cawacko
Well-known member
This article is written by a conservative. In theory I understand not wanting those who receive welfare to be on drugs. The reality of attempting to implement that in a government policy is different though and against what conservatives stand for. I bolded an excellent analogy she makes below comparing Democrats and the minimum wage and income inequality to Republicans and this policy.
Drug-testing welfare recipients: A big mistake for conservatives
It's cruel, likely unconstitutional and doesn't even save money
While the world’s attention is turned alternatingly toward a vast search area in the Indian Ocean and Crimea, domestic politics here at home chug along without much attention.
A new report has cleared New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie of any knowledge or involvement in Bridgegate, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has accused the CIA of spying on Senate staffers and Obamacare is just days away from an important deadline.
But it’s another story, out of Mississippi, that has really been shortchanged by the news coverage — and that should have folks in every corner of the country alarmed.
Mississippi Republicans are following in the footsteps of many Republican lawmakers before them in trying to tie drug testing to federal assistance. A bill passed the state House earlier this year and the state Senate last week — and Republican Gov. Phil Bryant promptly signed it into law.
This is a huge mistake. I say that as someone who’s suspicious of welfare programs and sympathetic to conservatives’ big-government concerns.
Similar legislation has passed elsewhere and is being considered in half the states; it’s also been struck down in federal courts. Whether Mississippi or other states will be able to overcome the legal arguments is anyone's guess.
I’m no fan of government dependency, and I think most welfare programs either accidentally or deliberately lock people into relying on taxpayer assistance instead of lifting them out of it. I think there are better ways to help people out of poverty and into productivity.
But the Republican solution — to tie federal assistance to drug testing — is more than just silly. It runs contrary to everything conservatives are supposed to stand for.
For one, it’s undeniably and almost unfathomably a terrific example of the kind of big government conservatives rail against, crossing all kinds of privacy lines.
And it’s inefficient government, as lawsuit after lawsuit attempting to figure out just who should be tested and how much authority the state has over federal money has proven.
It’s also discriminatory and, at least according to some judges, unconstitutional. If receiving federal money is the trigger, what about drug testing everyone else who receives grants, federal loans and public money to start businesses, go to college or buy a home?
Drug testing doesn’t make a whole lot of fiscal sense either. In cases where states have implemented similar requirements — filling out a questionnaire that’s meant to red flag potential substance abusers and then trigger the drug test - savings were modest. Mississippi state Sen. Terry Burton estimates their bill could actually cost as much as $291,000 if everyone who applied turned out to be a substance abuser.
Worst of all, it’s a non-solution to a very real problem, which is the kind of empty, symbolic politicking conservatives regularly accuse Democrats of engaging in. Just as (honest) Democrats know raising the minimum wage won’t solve income inequality, Republicans should know that denying people federal assistance because they fail a drug test won’t solve poverty or a rising drug epidemic.
And proponents of this silly idea use the same emotional arguments Democrats use to sell their silly ideas.
“I see this as a step forward in trying to get people more responsive and back in the productivity,” Capt. Ken Chapman, regional coordinator for the Salvation Army in Jackson, Miss, told the Daily Caller. “It’s not about condemning people; it’s actually about tough love and giving people a hand up than a handout.”
I’m all for a hand up, but where is it in this legislation? Someone tests positive for drugs, is denied federal assistance and is sent back out onto the streets moneyless and drug addicted. How is he any closer to being solvent or off drugs? How is the community safer when a broke and desperate drug addict is left without anywhere else to go?
The conservative impulse might be to say, “Get a job,” which we all know in Obama’s economy is harder said than done, and I’d imagine even harder when broke and drug addicted. But equating poverty with criminality is hardly the kind of compassionate conservatism Republicans used to embody.
Instead, thoughtful conservatives should champion more access to job and skills training, online education, faith-based initiatives and private organizations that are creatively solving community problems.
