The commenter, Mark Voiles, asks a question I asked a few years ago, with very divided answers I assure you, and one I believe is a good one.
Should we drug test welfare recipients?
Let's look at this question in earnest and think about it for a second. Most employers today require you to pass a drug test in order to work for them. Even the temp agencies I abhor generally do. At the same time these employers generally have the right to request a random drug test on their employees. Since the workers are the ones who provide the tax money to pay for the welfare programs for those that do not work, should we not hold them to the same standards we must endure to earn wages?
It would certainly seem that this would be a real world "training" tool to prepare them for future employment right?
I believe so and I take plenty of flack from some of my Democrat friends for believing this way. I must say in my defense that I adhere to the personal responsibility mindset. In short, I am responsible for my actions and the repercussions that accompany them. SO why not administer random, unannounced, drug tests for those who are using taxpayer money?If you are on welfare and you cannot pass a drug test then there is a problem. How can you go to work when employers require you to pass a drug test to gain employment? In essence you are taking the position to choose not to be employable and therefore the repercussions for that choice are yours alone.
Many try to portray this as an inhumane position and fall back on the predictable argument that this isn't fair to the kids or the families because their parents use drugs.
Hogwash. If we were truly concerned for the child's well being then this would certainly help identify a bad home the child is in would it not?
It is not fair to those who work and pay taxes to subsidize that mindset. We cannot continue to fall victim ourselves to irresponsible behavior, and the mindset that allows these users to hide behind the children, and shun their responsibility.
If you cannot pass a drug test then perhaps the kids should not be there. Is this a good home environment for the kids to be in? Is the welfare money going to the kids or the habit? WOULD it be cheaper to remove the kids from a drug home and offer them a better future? IS it humane to leave them in that known environment thus making them a victim of that lifestyle for yet another generation?
These questions are ones we must get serious about. Our future may well depend on it. One thing is for sure. Quit using the kids for cover and excuses.
Our kids definitely deserve the answers. Thanks Mark Voiles for making me think about this yet again.
Oddly one of the few employers in town who does not require a pre-employment drug test is our own Mayor Jerry. Very few Metro jobs require pre-employment drug test and almost none have a random drug testing policy.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of drug and alcohol abuse in Metro Government is staggering because Jerry has no modern form of drug testing, drug education and employee assistance programs for addiction.
In a business with so many employees driving city vehicles he has no drug testing and no defensive driving training. All private companies with massive fleets like Jerry's require employees to take driver safety courses - it dramatically drops the claims paid out for accidents.
So while your idea about testing welfare recipients sounds noble the sad truth is the government employee administrating the program is more likely to be loaded then the recipient.
The city doesn't pay welfare.
ReplyDeleteBrian who said the City did?
ReplyDeleteBut we all pay taxes that do and that is the article. SO perhaps if we saved in one area with our tax money there would be more money for the Feds and the State to help with City projects, more money for new jobs through tax incentives for UNIONIZED companies, a level playing field monetarily for LOCAL small business, or worker programs.
Of course by adding new jobs, manufacturing primarily for better wages, there would be more available for those on welfare programs to have an opportunity as well.
It would get us accountability for our money not to mention transparency for who is using it.
Isn't that what we are all fighting for?
Transparency and accountability?
The tax structure is a never ending quandary that ALL levels of government depend on and all that benefit from it are accountable.
The city does administer the Section 8 program. In fact the Housing Authority pays a management fee of $400,000 per year to IPL for John Floods leadership and management skills and the service of two clerks. Massive fraud in the administration of this program. Meanwhile 14,000 low income people are on the waiting list for service while Flood collects $400,000 via IPL.
ReplyDeleteThe guy that wrote the opinion you are talking about said he paid occupational taxes so people could collect welfare. The city doesn't pay welfare. He is wrong. The feds administer block grants and the state runs the program and decides how it is spent. Social welfare services account for maybe 2% of the federal budget, but they are easy to pile on because you don't receive any of it. Sort of like the people who hate unions because they aren't in one.
ReplyDeleteCutting out a few welfare recipients won't lower your taxes or build bridges or bring new jobs. You said, "It would get us accountability for our money not to mention transparency for who is using it."
First, some questions:
How would it "get us accountability or transparency? The money is still in the hands of the government.
How much is the average welfare check and how many Louisvillians receive one? How many welfare checks would be needed to entice a manufacturer to stay in town? To pave some roads? To plug a supposed $20 million dollar hole in a city budget?
What quantifies as "welfare"? Is it housing assistance, food stamps, or both? Or is the infamous "welfare check" the only thing you are talking about?
This whole thing can't be centered around bitching about your federal taxes and piss-testing some poor bastard because the city budget is screwed up. It has to be about what the problem IS, and welfare ain't it. It's about an arrogant fool who thinks he can spend whatever he wants on pet projects with no oversight, cut salaries and hours on a whim, refuse services to people that have already paid for them and keeps a large staff of very well-paid dolts circling around him ALL WHILE hiding the financial records from everyone and refusing to cut his own spending on frivolous employees in his own office.
All politics are local. Win that argument, and you'll win every time.
selah
Interesting Brian. My article asked the simple question should we drug test welfare recipients.
ReplyDeleteShould those who receive public assistance be held to the same standards as those who do not that are employed.
Never once did I mention it would have anything to do with City finances.
In fact never did I mention it would lower taxes.
I did mention that it could possibly free up some money for other venues but lowering taxes generally won't happen not with the greed and corruption in politics.
My particular take with this article had nothing to do with calling out the City Budget. I have other articles for that.
Mark Voiles piece in the C-J reminded me of this question from long ago. It is only fitting his name was mentioned for doing so.
BTW welcome to the blogosphere asking for transparency and accountability in our finances.
As you know, I have been advocating that for years and writing about it for months.
Good to have some help.
For you comment readers check out Brian's site at www.valleyreport.blogspot.com
"should we drug test welfare recipients"
ReplyDeleteNo.
I believe that they should require testing of all public service employees and all people who are in the public payroll. That should include teachers, police officers, firefighters, the Mayor, the Deputy Mayors, city employees, John Flood, the Dog Catcher, and all of them. That should include all people on public assistance since if you have money to blow on drugs you have money to buy food, pay rent, or whatever you have to pay for including your child support.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, any person receiving government benefits due to disability, welfare, etc should also be under drug testing.
If private employers want to encourage drug testing or mandate it in their own businesses then that is their own right being a private employer.
Its time to start buckling down on the twin problems of drugs and dependency to create a society that promotes people working and earning their keep through work and their natural abilities. That includes cleaning out the crooks in government and business which is something sorely needed.
Think that all employers should require drug testing as well since Ive been in several jobs where drugs were present and in use by the people working there and getting by with it depending on who one is related to. Another fine aspect of Louisville that who you know is more important than what you know or what you can do.
A simple google search and you will find that the 1996 Welfare Reform Act authorized states to do just this. Some states even tried but found it to be too expensive. This is not a new idea.
ReplyDelete