Texas Senate approves drug testing for welfare

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yes they are. You apply for a job and you apply for benefits! Also if they can't pass a drug test, they may never get a job to get off the benefits.

You can throw around small percentages BUT if one knows there is a drug test, don't you think they would just forgo applying much like applying for a job that requires a drug test?

Exactly. The 2.6% are only the ones that applied, and tried to beat the drug test.

Keep in mind that was only applicants. What do you think that number would be if they showed up at the door and did random tests.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Exactly. The 2.6% are only the ones that applied, and tried to beat the drug test.

Keep in mind that was only applicants. What do you think that number would be if they showed up at the door and did random tests.

What would that number be? You seem to know. Why don't you tell us? In Arizona, the process allows for counting those that did not return for the test - those were 1,633 over the course of 3 years. That's 1,633 vs. 87,000 administered tests. Do the math and you arrive at less than 2%. And that's including those that did not go through with the test.

In 2009, Arizona was the first state to adopt a program that drug-tested recipients of welfare whom officials had “reasonable cause” to believe were using drugs. Besides stigmatizing recipients of government assistance, implying that they’re a group of no-good drug fiends, the bill was implemented to try rand resuscitate a failing budget, and Arizona officials believed that testing could save the state $1.7 million a year.

But in 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn’t return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0.1 percent of the amount distributed over that period.

This whole drug testing for welfare is one giant sham that is meant to accomplish two things: stigmatize welfare recipients and divert funds from indivudual welfare to corporate welfare - yes, someone makes money from all these drug tests. And across the board, it costs taxpayers money rather than saving any.

[lostinblue 1,989]

What would that number be? You seem to know. Why don't you tell us? In Arizona, the process allows for counting those that did not return for the test - those were 1,633 over the course of 3 years. That's 1,633 vs. 87,000 administered tests. Do the math and you arrive at less than 2%. And that's including those that did not go through with the test.

This whole drug testing for welfare is one giant sham that is meant to accomplish two things: stigmatize welfare recipients and divert funds from indivudual welfare to corporate welfare - yes, someone makes money from all these drug tests. And across the board, it costs taxpayers money rather than saving any.

Look at all the people you could get into drug treatment programs and turn their life around.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

People on welfare are significantly less likely to use illegal drugs than the general population. That's what we found out here in Florida. Illegal drug use stands at roughly 10% in the state. Among welfare beneficiaries, it was found to be less than 2%. Cost an arm and a leg to debunk the Tea Party myth of the stoned welfare queens. I'd rather the Tea Party funds this useless ####### themselves. That would leave my tax dollars to help those in need and invest in the state's future. I don't like financing all this hate based nonsense.

This is true, and wasn't it also true, that it was an economic black hole: that they spent way more money doing this program, than they saved in revoking benefits for the very small number of failed applicants?

[Peikko 1,575]

This is true, and wasn't it also true, that it was an economic black hole: that they spent way more money doing this program, than they saved in revoking benefits for the very small number of failed applicants?

It would seem that AZ is governed by uneducated people who like to wag fingers and curtain twitch rather than people who genuinely want to save money by eliminating wasteful practice and cheating.

[Karee 4,191]

This is true, and wasn't it also true, that it was an economic black hole: that they spent way more money doing this program, than they saved in revoking benefits for the very small number of failed applicants?

I'd argue that there's more to it than simply saving money. Does it make sense for the govt. to be indiectly funding the illegal drug trade and all that goes with it?

[Peikko 1,575]

I'd argue that there's more to it than simply saving money. Does it make sense for the govt. to be indiectly funding the illegal drug trade and all that goes with it?

It doesn't make sense to penalise the addicts regardless of whether some government money ends up in the hands of the criminals who feed on weak, uneducated and mentally unstable/undeveloped individuals. If you want to chase every government dollar spent on something illegal that's going to cost you and you would do better chasing larger amounts going in other directions.

[Karee 4,191]

It doesn't make sense to penalise the addicts regardless of whether some government money ends up in the hands of the criminals who feed on weak, uneducated and mentally unstable/undeveloped individuals. If you want to chase every government dollar spent on something illegal that's going to cost you and you would do better chasing larger amounts going in other directions.

I don't consider it penalizing anyone. If an addict on the street with a "will work for food" sign asks me for money and I refuse, am I penalizing that person? No, I'm simply not going to fund their addictions. The government should not be in the business of funding people's illegal drug use. Simple as that.

No one is chasing anything. They're simply saying they don't want to fund illegal behavior. Also, you don't help an addict by giving them money to support their habit. You do the opposite. The argument that it's a small amount of money is ludicrous. I hear that argument all the time and it makes no sense. All of those pennies add up to dollars.

It would seem that AZ is governed by uneducated people who like to wag fingers and curtain twitch rather than people who genuinely want to save money by eliminating wasteful practice and cheating.

Because you disagree with their position, that makes them uneducated? Awesome. I'm going to start using that tactic.

[Pooky 3,850]

It would seem that AZ is governed by uneducated people who like to wag fingers and curtain twitch rather than people who genuinely want to save money by eliminating wasteful practice and cheating.

Arizona? Aren't we discussing Texas in this thread?

[Peikko 1,575]

Arizona? Aren't we discussing Texas in this thread?

Quote from BD was about welfare recipients in AZ. They seem to be as foolish as the TX government.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't consider it penalizing anyone. If an addict on the street with a "will work for food" sign asks me for money and I refuse, am I penalizing that person? No, I'm simply not going to fund their addictions. The government should not be in the business of funding people's illegal drug use. Simple as that.

No one is chasing anything. They're simply saying they don't want to fund illegal behavior. Also, you don't help an addict by giving them money to support their habit. You do the opposite. The argument that it's a small amount of money is ludicrous. I hear that argument all the time and it makes no sense. All of those pennies add up to dollars.

Because you disagree with their position, that makes them uneducated? Awesome. I'm going to start using that tactic.

No, because they make foolish law, that's why they are uneducated. Take the 'religious freedoms for business reenactment' act for example. That law is based in ignorance. A law that places a moral judgement on the receipt of benefit regardless of need is based on ignorance as well. Simple as that.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Huh, I thought republicans were all for conservative spending and "fiscal responsibility" but it seems witch hunts at whatever cost are completely in order. There are other ways to address to drug trade than chasing after a very small percentage of people who get paltry sums from the gov to eat. If the gov took away their benefits they would just aid the drug trade more by becoming dealers or mules or whatever, to get some money. This effort is well-meaning, perhaps, but misplaced.

[Peikko 1,575]

Huh, I thought republicans were all for conservative spending and "fiscal responsibility" but it seems witch hunts at whatever cost are completely in order. There are other ways to address to drug trade than chasing after a very small percentage of people who get paltry sums from the gov to eat. If the gov took away their benefits they would just aid the drug trade more by becoming dealers or mules or whatever, to get some money. This effort is well-meaning, perhaps, but misplaced.

That too. Is the idea really to punish drug addicts for the sake of a few dollars or would money be better spent in treatment and prevention of drug addiction? Hmm, tough question.

[deleted-05292014 331]

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, according to the CBO and research from other groups report that 6 million people can be raised out of poverty. With inflation most of the congressmen first min. wage job paid more in the 1970s than someone making min. wage today.

Given a large portion of people who receive "welfare" are the working poor, people who need temporary assistance mostly, it would make sense to pay them a living wage. It would spur people to put more money into the economy or create savings. They would also be less of a burden to the system. I would be more than happy to pay an extra 10 cents for a large pizza, or a few pennies more for a product from a store. And really that's what it boils down to, not the scare tactics of "employers are going to have to lay off workers" "raising the minimum wage will kill jobs".

Many of you using the word welfare is too generic of a term in my opinion. Medicaid is welfare. It is one of the most successful government programs ever created. Who would want to go back to the days before Medicaid? A good portion of our economy is subsidized by local and federal government - I would consider various forms of tax breaks as welfare. If you file a home mortgage interest deduction, that is a subsidy which is no different than a form of welfare.

So whats the end game here? Someone fails a drug test and now they don't get assistance for their rent money, they end up on the street. Or maybe they end up robbing someone or stealing something and then they get sent to jail where guess who pays for their stay? Are we only drug testing TANF people? Shall we start drug testing every elderly person too since they receive Medicaid ? What about Congress, they receive subsidized health care I think they too should be drug tested. What about corporations who receive significant subsidies, should their board of directors be tested?

The concept of drug testing as being some "moral obligation" to deter drug use is ridicilous. If that was the case then we should have drug testing for everything you receive from the government and not just criminalize, scapegoat, dehumanize the poor and working poor. So you want your your SSI card? drug test. You want your drivers license? ok take a drug test.You want to file for a XX Visa or GC ok, pass a drug test.

Republicans always scream for small government, but not when it comes to intruding on peoples civil liberties.

[Karee 4,191]

Huh, I thought republicans were all for conservative spending and "fiscal responsibility" but it seems witch hunts at whatever cost are completely in order. There are other ways to address to drug trade than chasing after a very small percentage of people who get paltry sums from the gov to eat. If the gov took away their benefits they would just aid the drug trade more by becoming dealers or mules or whatever, to get some money. This effort is well-meaning, perhaps, but misplaced.

I doubt many drug dealers submit tax returns. Why not subsidize your drug business with a little free cash from uncle Sam? I can't believe people still think that people sell drugs to support their families. The vast majority sell drugs to support their habit or because it's an easy way to make a lot of money without doing much work. Why get a hard job making $8 an hour when you can sling some dope and make $1000s a week?

Mr. BD brings up the argument that it doesn't make sense fiscally to test for drugs. Which I think is a valid argument. I disagree with it because the numbers don't accurately show how many people didn't even apply because they didn't want to take a drug test they know they can't pass.