Texas Senate approves drug testing for welfare

[Karee 4,191]

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.

Social Security and Medicare are different animals. Most people pay into those programs their entire working lives. I personally don't see drug testing welfare applicants as any kind of "moral obligation" I see it as fiscally responsible. The same reason they have restrictions on what you can buy with food stamps. You can't buy beer or tobacco with food stamps. They have that rule to try and ensure that the benefit is used as intended, for food. These govts. simply want to make sure that taxpayer dollars aren't used to buy illegal drugs. Nothing at all wrong with that IMO.

You don't drug test someone and if they test positive hope that causes them to seek help. That's backwards. That's living in fantasy land.

[deleted-05292014 331]

Social Security and Medicare are different animals. Most people pay into those programs their entire working lives. I personally don't see drug testing welfare applicants as any kind of "moral obligation" I see it as fiscally responsible. The same reason they have restrictions on what you can buy with food stamps. You can't buy beer or tobacco with food stamps. They have that rule to try and ensure that the benefit is used as intended, for food. These govts. simply want to make sure that taxpayer dollars aren't used to buy illegal drugs. Nothing at all wrong with that IMO.

You don't drug test someone and if they test positive hope that causes them to seek help. That's backwards. That's living in fantasy land.

I made no mention of Social Security or Medicare in my post.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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?

Yes. In the case of AZ, for example, the benefit was around $200K over three years while 87,000 tests at $25.00 a pop would cost well over $2 million. That's a dollar spent for every dime saved. Of course, that dollar is spent at businesses that will reward those that passed laws like this. Take taxpayer funds used for individual welfare, multiply those dollars by ten and turn them into corporate welfare. And stigmatize those less fortunate in process. That's all this is. Tea Party Republicanism.

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

Texas is just now embarking on the same wasteful scheme that has been shown in multiple states - such as AZ and FL - to not work if the goal is to save taxpayer money.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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 think you give them too much credit. There's no well intention behind it. It's corporate welfare at taxpayer's expense. Republicans do it best.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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.

It's a well known fact that poverty stricken areas have much lower drug use rates than the national avg.

Come on dude.. That is just out there. You know welfare receipts are not way less likely to use drugs than the average middle class citizen

and I hope living a life on welfare and having multiple out of wedlock children becomes a huge Stigma. Lot less of it when it was

Edited February 24, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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?

They also needed to randomly test everyone on it.

Yes. In the case of AZ, for example, the benefit was around $200K over three years while 87,000 tests at $25.00 a pop would cost well over $2 million. That's a dollar spent for every dime saved. Of course, that dollar is spent at businesses that will reward those that passed laws like this. Take taxpayer funds used for individual welfare, multiply those dollars by ten and turn them into corporate welfare. And stigmatize those less fortunate in process. That's all this is. Tea Party Republicanism.

Texas is just now embarking on the same wasteful scheme that has been shown in multiple states - such as AZ and FL - to not work if the goal is to save taxpayer money.

If it's such a bad idea and does nothing but waste money,why do most major companies and all of the US Military do it.?

So help me understand it makes perfect sense to drug test a soldier but not someone getting free handouts.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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.

You have to take a drug test to work for almost any corporation in America and to serve in the US armed forces. Why should people who receive free tax payer money be exempt. Why is it foolish to test welfare people but not everyone else in the nation.,

Why do liberals continue to do everything possible to enable the self perpetuating generational poverty of these people.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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 very small percentage of people is 47 million people. around 15%. Hardly very small percentage.

So if i fail a drug test at work , they should not do anything because if I become unemployed I might steal.

Jesus People..You got to be kidding me

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

That very small percentage of people is 47 million people. around 15%. Hardly very small percentage.

So if i fail a drug test at work , they should not do anything because if I become unemployed I might steal.

Jesus People..You got to be kidding me

You seem to be confusing all welfare recipients with the small percentage that failed drug tests among that population. Part v whole.

[Peikko 1,575]

You have to take a drug test to work for almost any corporation in America and to serve in the US armed forces. Why should people who receive free tax payer money be exempt. Why is it foolish to test welfare people but not everyone else in the nation.,

Why do liberals continue to do everything possible to enable the self perpetuating generational poverty of these people.

You seem to have problems understanding simple concepts. I can't help you - you will continue to be angry about these things and create 'liberal' demons to tilt your sword at. That's fine by me.

[deleted-05292014 331]

I'd love to see the numbers behind all these "welfare queens" and "generational" families on welfare that Nature Boy keeps talking about.

I seem to remember Clinton and the Republican led Congress in the 90s doing a lot of welfare reform and requiring people to work. That really was the claim to fame for Gringrinch and the Republican "revolution" to take back the house after Democrat dominance for years.

It's a convenient argument coined by the Reagans and Atwaters to stereotype people that receive public assistance. The truth is, the most people who receive public assistance are single mothers with children, the disabled, and the elderly. Sorry to bust your bubble buddy but there aren't a lot of single able body people sitting around on their butts collecting welfare checks.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's a well known fact that poverty stricken areas have much lower drug use rates than the national avg.

Come on dude.. That is just out there. You know welfare receipts are not way less likely to use drugs than the average middle class citizen

and I hope living a life on welfare and having multiple out of wedlock children becomes a huge Stigma. Lot less of it when it was

What's out there is this picture you have of the population that receives welfare benefits. Take TANF, for example. Most people receiving TANF benefits do so for no more than a year. A full three quarters of them receive it for a year or less. The average number of children in TANF households was 1.8 - about half of the households only have one child and less than 10% have more than three.