Mandatory Drug Test for all Public Assistance? (politicians, money, government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Drug and sobriety testing as well a citizenship papers should be part of every traffic stop, visit to DMV and any government building or office.
MIRCEA - you take the sanctimonious SOB award for this month. So everyone has to be like you. Even the halt, lame and insane must work. Better the poor suffer than helped. Every one that is poor is a lazy bum. Of course you assume most of the poor got the permanent tans in a salon.
Don't you realize welfare keeps the farms busy, keeps the I-pad dealers in business, the DMV bringing in money? Eliminating welfare would not only cause starvation it would; bankrupt more than a few businesses ripping off the welfare recipients. Welfare is not for the poor it is for the people selling stuff to the poor. How Un-American can you get? Bankrupting businesses because you don’t like who they sell to is absurd.
One problem is thatthe cost/benefit of working for a minimum wage vs. accepting assistance is way out of wack. Manyfast food/janitorial/unskilled labor type jobs only give 10-25 hours a week, yet they expect employees to come in at a moment's notice if someone else doesn't show up (happens every day). They may also require a drug screening, and the working conditions can be rough, and transportation can be an issue. Not even considering child care, it appears that working is not really worth it. Essentially, if a series of bad decisions causes a person to be broke and without education with children by their late teens early twenties they are pretty much screwed.
Reintroducing these individuals to be productive members of society is essential, and it is going to cost money. I do believe that the privileged have a social responsibility to assist the less fortunate. However, most bad life situations are caused by bad decisions, and no reasonably achievable financial incentive is enough of a carrot to inspire saintly behavior. There must be rules, discipline, and accountability. Cash can corrupt, and in many places foodstamps are just a crooked cashier away from cash. Government assisted housing is even bigger money and more abused.
If taxes can be used to encourage/discourage certain behaviors for the general population (401(k), energy credits, tobacco taxes, import tariffs) why can't assistance (a reverse tax) be used in the same way? I don't think there is anything sacred about refusing drug tests either... federal employees are drug tested, so why should welfare recipients be treated the same as others making a living on the government's dime.
If taxes can be used to encourage/discourage certain behaviors for the general population (401(k), energy credits, tobacco taxes, import tariffs) why can't assistance (a reverse tax) be used in the same way? I don't think there is anything sacred about refusing drug tests either... federal employees are drug tested, so why should welfare recipients be treated the same as others making a living on the government's dime.
I think you have a good point, and our government has tried to move in that direction. For example, before Clinton changed the rules, too many minors were having children because the welfare rules said that if they had a child they could move out of their parents home, set up their own household, and they would get welfare, housing, foodsamps, etc. AND get away from their parent(s), what teenager wouldn't want to do that? That economic incentive, to have a child and become a young single mom, is no longer available.
Welfare is also limited federally to 5 years. The states are allowed to make other restrictions, and some have, such as requiring diagnosed alcoholics to go to rehab or lose their benefits, go to a jobs training programs or lose their benefits, and other incentive based programs designed to create a transition from welfare to work. In one state they were able to reduce their caseload by about 90%, however, this was during the recent period of economic expansion. They have lost ground since the economy meltdown began 3 years ago.
The difference between federal employees and welfare receipients is that federal employees are workers, and subject to the work rules of their employers. People on welfare are private citizens. There are things an employer can demand of you that government can not, and that is a good thing.
Drug and sobriety testing as well a citizenship papers should be part of every traffic stop, visit to DMV and any government building or office.
Would you really want to live in a totalitarian facist state where that were true, or wouldn't you rather continue to live in the USA, where we at least maintain some semblance of freedom and Constitutional rights?
As it is now, just going into many private buildings in any large city, and many government buildings, can require you to give your name, your purpose in being there, may require someone to meet you to escourt you into a business in that building, may require you to empty your pockets, be photographed, be scanned for metal or bomb residue, be under constant video scrunity, etc. Using public transportation now subjects the rider to ramdom searches and intimidation by police in riot gear as well as national guard troops in full combat gear, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you what goes on at the airports.
