Picking on the poor
Requiring drug tests for welfare benefits is mean-spirited, expensive and ultimately pointless.
Virginia’s Republican legislators seem to grasp that they would be viewed as gratuitously harsh if they pass a law declaring poverty a crime.
So each year they waste energy and time devising schemes to achieve the same end through more circuitous methodologies. Worse, they are determined to waste taxpayer money on these cynical exercises in pandering.
Del. Dickie Bell, R-Staunton, announced recently that he is working on a new version of his bill to force some recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pass drug tests.
December 16, 2012 - 7:36 AM
Yes, by all means…lets let tax $$$ buy drugs for them….You can bet the `statistics` provided were most likely a leftist fabrication anyway. What is the failing % of working people tested ? How much $$$ is wasted in this scenario ?
Whether or not this is good policy is really beside the point. Far more disturbing is that increasing numbers of Americans are becoming comfortable with government supervision over their lives. When government takes on responsibilities that should be borne by individuals, it does so by making those activities a line item in its budget. After all, government is a bureaucracy, and that’s the only way it can “solve” social problems. As soon as these activities become line items, there is the inevitable cry to make them as efficient as possible. Hence the drive to—in this case—keep TANF-related costs down.
There is no difference between this type of admittedly heavy-handed supervision, and the far more invasive nature of the supervision that will be required by the Affordable Health Care Act. Those people who favor the latter must also support the former, because both share the same world view. It’s difficult to have things both ways in life. For the best example of what happens when we ignore this truth, we need look no farther than the current “fiscal cliff” debate. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every benefit has a cost—social, economic, or otherwise. Or is this sentiment too “old school?”
“Picking on the poor”. THAT is the problem right there.
No one is “picking on the poor”…we’re simply wanting to make sure the tax dollars taken away from us is not going to purchasing drugs.
But no, here comes the Liberal mantra of “You hate the poor”.
I don’t care how few welfare recipients spend the money on drugs. It’s the principle behind it.
No one is “picking on the poor”…we are simply sick and tired of our hard earned money being abused.
You want to buy drugs? You aren’t using MY money to do it.
Let’s look at this, although I wonder about the cost. My liberal friends don’t like to hear this but, it’s amazing to me the number of people who can’t get a job because they can’t pass the drug test required to get the job. Some of these people also get government benefits. And they get these benefits because they can’t get a job. It’s a cycle. I don’t know if these people are in the majority or minority. But this issue needs to be addressed. It’s not cruel. It’s simple. If you want government benefits or to want to keep your government benefits, don’t use drugs.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is parents who get government benefits but who are AWOL when it comes to their children’s education. Is it’s time we look at the issue of those parents who get government benefits but who don’t make sure their children make academic progress? This in turn leads to another generation ending up on government benefits because they don’t have the necessary education or skills to be economically independent once these children become adults. This is another cycle that needs to be broken.
Jeff, you raise a good question in your second paragraph. So where does government intrusion end–or does it end at all? Will public education ever return to its core mission of educating children, or will it continue to take on the social problems that it thinks are getting in the way of academic achievement? The military has a term for this: “mission creep.” When one reaches this point, the game is over and you’ve lost. Why? Because your loss of focus has led you to expend resources in too many directions simultaneously. At some point, you’re left with abandoning the the program altogether or funding it until it breaks you at some point down the road. I believe this came to define our war in Vietnam. ‘Nuff said?
I think before we can legitimately ask “where does government intrusion end–or does it end at all”. we need to ask ourselves how it came into the picture. The government did not just decide one day to take over the lives of citizens. When someone hits certain levels of poverty, disability, age or unemployment we decided as a society to have a system of safety nets to keep them from abject poverty and homelessness. I am not clear on how we can ask for drug/alcohol testing, educational goals, participation in certain activities deemed appropriate etc and then decry the further intrusion from the government. Do you get that disconnect?
I do not agree that the “core mission” of public education has ventured away from educating children. Yes, as individuals choose not to be parents or more likely, are incapable of being effective parents, the school system has had to add the detritus of social problems to their list of problems to deal with. That has complicated the job but it has not stopped education from being achieved for the majority of the students.
I was born in 1958 and I went to school with some extremely poor students and some mentally challenged students that were “mainstreamed” before that was a movement and their failure was well known and evident. So did my parents. It may be that more children are from poor and dysfunctional homes now, but that is just the progression of “family tradition” and economic trends.
The education system is still 22-28 children in a room with one teacher throwing out information in hopes most will catch it. That dynamic has not changed in a century. The addition of “Special Education” Teachers, IEP/IAP, and other additions have made some efforts at educating those who are not as prepared or capable but the system and methods have definite drawbacks and that is simply the truth.
I remain convinced (from my more than ten year adventure as a substitute, aide and PTA leader) that the major problem in education is those who use it as a political tool instead of an institution geared to learning. I have seen nothing that changes my mind on that. We have “successfully” pitted teachers and educators (some of whom are also very political) against parents, communities and even students. We have made their funding (especially pay and benefits) a hostage and cudgel.
Again, you cannot cry problems and needs and decry government involvement and oversight. The reality is that it does take a village and we need to stop whining about paying for the village while we tie their hands.
If I have to take a drug test to earn the money that’s being taken from me and given to you, then YOU should have to take a drug test to receive it.
It’s really that simple.
#’s 1-5, thank you for some excellent points & insight.
You have to take a drug test to earn your money? What do you do?
#9 – You’ve never heard of pre-employment drug testing, Sandi? Or random drug testing once employed?
Of course you have.
Sandi, I’m a teacher here in Roanoke. I had to pass a drug test and a criminal background check to get the job. I can still be drug tested at any time. It’s part of the job. Fail the drug test, I lose my job. I don’t want to lost my job.
