welfare not only as the AFDC was debated, but in later moments as well in discussions of Nixon's FAP.

Despite public frustration and debates over adding restrictions to the AFDC to control costs, there was still a large number of the public which considered poverty aid to be a universal, basic right. A 1964 Harris poll found that 68% of participants believed the Federal government had a responsibility to ensure basic human rights and a minimum livable wage to its citizens, reaffirmed by 73% of participants in a later 1969 poll. Poverty and inequality had undeniably been raised as an issue by Johnson in 1964, and pressure was continuing to be placed on the Federal government to alleviate rising national poverty rates. Instances of riots and public disgruntlement plaguing the 1960’s were connected to a welfare system not adequately supporting the needs of the population.

To many in congress, it was clear that the answer was not to restrict the AFDC, but rather reform it. The AFDC was plagued with numerous inequalities not only among its recipients but between states. In 1968, 26 states did not pass the threshold for welfare support from the AFDC that allowed families to be above the ‘poverty-line’. Families in New Jersey could receive up to 332 dollars a month, whereas some families in Mississippi were receiving a comparatively meager 55 dollars a month. The AFDC also overwhelmingly denied access to assistance to families who had an employed head, even if their overall income still placed them below the poverty line. In 1966, this excluded around 12 million families from access to the AFDC. As such, there were fears that the AFDC created instances of dependency for those unable to work, as well as disincentivized families on welfare assistance to find work. In 1967, legislation pushed for a work-incentive phase (WIN) to AFDC, which required families currently on the program to participate in job/work training to continue receiving benefits. By early January of 1969, the Nixon Administration had installed a committee to study the welfare system and propose changes, culminating in the eventual announcement of the FAP in August 1969. Nixon’s plan envisioned a welfare system that ventured not only to fix welfare dependency and rising costs for government, but also aimed to combat rising inequality within the welfare system and afford income assistance as a basic, universal right.

Nixon's Political Motivations
Motivations to reform welfare and introduce the FAP were not only grounded in moral terms of eradicating poverty in the United States.