Austerity is Violence: The Human Cost of Slashing Social Safety Nets
Exposing the deadly consequences of gutting essential programs for disabled, poor, and BIPOC people.
By the Center for Racial and Disability Justice
The United States has long maintained a social safety net designed to provide a baseline of stability for those facing economic hardship, disability, and systemic barriers to opportunity. Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, Social Security, and CHIP (see below for details) are not government handouts — they are lifelines that keep millions of Americans afloat, especially disabled individuals, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities, and rural residents who face systemic inequities. Yet, the proposed Fiscal Year 2025 budget threatens to shred these essential programs under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.”
But make no mistake — this is not about balancing the budget. This is about power. These cuts are deliberate acts of economic violence against the people who can least afford them. They are policy choices that will force millions of disabled, poor, and BIPOC Americans into deeper poverty, illness, and preventable death.
Origins & Evolution of the Social Safety Net
The U.S. social safety net evolved in response to economic crises, shifting political ideologies, and demands for social justice. Its origins can be traced back to the Great Depression, when the economic collapse of 1929 revealed the severe inadequacy of local charity and state assistance programs. In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal (1933–1939) established the first federal safety net programs, most notably the Social Security Act of 1935, which provided unemployment insurance, aid for dependent children, and benefits for retirees. However, these benefits were racially and economically exclusionary — domestic and agricultural workers, who were disproportionately people of color, were deliberately excluded from Social Security to gain the support of Southern legislators who sought to maintain the racial caste system. This pattern of exclusion persisted, ensuring that safety net programs initially served white workers while BIPOC communities remained vulnerable to poverty and economic instability.
The modern welfare state emerged as a direct opposition to the German warfare state during World War I, embodying democratic ideals of social security, economic stability, and collective well-being. This contrasted further with the increasingly authoritarian and militarized vision of Nazi Germany that emerged during World War II. While the warfare state prioritized military expansion, racial hierarchy, and the suppression of marginalized groups, the welfare state — particularly in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Western Europe — was built on the belief that social investment, economic security, and access to healthcare and education were essential to maintaining democracy and preventing future global conflicts. The contrast between these two models became even clearer in the post-war period, as Western democracies expanded social programs and public education, recognizing that stability and prosperity required ensuring basic human needs were met. The welfare state was not just an economic system — it was a rejection of the totalitarian logic of the warfare state, affirming that governments should serve and protect their people, rather than exploit them for war and imperial ambitions.
However, following World War II, the expansion of government benefits, such as through the G.I. Bill (1944), further deepened racial disparities. While white veterans gained access to housing, education, and business loans, BIPOC veterans faced discriminatory barriers that prevented them from receiving the same benefits. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s led to significant policy changes, particularly under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs. The passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 provided healthcare coverage for seniors and low-income individuals, disproportionately benefiting disabled people and racialized communities who had long been denied access to adequate medical care. However, the rise of neoliberal policies in the 1980s, particularly under President Ronald Reagan, marked a shift toward dismantling social welfare programs. Racialized narratives about “welfare queens” and “undeserving poor” were weaponized to justify cuts to public assistance programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was later replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 1996, implementing harsh work requirements and benefit limits that disproportionately harmed single mothers, disabled individuals, and Black and Brown families. Indeed, President Bill Clinton’s “workfare” policies, introduced through the 1996 Welfare Reform Act (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), imposed strict work requirements on welfare recipients, which limited benefits, enforced time restrictions, and required recipients to work or participate in job training to qualify for aid. Scholars have argued this undermines the very purpose of the social safety net. That said, conservatives have continued to peddle the false narrative that social welfare recipients do not work.
The role of disability in shaping the safety net has also been fraught with exclusion. The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program, introduced in 1956, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), established in 1972, were created to provide financial support for disabled individuals, but eligibility requirements have historically reflected ableist assumptions about productivity and worthiness. Disabled people, particularly those with non-apparent disabilities, mental illness, or chronic conditions, have faced bureaucratic barriers and systemic skepticism, often being forced to prove their disability repeatedly to maintain benefits. For disabled BIPOC individuals, these challenges are compounded by racial bias in the healthcare and legal systems, leading to disproportionate denials of disability benefits and inadequate healthcare access.
Despite expansions such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which have increased coverage for low-income and disabled individuals, the U.S. social safety net remains deeply racialized and ableist. Work requirements, means testing, and stigma surrounding public assistance have been used as tools to exclude marginalized communities from full economic participation, reinforcing cycles of poverty and structural inequality.
Yet, social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been overwhelmingly popular among the American people, historically having strong bipartisan support reflecting their essential role in providing economic and health security. Polls show that while many believe government spending is excessive, they also see Social Security, healthcare, and assistance for low-income individuals as underfunded and in need of expansion.
Today, as Republican-led efforts seek to dismantle Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security benefits under the guise of “fiscal responsibility,” it is clear that the struggle for an equitable and just social safety net is far from over. The history of these programs underscores the need to reject exclusionary policies and fight for a social safety net that truly serves all Americans — regardless of race, disability, or economic status.
A Necessity, Not a Burden
The social safety net is not a luxury — it is a fundamental investment in economic stability, public health, and community well-being. The New Deal and Great Society programs were established precisely because history has shown that when people lack access to basic resources, societies become more unstable, unsafe, and economically weak.
Key Programs at Risk:
- Medicaid — Ensures healthcare access for low-income individuals, including home- and community-based services (HCBS) that allow disabled people to live independently.
- SNAP (food stamps) — A critical program that prevents hunger for millions of children, seniors, and families.
- TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) — Provides short-term aid for families facing severe financial hardship.
- CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) — Ensures that low-income children receive healthcare coverage they would otherwise go without.
- Social Security Programs: SSDI (Disability Insurance) & Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — These programs provide essential income support for disabled and elderly individuals who cannot work.
These social safety net programs provide critical healthcare access, financial stability, and poverty relief for millions of Americans.
Medicaid, in particular, covers low-income individuals, disabled people, and seniors, reducing uncompensated care costs for hospitals, supporting rural healthcare systems, and improving maternal and child health. Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lowered uninsured rates, reduced racial health disparities, and strengthened local economies. States that expanded Medicaid had fewer hospital closures and better health outcomes, while non-expansion states experienced higher rates of preventable illness and financial strain on hospitals. Further, attempts to impose Medicaid work requirements led to mass coverage losses without increasing employment. Bureaucratic hurdles caused thousands — particularly disabled individuals, caregivers, and low-wage workers — to lose coverage in states like Arkansas. Similarly, block grants, which capped Medicaid funding, limited states’ ability to respond to public health crises, economic downturns, and rising healthcare costs, forcing cuts that disproportionately harmed disabled people, BIPOC communities, and low-income families.
Moreover, Social Security serves as the foundation of financial security for seniors, disabled individuals, and survivors, preventing millions from falling into poverty. Without Social Security, nearly 40% of elderly Americans would be below the poverty line. SSDI and SSI are especially crucial for disabled individuals facing employment barriers.
Safety net programs stimulate local economies, supporting jobs, businesses, and public health. They reduce income inequality and help close racial and gender wealth gaps, as BIPOC communities and women rely heavily on them due to historic discrimination in employment and wages. Cutting these programs would not only harm millions of Americans but also weaken local economies and increase poverty nationwide. Instead of slashing essential benefits, policymakers should be expanding the safety net to strengthen economic and social stability.
Who Benefits — and Who Suffers?
The proposed budget cuts to social safety net programs will have devastating consequences, disproportionately harming low-income, disabled, and BIPOC communities, all while funneling trillions in tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations. This is not a coincidence — it is a deliberate shift in economic priorities, taking from those who need the most and handing it to those who need the least.
Slashing Medicaid will trigger rural hospital closures, increase uncompensated care costs, and reduce access to healthcare for millions. SNAP reductions will exacerbate food insecurity, leading to malnutrition, higher childhood poverty rates, and increased healthcare expenses. TANF cuts will strip low-income families — especially single mothers and BIPOC households — of crucial resources, making it even harder for them to escape poverty. Meanwhile, proposed Social Security modifications, such as raising the retirement age or privatizing the system, will push seniors and disabled individuals deeper into economic instability. New work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP will erect additional barriers for disabled and BIPOC individuals, who already face systemic discrimination in hiring and limited access to stable jobs. Finally, cuts to Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) will force disabled individuals into institutions, robbing them of their independence and dignity while placing them at greater risk of abuse, neglect, and premature death. These cuts are not just budgetary adjustments — they are deliberate policy choices that will worsen inequality and cost lives.
Economic & Social Destruction
These budget cuts reinforce historic patterns of racial and ableist oppression. They are not just economic policies — they are mechanisms of exclusion and control that continue the United States’ long history of devaluing disabled and racialized bodies through medical discrimination, eugenic policies, and institutionalization. In short, our social safety net programs exist precisely because of a long history of economic, social, and health disparities caused by racism and ableism.
The History of Exclusion
- BIPOC communities were historically excluded from Social Security due to racist labor laws that prevented agricultural and domestic workers — disproportionately Black and Brown people — from accessing benefits.
- Disabled people were institutionalized and sterilized for decades, deemed unworthy of independence or public resources.
- Work requirements and means-testing policies are deeply rooted in racialized myths of “deservedness,” perpetuating false narratives about laziness, dependency, and criminality among poor and BIPOC communities.
