Children"™s Health and the Ethics of Welfare Cap Legislation: The Case of California"™s Maximum Family Grant

Abstract

Among the laws that compose California"™s primary welfare program is a rule called the Maximum Family Grant (MFG). Enacted in the mid-1990"™s, this rule places a cap on the amount of cash aid citizens may receive upon the birth of a new child. Recently, members of the California State Assembly have considered repealing the law on the grounds that it is discriminatory. These claims have been met with criticism, doubt, and confusion. In this essay, I will argue that the Maximum Family Grant rule is indeed discriminatory. Like other welfare and family cap legislation, the MFG rule unjustly redistributes social burdens onto the shoulders of poor households and poor children in particular. Such redistribution has demonstrably negative implications for those children"™s health, nutrition, and access to medical care. These facts, I will argue, suffice to ground the claim that the MFG rule and welfare caps like it are instances of institutional discrimination. This essay brings a distinctively philosophical perspective to an ongoing political debate about welfare caps and, I hope, provides some clarity about what precisely is normatively objectionable about the MFG rule and other legislation like it.