States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

[Breukelen advocaat]

One thing that nobody mentions is putting all people on welfare to work. This has been done before, even in NYC. They can clean streets and parks, and do a lot of other jobs - not necessarily menail ones. Having a narcotics habit does not necessariy make one incapable of doing anything - the amount of great musicians who were/are addicted is proof of that. There are addicts in other fields as well, who can function.

[JaggedEdge]

One thing that nobody mentions is putting all people on welfare to work. This has been done before, even in NYC. They can clean streets and parks, and do a lot of other jobs - not necessarily menail ones. Having a narcotics habit does not necessariy make one incapable of doing anything - the amount of great musicians who were/are addicted is proof of that. There are addicts in other fields as well, who can function.

I would still have a problem with welfare, however if they were required to do 40 hours a week of menial labor, it would be beneficial on two levels. So it may be a reasonable solution to attempting to reform entitlement programs.

1. They would be providing some kind of service to the tax payer.

2. They wouldn't be getting a free and easy ride and would be more likely to try and find a job in the private sector. I imagine McDonalds would be better than cleaning streets, buildings, etc for welfare and food stamps.

[slavetopot]

getting a free and easy ride

Why is it that we always attach the least powerful in the world, while we praise the rich and powerful, who are the one's that are getting free handouts left and right. As the U.S. Congress debated welfare policy, the media spotlight focused on the need to cut spending to the poorest people in the nation. At the same time, there was no or minimal coverage of policies that send billions of government dollars to corporate interests from oil companies to agribusiness to firms producing arms. We need to stop the welfare for the very rich before you start cutting out the very little money that people receive on welfare. They are not the ones getting the free and easy ride, some of these very rich get more money off the government in tax cuts in one week than some get their entire life. But no one says a thing about that, we tuck our tail between our legs and go and attach people that have no power and barely enough to eat. Very sad indeed.
"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."

[GoldenBoy812]

Why is it that we always attach the least powerful in the world, while we praise the rich and powerful, who are the one's that are getting free handouts left and right.

I assume you are truly referring to AIG? What was the alternative?

As the U.S. Congress debated welfare policy, the media spotlight focused on the need to cut spending to the poorest people in the nation. At the same time, there was no or minimal coverage of policies that send billions of government dollars to corporate interests from oil companies to agribusiness to firms producing arms.

Not that i am agreeing, but who has taken the biggest hit in wealth/assets? It definitily was not someone relying on government assistance.

We need to stop the welfare for the very rich before you start cutting out the very little money that people receive on welfare.

But what if that lead to the loss in middle income employment? That is the end result is it not; so do we punish the middle class while trying to "do what is right"?

They are not the ones getting the free and easy ride

Are you saying businesses and highly productive individuals do not provide the majority of the tax dollars necessary to finance the welfare state? If not, then do explain.

, some of these very rich get more money off the government in tax cuts in one week than some get their entire life.

But that was their earnings. How can they get money off the government when it was theirs to begin with?

But no one says a thing about that, we tuck our tail between our legs and go and attach people that have no power and barely enough to eat. Very sad indeed.
"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."

But the people, not the corporations, elected Barack Obama. I know of very little individuals who are truly wealthy and supported this guy. Even the savior himself knows this is not a zero sum game, that cannot be improved by taking away someone's property to give it to another person who is less productive.

There is a reason we bailed out the banking system and AIG. The alternative would have been total chaos and complete breakdown (WWIII)....

[JaggedEdge]

Why is it that we always attach the least powerful in the world, while we praise the rich and powerful, who are the one's that are getting free handouts left and right. As the U.S. Congress debated welfare policy, the media spotlight focused on the need to cut spending to the poorest people in the nation. At the same time, there was no or minimal coverage of policies that send billions of government dollars to corporate interests from oil companies to agribusiness to firms producing arms. We need to stop the welfare for the very rich before you start cutting out the very little money that people receive on welfare. They are not the ones getting the free and easy ride, some of these very rich get more money off the government in tax cuts in one week than some get their entire life. But no one says a thing about that, we tuck our tail between our legs and go and attach people that have no power and barely enough to eat. Very sad indeed.
"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."

First of all, I don't agree with our government sending money to corporation, organizations, or anything else you can come up with. One of the only exceptions being our military.

Although I don't condone handouts to big corporation, they at least provide something to our society. What does that Sulleman bitch and her kind contribute to society other than 10 minutes of entertainment?

I don't think the government should spend money on anything other than things that are beneficial to the majority of the population. If you disagree with that you need to support Libertarianism. You can't make everyone happy in a country of this size, which is why states need to be responsible for all things not granted to the federal government via the Constitution.

[JaggedEdge]

I assume you are truly referring to AIG? What was the alternative?

As I understand it, we the tax payer, are share holders in this company. If our investment began before the initial investment we should try and save them. I believe however, they were a completely private company before the government invested out money into them; in that case, we should have let them fail. It's part of a free market.

Seeing as our money is now invested in them we should do everything in our power to get our money back.

*EDIT* Other than the above, I agree with you.

[slavetopot]

The people who hold the real wealth in this country are not looking out for your best interest, they are looking to make more money. If we are going to cut out welfare than let's start at the top. Not only do they get tax breaks but also other little goodies.

Corporate welfare describes financial or other form of government assistance to a corporation provided free or at a below-market rate. Unlike social welfare, it is rarely need-based. Much of U.S. corporate-welfare policy is embedded in the tax code, which supports certain corporate actions over others through tax expenditures, deductions and credits. Unlike budget items, tax expenditures are not approved each year but continue until Congress votes to end them.

The largest corporate-welfare payments go to the wealthiest corporations. These corporations are often among the biggest campaign donors to candidates of both major political parties.

Example of corporate welfare.

Research and development is a major cost in many industries, yet much of such costs for new drugs, new weapons systems and nuclear power are paid for by the federal government. For example, Taxol, an anti-cancer drug developed by the National Cancer Institute, was licensed to Bristol-Myers Squibb. While the company contributed virtually nothing to Taxol's testing and development, it now markets it wholesale at 20 times its manufacturing price generating billions in profits including more than $100 million a year in Medicare payments.

Taxpayers, through Pentagon-run arms bazaars, pay the advertising budget of arms manufacturers, then provide foreign aid to customers like Colombia, Israel and Saudi Arabia on condition they buy U.S.-made weapons. Such arms proliferation then is used to justify future government research-and-development expenses for more sophisticated weaponry.

Does welfare to exporters of weapons enhance the common good? Why not insist that corporations pay market rate for what they receive from the government?

The savings-and-loan scandal of the late 1980s amounted to a $500 billion corporate-welfare bailout of failed savings and loans, which had engaged in risky, speculative, even criminal business activities. To encourage overseas investments in high-risk nations, corporations are able to purchase federally-backed insurance at below market rates. Tobacco companies and others seek to cap corporate liability costs related to harmful products, yet they continue to seek government subsidies to export the same products.

Such measures amount to a socialization of risk even as corporate profits stay privatized. If corporations were forced to pay back bailouts, buy insurance at market rates and accept full liability for their products, they might change their risky and destructive practices.

Once again we are looking at the wrong welfare system, you are going for the poorest part of society, because it is easier to blame someone that has no power. In fact focusing on the poor is exactly what they want, you are busy worrying about someone who gets $15 dollars of food stamps, and not even seeing the real problems, the ones that are making billions. Just I stated above, the federal government made the discovery for the new cancer drug, and instead of giving it freely to all in need, the big corporations take it and mark it up and make billions of dollars in profit off sick and dying folks.

I don't see how corporate welfare benefits any of us.

[GoldenBoy812]

As I understand it, we the tax payer, are share holders in this company. If our investment began before the initial investment we should try and save them. I believe however, they were a completely private company before the government invested out money into them; in that case, we should have let them fail. It's part of a free market.

Seeing as our money is now invested in them we should do everything in our power to get our money back.

*EDIT* Other than the above, I agree with you.

The ripple effects it would have sent throughout the global financial world would have been worse than 1929, and possibly worse than 1720. Basically, they did not have the liquidity to pay out $30 billion worth of claims at a single time frame.

Why might you ask? The assets they have were in majority, the SPMBS they insured against default. Once these defaults began to exponentially surface, the pool in which payments can be drawn against dried up as they were worth pennies on the dollar.

It would have bankrupted 10% of every financial institution in the world.

[GoldenBoy812]

The savings-and-loan scandal of the late 1980s amounted to a $500 billion corporate-welfare bailout of failed savings and loans, which had engaged in risky, speculative, even criminal business activities. To encourage overseas investments in high-risk nations, corporations are able to purchase federally-backed insurance at below market rates. Tobacco companies and others seek to cap corporate liability costs related to harmful products, yet they continue to seek government subsidies to export the same products.

When it was all said and done, the resolution trust corporation lost $131 billion in taxpayer money. The alternative would have been thousands of bank failures across the US. If it is the poor you are concerned about, what kind of dent would this have put in the welfare system, as it is dependent upon tax revenue to fund welfare?

Such measures amount to a socialization of risk even as corporate profits stay privatized. If corporations were forced to pay back bailouts, buy insurance at market rates and accept full liability for their products, they might change their risky and destructive practices.

