Drug tests for welfare recipients?
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 03-26-2009 - 2:47pm |
Do we give up our privacy when on the dole? Should welfare moms who have a drug problem be identified? What are the ramifications of random drug testing of the poor or unemployed?
States consider drug tests for welfare recipients
Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.
Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.
The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.
Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.
"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Virginia Legislature who has created a Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"
Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.
Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.
On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.
A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.
In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.
"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.
There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.
Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.
"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."
Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.
Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.
In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.
The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.
But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.
Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.
They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

Pages
But they do get "help" in tax deductions, etc that the poor don't qualify for. It's just not apples and oranges. As a home owner/buyer I get tax deductions for the interest I pay on my mortgage while a destitute renter gets no deduction for their house payment. As a business owner I get to deduct certain business expenses, mileage for my car, office supplies, a percentage of my home, electric and utilities for a home office. If I lease an automobile to use for business a portion of that is deductible. Tools that we buy are deductible or depreciable. "Poor" people don't get any of these benefits. It's a form of welfare for the working class that we get to take at the end of the year when we file taxes. I have a friend in business that buys things for other people on his business accounts, collects the cash from them and takes the full deduction at the end of the year.
Edited to add: I have a bit more time to respond to this. Another "program" people might be unaware of, that the more well to do folks benefit from, is a HUD home rehab.
This might sound harsh, but I think it is a good idea.
First of all, children would be taken care of a lot better if their parents weren't on drugs. An adult is more likely to seek employment if they are not hooked on drugs. Secondly, why should us tax payers have to foot the bill to help drug addicts get high?
I'm sure you all have heard about cases where people are begging for money out in the streets with their kids next to them, and how some smart people have given them a GROCERY BAG of food instead of money... Why? Because they don't want the money they are giving to be used for the parent's addictions such as cigarettes, alcohol or other drugs while the kids go hungry.
I think a lot of liberals don't have a clue about the massive entitlement system our country has created and how it is exploited by many. I believe many liberals assume most who receive entitlements are deserving.
Edited 3/27/2009 4:24 pm ET by postreply
I believe many liberals assume most who receive entitlements are deserving.
Do you have any data that shows the majority
Worse,are the laws themselves. The county court gets part of the money paid. The recipients of child support (some) get way too much and others get next to nothing. No one has proposed a single reform in the bad system. We need a better way.
Personally I would propose a fund paid for by those paying support with tax credits of at least 50%. Also,when they can't work or are unemployed there is no penalty as homeless people cost money for the taxpayer to support.
Yes there are men and women who are careless and irresponsible. As there is also fraud. I feel that Zero tolerance of fraud needs to be considered (no i had a vasectomy, I am taking the pill, poking a hole in the condom etc) With that in place we can straighten out many of the problems.
Pages