Americans don’t have a problem helping people. We do have a problem with being taken advantage of. People tell me everyday that I’m a sucker for trying to do things the right way. Many of these people get some type government benefit. I hear people talk everyday about how they can beat the system to get “free” stuff. Sad but true.
My saddest day in teaching was a few years ago listening to a group of teenage girls. The oldest was 16 and still in high school. The girls were talking about what was available to them when, not if, but when, they got pregnant.
We have to address this mentality. Businesses tell me they have job openings. However, some of the people they interview and want to hire can’t pass the drug test. Some of these people get government benefits. We must address this mentality, too.
I don’t know if we can afford drug testing for those who get government benefits. But, if we can afford it, we should take a look at it.
So you want us to pay to test people before they get _______(whatever aid you deem worthy), then pay to test people randomly (presumably for as long as they receive any of that aid)? Do any of these programs have the people and manpower for this effort? Unless they get a deal employers do not, that is $44 dollars per test per person. How many people and dollars do you figure that comes to and what work is it you feel these people are executing that would require the same caution as your employer? This is not about safety, it is about punishing and humiliating people for daring to ask for help.
#12 – “This is not about safety, it is about punishing and humiliating people for daring to ask for help.”
Safety? Who said anything about it being about safety?
No, Sandi, it’s about making sure our taxpayer dollars are not being abused.
And you “address this mentality” by drug testing? What does getting clean long enough for a test (which all but true addicts can easily do) even mean? And if they fail the random test they will scream it is wrong, a mistake and demand another test we pay for…
I agree completely that this crappy mentality needs to be addressed, so does that of many punitive people, but drug testing is not how we do it. This will only create a new bureaucracy for us to pay for IMO.
And BTW, would you really lose your job or be expected to get clean or get help? I thought you “union teachers” had all sorts of protections from any accountability, just ask a conservative.
So we spend millions of dollars to be sure we are not being abused? Really?
#15 – It’s just one excuse after another with you for not doing the right thing, isn’t it Sandi?
That right there is the biggest difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives say “You can” and Libs say “You can’t”.
Oh yeah, I am just totally against doing “the right thing”, on principle Michael. Wow, you sure nailed it. Tell me, where is the call for all the others who get federal (or state) tax dollars and freebies to be drug/alcohol tested? Do you think no contractors are using drugs or addicted to alcohol? Do you think no Congress members are? If teachers have to, shouldn’t they? Your ONLY concern is for some poor person and that is obvious. Why is it you are so willing to spend the extra millions on this when you are usually howling about government spending and money we don’t have?
Why can’t they simply put strict rules in place saying welfare is TEMPORARY??… You have 1 year to get a job and get it together because your benefits will be stopped. I worked in the social services field for quite a few years and I will tell you from first hand experience a lot of the mentality of the recipients is…more kids equal more money and food funds. And…if Im getting all of this for free and I can stay home, it really doesn’t pay me to work! This is sad but it is the honest truth.
#17 – “Your ONLY concern is for some poor person and that is obvious.”
Once again, Sandi, you are wrong.
#18 – “You have 1 year to get a job and get it together because your benefits will be stopped.”
Uh, oh…another person who must hate poor people!
Jeff Artis has written many times (though far too infrequently, in my view) on activism, equal rights, and social responsibility. He invariably brings a perspective and voice of reason and sanity, and respect. He has never, from what I have seen, descended to the level of unsubstantiated innuendo and slander so prevalent among many of us (no, I do not exclude myself).
One of the reasons I appreciate his viewpoint and look forward to his contributions is that I honestly cannot tell if his perspective his from the left or the right. He is one of the most balanced and articulate contributors I have seen. His is a voice we should listen to.
Keep it up, Mr. Artis.
Sherrie, it is sad and I know it is the truth. Having worked in the field, how do you propose we stop it? Do you support mandatory sterilization? Do you support letting them be homeless because they are not “responsible”, employed or employed well enough to support themselves? It is not an easily solved issue.
Is there any “welfare” that is not temporary anymore? Even SS-disability is starting to have a 3 year re-examination period after you get it.
Really, Sherrie? You mean there are actually people who think like that (gasp)? Why, I never…
We could end this debate entirely by just legalizing drugs–all drugs. Colorado and Washington are off to a good start. Perhaps we’ve overlooked their wisdom in doing that. And here I thought I had all the answers. Silly me.
I assume you can see his writing as often as you like, he is on the featured “Community blog roll” on the RT Blog page: http://www.jeffartis.com/
One post by Sherrie, does not a case for “another person who must hate poor people” Michael; you on the other hand, have a “body of work” that says it.
23 – thanks.
WOW! There sure are some angry, sarcastic, critical, smart… people on here. NO, I do NOT HATE poor people at all and Im sure not rich by any means. Ive just been around those certain welfare recipients who are poor who think there’s nothing wrong with milking the system for decades and living off of us who do work. These CERTAIN individuals know how to get around a positive drug test with their probation officer so what good would creating another one going to do? Apparently nobody has enough insight to realize this.
#19 @Michael, I grew up poor. My mother was a single mom and worked two jobs and when I turned 16 I got a job and helped out. We struggled but my mom never applied for or received any government assistant. So, I think giving a person 1yr to prepare for getting themselves a job and getting it together is more than fair. If you think that’s hate then you should study the definition.
#27 – I was kidding, Sherrie, and couldn’t agree with you more. Several folks here have the attitude that the poor are off limits when it to cutting spending, and if you even mention it then you hate the poor.
Stick around…you’ll quickly see who I’m talking about.
@Michael, O.K. I gotcha now!