Modern-Day Exclusion
- The myth of “fiscal responsibility” is a tool for justifying economic oppression. Cutting social safety nets doesn’t save money — it simply shifts costs onto individuals, families, hospitals, schools, and communities, deepening cycles of poverty and inequality.
- The myth of productivity: By demanding work in exchange for survival, these policies reinforce the idea that only those who can generate capital for the economy deserve to live. Doing so ignores systemic barriers that prevent people from accessing stable employment.
- Reinstitutionalization: Disabled people, particularly BIPOC individuals, already face disproportionate rates of institutionalization and incarceration. Gutting programs like HCBS is a direct assault on their right to live in the community with dignity.
- Budget reductions rely on racist and ableist narratives that frame poor and disabled people as “drains on the system” or burdens while ignoring corporate tax breaks and economic policies that benefit the wealthy.
- By stripping away access to healthcare, food, and housing, these cuts trap people in an unbreakable cycle of poverty, forcing them to fight for survival rather than build a stable future.
Social Safety Nets Disrupt Oppression
These programs disrupt systemic oppression by providing economic stability, healthcare access, and essential resources to communities long excluded from opportunity due to racism, ableism, and classism. Laws and budgets are not neutral — they reflect power structures and social values. Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security exist because of the very inequalities that those in power now seek to deepen through defunding. Disability and poverty are deeply racialized, and cutting these programs will push BIPOC disabled people further into economic hardship, stripping them of the basic resources needed to survive. These programs are not charity; they are corrective measures against generations of discriminatory policies that have denied marginalized communities fair wages, healthcare, housing, and financial security. By ensuring access to food, medical care, and economic support, social safety nets challenge cycles of poverty and exclusion, providing people with the resources to live with dignity and autonomy. Slashing these programs is an intentional act of economic violence, reinforcing a system where only the privileged are allowed to thrive. Expanding and strengthening these programs is not just policy — it is a fight for justice, equity, and a future where survival is not a privilege, but a right.
Cutting the Safety Net Means Cutting Jobs
Not only do these cuts harm recipients of social safety net programs, they also destroy jobs in healthcare, education, and social services. Medicaid and SNAP support hundreds of thousands of jobs — from hospital staff to caseworkers to home care aides. When these programs are cut, local economies suffer.
Hospitals will close, particularly in rural and underserved areas, as Medicaid cuts reduce reimbursements, leading to layoffs of nurses, doctors, and support staff. Grocery stores that rely on SNAP spending will lose revenue, forcing small businesses and food suppliers to scale back or shut down. Social workers, nurses, and care providers will be laid off, as funding reductions limit their ability to serve low-income and disabled populations. Local businesses will feel the ripple effect as consumer spending dries up, leading to job losses in retail, service, and supply industries. Cutting these programs is not just an attack on the poor and disabled — it is an economic disaster in the making.
The Devastating Impact on Rural America
While urban communities will feel the impact, rural America will be hit hardest. Rural hospitals, which already struggle financially, will collapse without Medicaid reimbursements. SNAP cuts will reduce demand for U.S.-grown agricultural products, harming farmers incomes and food supply chains. These communities depend on social safety net programs because they have higher rates of poverty, food insecurity, and lack of employer-provided healthcare. Yet, this budget throws them under the bus.
Call to Action: Demand Disability Economic Justice
These budget cuts are not inevitable — they are policy choices made by those who prioritize corporate greed over human survival. If enacted, these cuts will:
- Drive millions deeper into poverty.
- Worsen racial and disability health disparities.
- Destroy jobs and local economies.
- Increase institutionalization and homelessness.
What Can We Do?
- Attend Town Halls and Public Meetings: Despite some Republican representatives avoiding town halls due to public dissent, citizens can attend events held by Democrats or organize their own forums to voice concerns. Active participation demonstrates widespread opposition to the cuts.
- Organize and Participate in Protests: Nationwide demonstrations have shown the power of collective action. Engaging in peaceful protests can draw media attention and pressure legislators to reconsider proposed cuts.
- Direct Communication with Representatives: Calling, emailing, or writing letters to elected officials to demand that constituent voices are heard. Personal stories about how these cuts would affect individuals and communities can be particularly powerful.
- Support Advocacy Organizations: Joining or donating can strengthen collective efforts against the cuts.
- Utilize Media Platforms: Writing op-eds, sharing information on social media, and participating in public discourse can raise awareness and influence public opinion.
Our communities are not disposable. Our survival is not negotiable.
These budget cuts are acts of violence — and we must resist them with everything we have. Call your representatives. Organize. Speak out. Demand justice. The future of our nation’s most vulnerable communities depends on it.
The Northwestern Pritzker Law Center for Racial and Disability Justice (CRDJ) is a first-of-its-kind center dedicated to promoting justice for people of color, people with disabilities, and individuals at the intersection of race and disability.
Learn more about CRDJ by visiting the Center for Racial and Disability Justice webpage.