How many "savings banks" do you see anymore?

Once again we are looking at the wrong welfare system, you are going for the poorest part of society, because it is easier to blame someone that has no power. In fact focusing on the poor is exactly what they want, you are busy worrying about someone who gets $15 dollars of food stamps, and not even seeing the real problems, the ones that are making billions. Just I stated above, the federal government made the discovery for the new cancer drug, and instead of giving it freely to all in need, the big corporations take it and mark it up and make billions of dollars in profit off sick and dying folks.

I don't see how corporate welfare benefits any of us.

The issue is whether people who receive tax payer money should be using it to buy "vices", specifically illicit drugs and not whether corporations are greedy, swindling entities.

Also, do you have a credible link that confirms your stance that BMS received the rights for nothing?

[slavetopot]

The War on Drugs has become a war on the poor. Instead of helping lift the destitute out of poverty with compassionate and sensible economic policies, drug laws target the poor, trapping them in a vicious cycle of poverty and disempowerment. Drug testing welfare recipients is just one example of how our drug laws single out the poor.

Myth 1 - Welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than non-welfare recipients, thereby justifying random drug testing for welfare recipients.

Fact 1 - A wealth of evidence demonstrates that welfare recipients and other adults use drugs at similar rates.

According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are not statistically significant. In each case, the national average for drug use fell within the range of the welfare population that has been found to use illegal drugs.

Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines. This is similar, if not lower, to rates of illicit drug use in the general population.

More parents with an income 300% or more above the poverty line have used drugs than parents whose income is below the poverty line.

Myth 2 - Mandatory drug testing programs are an easy way to make sure state welfare money is not being spent in the wrong way.

Fact 2 - Many states initially considered mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients, but did not implement them for various reasons, including financial considerations.

New York and Maryland originally intended to require random drug testing for those receiving welfare. They discarded their drug testing plans after finding that a program of questionnaires is more cost-effective.

Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. However, a task force set up to implement the law decided that more limited drug testing of individuals identified by a questionnaire is more cost-effective than mandatory drug testing.

Certain counties in Oregon experimented with drug testing on some welfare recipients. The process was halted when it was found that drug testing was less effective in identifying drug abuse than through less invasive methods.

Alabama decided against drug testing because it found that focusing on job training programs was a more effective method of moving individuals off of welfare.

Iowa decided against drug testing welfare recipients since it could not include a test for alcohol abuse, which is more prevalent than illicit drug abuse. The state found other methods to be more cost-effective.

Myth 3 - Drug use among those on welfare often leads to continuing unemployment and child neglect and abuse. Testing for drugs is the best way to find and fix these problems.

Fact 3 - A focus on drug testing distracts from other problems that contribute to unemployment and child neglect more than drug use. For example, far more welfare recipients have psychological disorders than drug problems. Additionally, drug testing does not differentiate between drug use and drug abuse. A positive result in a drug test does not necessarily identify a drug problem.

A study published in January 2001 by the University of Michigan found that drug testing is not an efficient or cost-effective way of testing for psychological disorders. Data analysis concluded that 4% of those on welfare were seen as drug dependent. Yet, 7-9% tested positive for drug use, despite not showing any drug dependence problem. Even more overwhelmingly, 21-22% did not test positive for drug use, but exhibited signs of alcohol dependence or psychological disorders.

26 states have chosen to use alternative methods to drug testing, including questionnaires and observational methods. These methods are not only less intrusive, but more effective. An Oklahoma study found that a questionnaire was able to accurately detect 94 out of 100 drug abusers. The questionnaire was also useful in detecting alcohol abusers, something drug tests fail to accomplish.

Myth 4 - Welfare drug testing is a limited use of drug testing laws. Drug testing of welfare recipients could not be applied to other groups.

Fact 4 - If random drug testing for welfare recipients was permitted, it could eventually lead to a vast expansion of drug testing.

In halting the implementation of Michigan's drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients ""could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.""

It is surprising you have no problem with the very wealthy stealing and drugging, and yes taking your hard earn money, but OMG don't let anyone poor come knocking on my door. Wake up, don't believe the propaganda they sling, telling you how the most needy of this nation is living off your tax dollars, the fact is, they get very little money, putting all the money that goes into TANF is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the welfare that goes to the wealthy 1% of this country, why not start drug testing them, they want freebies they should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That of course won't happen, it sickens me that they are getting away with this. If we want to save money once again start at the top, that is where the most money is given away, your hard earned tax money, so they can ride in private jets, send their children to the best schools, while vacationing in Europe. Yet we are focusing on the very poor. We need to stand together and say stop this madness and focus our eyes on the 1% of the population who are running this whole show.