Meantime, Republicans should fight to reform welfare in ways that make government assistance leaner and more efficient, instead of fighting to keep it alive and bureaucratically muck it up even further with symbolic, unworkable amendments that solve no problems.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...s-big-mistake-conservatives-article-1.1734098
Drug-testing welfare recipients: A big mistake for conservatives
It's cruel, likely unconstitutional and doesn't even save money
While the world’s attention is turned alternatingly toward a vast search area in the Indian Ocean and Crimea, domestic politics here at home chug along without much attention.
A new report has cleared New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie of any knowledge or involvement in Bridgegate, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has accused the CIA of spying on Senate staffers and Obamacare is just days away from an important deadline.
But it’s another story, out of Mississippi, that has really been shortchanged by the news coverage — and that should have folks in every corner of the country alarmed.
Mississippi Republicans are following in the footsteps of many Republican lawmakers before them in trying to tie drug testing to federal assistance. A bill passed the state House earlier this year and the state Senate last week — and Republican Gov. Phil Bryant promptly signed it into law.
This is a huge mistake. I say that as someone who’s suspicious of welfare programs and sympathetic to conservatives’ big-government concerns.
Similar legislation has passed elsewhere and is being considered in half the states; it’s also been struck down in federal courts. Whether Mississippi or other states will be able to overcome the legal arguments is anyone's guess.
I’m no fan of government dependency, and I think most welfare programs either accidentally or deliberately lock people into relying on taxpayer assistance instead of lifting them out of it. I think there are better ways to help people out of poverty and into productivity.
But the Republican solution — to tie federal assistance to drug testing — is more than just silly. It runs contrary to everything conservatives are supposed to stand for.
For one, it’s undeniably and almost unfathomably a terrific example of the kind of big government conservatives rail against, crossing all kinds of privacy lines.
And it’s inefficient government, as lawsuit after lawsuit attempting to figure out just who should be tested and how much authority the state has over federal money has proven.
It’s also discriminatory and, at least according to some judges, unconstitutional. If receiving federal money is the trigger, what about drug testing everyone else who receives grants, federal loans and public money to start businesses, go to college or buy a home?
Drug testing doesn’t make a whole lot of fiscal sense either. In cases where states have implemented similar requirements — filling out a questionnaire that’s meant to red flag potential substance abusers and then trigger the drug test - savings were modest. Mississippi state Sen. Terry Burton estimates their bill could actually cost as much as $291,000 if everyone who applied turned out to be a substance abuser.
Worst of all, it’s a non-solution to a very real problem, which is the kind of empty, symbolic politicking conservatives regularly accuse Democrats of engaging in. Just as (honest) Democrats know raising the minimum wage won’t solve income inequality, Republicans should know that denying people federal assistance because they fail a drug test won’t solve poverty or a rising drug epidemic.
And proponents of this silly idea use the same emotional arguments Democrats use to sell their silly ideas.
“I see this as a step forward in trying to get people more responsive and back in the productivity,” Capt. Ken Chapman, regional coordinator for the Salvation Army in Jackson, Miss, told the Daily Caller. “It’s not about condemning people; it’s actually about tough love and giving people a hand up than a handout.”
I’m all for a hand up, but where is it in this legislation? Someone tests positive for drugs, is denied federal assistance and is sent back out onto the streets moneyless and drug addicted. How is he any closer to being solvent or off drugs? How is the community safer when a broke and desperate drug addict is left without anywhere else to go?
The conservative impulse might be to say, “Get a job,” which we all know in Obama’s economy is harder said than done, and I’d imagine even harder when broke and drug addicted. But equating poverty with criminality is hardly the kind of compassionate conservatism Republicans used to embody.
Instead, thoughtful conservatives should champion more access to job and skills training, online education, faith-based initiatives and private organizations that are creatively solving community problems.
Meantime, Republicans should fight to reform welfare in ways that make government assistance leaner and more efficient, instead of fighting to keep it alive and bureaucratically muck it up even further with symbolic, unworkable amendments that solve no problems.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...s-big-mistake-conservatives-article-1.1734098
Last edited:
