Abusing the System Part 2

     This is a revision of my Blog 6 post, or my Blog 6 part two.  I’ve tried to post this in the comments section, but apparently it’s too long.This is my rebuttal to Doug Warzon's post "Now or Later" from his  blog The Texas Nationalist Mindset, and which originally started on his post, "No more Free Rides."  The original topic on hand is that drug testing will stop people that are abusing unemployment and Welfare benefits (i.e. the people buying lobster and porter house steaks).  Drug testing is only going to catch people that are abusing drugs, not the people abusing the system.  One really doesn’t have anything to do with the other. The only way to curve what people by would be to limit food stamps to purchase only certain foods that were on a list, a lot like how the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program works.  WIC recipients have a card they swipe when checking out and if the items they are purchasing are not on the list, then they are not paid for by WIC, they would then have to pay out of pocket for those items.

     Drug testing for unemployment benefits sounds good in theory, but it just isn’t going to work. The numbers Doug mentions in his rebuttal, “According to TWC (Texas Work Force Commission) stats on pre-employment drug screening fails, the new bill (SB21) would estimate a savings of 13 Million over a five-year period…” are inflated and unproven.  The stats for employment drug screening fails are for everyone in the state that goes through TWC, not just the ones collecting unemployment benefits.  Not everyone who’s unemployed can file for unemployment, only people that have been laid off, or let go by no fault of their own are eligible for unemployment, but Senator Tommy Williams is using the total amount of people seeking work through TWC as the total number of people seeking unemployment benefits.  Even Senator Wendy Davis knows that the statistics aren’t correct, “You know very well that those statistics don’t exist … because the law has not been passed”(NYTimes). Furthermore, the 13 million over a five-year period is questionable, and based on the numbers that Florida has received, extremely inflated.  Lets talk about Florida for a minute since Doug uses it in his argument.

     Doug says, “In Florida, people who receive welfare benefits must pay for their own drug tests.”  This is only partially true.  While Florida did require (They are no longer doing it because a judge has put a temporary ban on the law. you can read more here.) individuals to pay for their own drug tests, he failed to mention that the state reimburses the individual after results come back negative.  Since July, 7,030 people have passed the drug screening, and out of that, only 32 have failed (Miami Herald).  That equates to 0.4% of the people who take the test fail.  As a result of these low numbers, Florida is actually loosing money, rather than saving unemployment benefits.  It cost Florida taxpayers $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, and that led to a state net loss of $45,780 (MiamiHerald).  This is a perfect example of why drug testing is not going to save the state any money, nor is it going to stop people from abusing the system. This is the result of a state basing a problem on a trivial idea rather than fact.  Moreover, it’s irrelevant that the state pays for unemployment after 26 weeks because 0.4% isn’t going to even put a dent in those numbers.

     Like I stated before, there are people out there abusing the system, and there are people that use benefits and also use drugs, but the numbers do not warrant implementing a costly drug program.  Not only will the costs eventually be passed down to the taxpayers, but it also makes it more difficult for the people who actually need the benefits to receive them.  Some might say, “it’s only $40 for a drug test...” but when someone can’t afford to buy groceries for their children, or put a few dollars in the gas tank to get to work (that is if they’re lucky enough to have a car), $40 is a lot of money, even if they’re going to get reimbursed.  Depending on how long it takes to reimburse them could be the difference between eating and not eating.  They should set it up to where you only pay for it if you fail the test, that would take the burden off the upfront costs and still have the same affect, but this is besides the point.  Back to the “original” post, none of this is going to stop people from buying lobster and steak with food stamps, or save taxpayers money regardless of what “numbers” they predict (Florida’s a perfect example).