The mantra makers vs. takers has been increasing in its usage and effectiveness in recent years. The image of a person on welfare has gone from that of a single mother working multiple low-paying jobs and still not being able to fully support she and her kids to one of a person laying on the couch, watching game-shows, while smoking weed. This image distortion has led to states either pursuing or successfully proposing and enacting laws to drug-test people on welfare. They claimed that this distorted image of those on welfare was an accurate one, that we'd prevent many drug users from receiving our taxpayer money, and would save a great deal of money in the process. Upon further inspection, these claims and predictions haven't rung true.
Florida was the first state to enact such a law. How is it doing? Not great... Before Judge Mary S. Scriven of the Federal District Court decried the law as being unconstitutional, 4,086 such drug-tests were documented. Of those 4,086 potential welfare-recipients, only 108 tested positive, or 2.6% of the total. Granted, those 108 recipients shouldn't receive taxpayer money to purchase drugs, so let's look at how much money the law saved the state.
On average, the drug-tests cost $30 a piece, which resulted in a total cost for the state of $118,140. If we subtract the benefits that would have been received from the people who failed the tests, the state winds up losing $45,780.
This is one of the reasons we're so far in debt - passing ineffective costly bills just for the sake of image. We're spending more than we're saving due to this false image that has grown in recent years of welfare recipients being lazy, drug-induced takers. Between 2 and 3% of welfare recipients have failed these drug tests. According to my calculator, that means between 97 and 98% have not. Is it really worth spending more than saving to prevent 2-3% of welfare recipients from receiving the money due to failed drug tests - a majority of which are for marijuana, which just became legal in a couple of states for recreational use and is already legal in a number of others for medicinal purposes? How about we put our money to better use, decrease our insane military spending, increase spending on education and job creation, so we can progressively decrease the probability that people will have to resort to welfare? I know, that may make too much sense for the seemingly nonsensical Congress, but the naive lad in me hopes that there will come times, as few and far between as they may seem, where common-sense rules the day even for those in Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
Florida was the first state to enact such a law. How is it doing? Not great... Before Judge Mary S. Scriven of the Federal District Court decried the law as being unconstitutional, 4,086 such drug-tests were documented. Of those 4,086 potential welfare-recipients, only 108 tested positive, or 2.6% of the total. Granted, those 108 recipients shouldn't receive taxpayer money to purchase drugs, so let's look at how much money the law saved the state.
On average, the drug-tests cost $30 a piece, which resulted in a total cost for the state of $118,140. If we subtract the benefits that would have been received from the people who failed the tests, the state winds up losing $45,780.
This is one of the reasons we're so far in debt - passing ineffective costly bills just for the sake of image. We're spending more than we're saving due to this false image that has grown in recent years of welfare recipients being lazy, drug-induced takers. Between 2 and 3% of welfare recipients have failed these drug tests. According to my calculator, that means between 97 and 98% have not. Is it really worth spending more than saving to prevent 2-3% of welfare recipients from receiving the money due to failed drug tests - a majority of which are for marijuana, which just became legal in a couple of states for recreational use and is already legal in a number of others for medicinal purposes? How about we put our money to better use, decrease our insane military spending, increase spending on education and job creation, so we can progressively decrease the probability that people will have to resort to welfare? I know, that may make too much sense for the seemingly nonsensical Congress, but the naive lad in me hopes that there will come times, as few and far between as they may seem, where common-sense rules the day even for those in Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
Comments
Post a Comment