Democrat and Republican liberals alike often excoriate those who think that welfare programs should not be parceled out indiscriminately, but should require something from the recipients. Back when Bill Clinton was fighting impeachment, he actually signed on to a welfare for work program, and amazingly, the welfare roles shrank!
It turns out that if people can get stuff for free, without having to do anything for it, they will. That should not be a surprise. The other thing liberals will have us believe is that welfare recipients have no responsibility for their situation. While that is certainly true in some cases, there are many more that result from poor decisions and behavior.
Starting late last year, North Carolina began requiring drug testing of new applicants for a state welfare program. A number of politicians decried the requirement as unfair, saying that it was too costly, and that it was onerous to those who would be required to take the test. The test was not universal and applied only to one program, but the results were quite surprising.
See test results on page 2:
If we didn’t spend so much more on corporate welfare, then social welfare wouldn’t even cause an issue. Yet we give subsidies and tax breaks even, to multi million dollar companies. Most people and families on welfare work.
If Trump wants to reduce government, he should drug test anybody who gets a government check, civil service would reduce 25%.
They will put those dealers on welfare!
But you have to take the whole, not pick the parts. You have to assume, as the author did, that there was a reason 159 were selected (suspicion or whatever). Then assume that the 70 that no-showed were positive and use that number as part of the 7600. At what percentage would you be happy with drug testing? If you’re a teacher and your school is giving free lunches but you find that 23% of the students really don’t qualify, do you look at the other 77% and say, “Sorry. You have to go hungry because 23% of your classmates don’t qualify so non of you get lunch.”
Agree but must be expensive. Then what does it do to crimes to get money to live? Just asking.
Screening pools are done by third party random sampling. I’m giving the benefit of doubt by not including the no-shows as “presumed positive”, which the private sector would. Not trying to debate the fairness of testing indigent, just saying that the math is flawed.
okay. But, at what point would you be comfortable saying everyone should be tested or that public assistance should be curtailed or eliminated because of abuse?
If you are not taking money you don’t get tested. I had to take a drug test to get my job.
I would rather they focus on rampant government waste in other areas of bureaucracy than go after those in most need. It just reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are heartless. Although if they put that data towards drug counseling and rehabilitation instead of yanking away benefits, it would help our society.
I am all for drug testing …Make them get a job…