In addition to all that you want to add peeing in a cup (and waiting for the results), a field sobriety test, and require proof that the person is a citizen (already required at the DMV, and easily circumvented).
Any idea what the cost to business and government would be to do this? Or do you just make this stuff up without regard to the practical, economic, or legal implications?
Food stamps use the existing food distribution system (grocery stores).
To set up food distribution model using private charities, someone is going to have to be responsible ($$$) for: a) buying and delivering the food to the charity; and b) paying the workers at the charities to receive and distribute the food, assess the need of the clients receiving the food, and track the food as it is distributed; c) storage space for the food, including refrigeration and freezer space; d) food handling training for anyone working at the sites.
I'm sure I'm missing an expense somewhere along the line.
This may cost federal and respective state governments more money than plain ol' food stamp fraud. People who work for nonprofit organizations may work for peanuts, but they don't work for free.
And before someone says "Why not have the public assistance recipients do all that in exchange for their food?", those public assistance recipients would have to be trained and supervised.
And before someone says "Wouldn't private donations pay for the costs of food distribution?", the answer is ... no.
Food stamp fraud is about 30 million a year in the US, while the whole program may top 60 Billion for fiscal 2010. That means the fraud rate is about .005%. Most of the fraud seems to occur in smaller stores, while the big chain stores process 85% of food stamps. So the issue would be, is a food exchange program going to eliminate the 30 million in fraud each year, and would it cost less than foodstamps?
The US government already has a commodity food exchange through the FDA that distributes food to Indian reservations, schools, the elderly, children, pregnant mothers, etc. so the cost to ramp up that program would have to be determined. Lastly we have to agree that we want to expand a big government program and make it bigger (not a popular idea right now) and we also need to assess the impact of further stigmatising the poor by making them go to food distribution centers rather than grocery stroes, like the rest of us.
They used to require drug testing on people who were filing to cash assistance. I think it just became too expensive and too complicated, not to mention lots of people on assistance are also on a whole variety of medications (legal ones). The suggestion makes sense on paper, but it seems in reality it is more trouble and cost more than the few bucks it may save in the long run.
Many people take advantage of the welfare system, but there are also many people who need that assistance to survive. I think the challenge of weeding through it all is probably impossible. The only thing that would make sense, as I posted elsewhere, is to curb the amount of people in a family that welfare will provide for.
Should public assistance be cut off or disallowed to any person who fails a mandatory drug test?
Yes, if a person has money to buy drugs, they could buy food instead. Bottom line is that taxpayers are supporting their drug habit because they are free to spend money on drugs while everything else is provided.
IMO.....we should drug test(alcohol too...it's the worst drug) ALL members of Congress.....our Government...all politicians and all CEO's....since these people are making decisions that potentially affect Millions of people and potentially every single one of us.
IMO.....we should drug test(alcohol too...it's the worst drug) ALL members of Congress.....our Government...all politicians and all CEO's....since these people are making decisions that potentially affect Millions of people and potentially every single one of us.
I agree 100%, hey I get random drug test on me at work and they sure do seem to take a share out of my paycheck every week.
I'm absolutely for this. The argument about hurting the children doesn't really pass muster logically. If the recepient of the ADC money is a cokehead they AREN'T going to spend it like it is indended wholey on the children expenses and the family's home, most will go for more coke. I have experience with this in my own family. You can actually HELP folks by requiring some accountability ... don't use drugs or get drunk and you get your money, screw up and it doesn't and will give it to the responsible grandparents, aunts or uncles , siblings, etc to take care of the kids.
That brings up another systematic problem. Most states will give money to drunkin or druggin parents or tear the kids away from the extended family and put them in foster homes, but won't allow grandparents or responsible family members get any help. They'll look at grandparents but if they are moderate income instead of giving them the delinquent parents' ADC payments they'll put them in foster homes or group homes at much higher subsidies. Doesn't make any financial OR MORAL sense, does it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some good ideas that can work
