When Welfare Doesn't Fare Well

For those who follow my blog entries religiously (first, thank you!), this will be a change of pace of what I usually talk about.  Today, I am going to have to get a little political.  

In case you haven’t heard anything about it in the news in the past week, the Governor from Florida Rick Scott signed into legislation that recipients of welfare dollars will be subject to drug screens in order to receive their state support.  

According to CNN, the measure – which took effect on July 1 - the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.  Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children, and do not receive a refund for the test.

As a working American and contributor to the tax system, I understand peoples’ sentiments on going to work everyday and paying taxes, only for state governments to give the money to individuals who abuse drugs.  I am not too proud to admit that I have people in my own family who receive government benefits who are chemically dependent.  

However, I feel that this is another example of how those in power manifest their disdain for poor people.  To be honest, the simple fact of passing such a measure only perpetuates the idea that those who receive TANF, SSI, or any other government assistance are using the money for alternative means, such as drugs and alcohol.

I have personally seen so many holes in this new law in Florida that only create bigger problems for the state, and ultimately the end user.  To name a few:

• When someone fails a drug test, the benefits can be given to another to receive on behalf of the children.  I know I cannot be the only one thinking, “so what if the next person is a drug user?!”  I can see how this can become such a slippery slope in order to get these benefits to persons who need it the most – the children.
• The user will pay for the screening, and if they pass they will be refunded.  Call my crazy, but the reason people receive government assistance is because they do not have enough money for their living expenses.  If that is the case, is it not far fetched to think that some may not have enough money to actually pay for the screening?  As a Facebook friend of mine put it, its like “telling someone that we will give you food stamps after you buy your food first”.
• For a country that  is now trying to explore every avenue to cut spending, this very well might be the complete antithesis of that ideology!  If someone passes the test, they will be given the money back by the State of Florida.  Where is that additional money coming from?  Tax payers.  If someone fails, the funds go to someone else to give care for the children.  So, if my math is correct – if a person passes the test, expenses go up.  If a person fails the test, expenses stay the same.  So the benefit of this measure is…?

Another friend of mine continued to make excellent points about the overall effect of such a law can have on our economic and political landscape.   Receiving welfare is a benefit that these people did not seemingly “earn”, other than just being poor.  But just about every other American receives all of those same benefits as well, right?  If you are poor, your child can receive federal and state grants and subsidized loans to attend college.  If you have children, you can write off a portion of your child care expenses.  If you own a home, you can write off a portion of the interest that you pay on your mortgage.  If you are married, you receive a certain tax benefit.  Pretty much every working American receive at least $300 in stimulus money that President George W. Bush passed in 2008.

You can argue if you’d like, but these are essentially the exact same as receiving TANF.  Should we start drug screening college students?  How about married couples?  Parents?  Homeowners?  Regardless of who you are reading this post, I am pretty sure you fall into at least one of these categories.

It is my impression that this seems to be another form of oppression against those who are no power, no significant voice.  I can only think back on my mother who raised five children on her own, who needed state assistance to feed my brothers and sisters and I.  I can only think about the indignity of having to pee in a cup regularly so that some bureaucrat who maneuvers their way to thousands of dollars in tax loopholes can sleep better at night, knowing that she is not using their tax money to support a drug habit.

If we all take a second to truly examine this measure, I think we all will be able to see just how this can have a negative residual effect on all of us.  And it is important that we all take action on this, because tomorrow it could be you forced to pee in a cup!