The idea that
many welfare recipients are abusing the system is more of a stereotype than an
actual problem. Of course there are
people out there that abuse the system, but implementing drug testing as part
of the solution isn't going to fix the problem—it’s only going to cost the tax
payers more money.
Doug’s post on "No more Free rides" suggests that drug tests used as part of the screening process for unemployment
and welfare programs will save the state/ tax payers lots of money by weeding
out all the “druggies” that use these programs.
The problem with this is that unemployment benefits are not paid by taxpayers;
it’s paid by the employers (i.e. the company that laid that person off) through
taxes that the employer pays to the government.
So, having someone do a drug test to get unemployment benefits that they
have already earned, and which taxpayers didn't provide, is only costing
taxpayers money, because now they have to pay for all the drug tests. Doug also mentions, “most companies perform
background checks, pre-employment drug screening…” this is exactly what we
should do, which is to leave the drug
testing up to the companies hiring the individuals that were laid off, and not
the State government.
That leaves
welfare recipients. Would drug testing
people who receive aid in Texas result in lowering the cost of welfare
programs? The short answer is no. This idea that individuals on welfare are
poor, good for nothing, druggie, lazy, government fund sucking people is far
from the truth. It’s a stereotype. And although there can be some truth to
stereotypes, the percentage of people fitting this description is quite low. There’s
an article in the Austin Chronicle that talks about this bill and some of the
information is very interesting. The number of people on TANF in Texas is
around 114,000 people, which is about 0.4% of Texas’ population, and of that,
85% of them are children. So, now
looking at the numbers and the fact that unemployment benefits are paid by the employer,
are there any legitimate reasons to start a drug screening process?
While it is sad
that there are people out there that abuse the system, and how I would love
nothing more than for them to receive justice, drug testing hundreds of
thousands of people, which would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, is not the
answer. The money saved by the very
small number of people that might test “positive” on a drug test is in no way
going to counteract the costs of implementing a drug screening program. Though, it would be good to catch the people
that are abusing the system, it’s not worth the price tag; not to mention that
it would only weed out the abusers that used drugs.
2 comments:
Screening for drugs while collecting Unemployment benefits is by far the most reasonable solution to weed out those not putting effort in seeking employment, and collecting a free paycheck. It is known that over 80% of employers require a pre-employment drug screening with the addition to random screening through out the employees duration with the company. Forrest is led to believe that Unemployment and Welfare Drug Abusers is “more of a stereotype than an actual problem”.
Senator Tommy Williams addressed the Economic Development Committee on March 13th 2013 to require drug testing for those that are receiving Unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission. According to TWC stats on pre-employment drug screening fails, the new bill (SB21) would estimate a savings of 13 Million over a five-year period. Provided by TWC, this analysis estimates administrative costs of $501,942 in fiscal year 2014 and $168,503 in fiscal years 2015-2018 which includes an additional 3.4 Full-Time-Equivalent positions each fiscal year to implement the provisions of the bill. Such laws have passed in Arizona, Indiana, Missouri and other states. In Florida, people who receive welfare benefits must pay for their own drug tests. Currently about 20 states prohibit unemployment payments for people who have lost a job because of drug use. More than a dozen states do not allow welfare benefits for someone convicted of a drug felony.
Now, as you might ask what does this have to do with Tax payers, or those who do not receive benefits. Well as Forrest mentioned that Unemployment Benefits “ are not paid by taxpayers; it’s paid by the employers”. Thus, is partly true. At the moment, employers pay a state tax for each employee. The money pays for state-issued unemployment checks – the first 26 weeks of them, anyway. After the 26 weeks is exhausted Obama implemented a federal extension to those collecting Unemployment. Currently, companies pay their federal unemployment tax on the first $7,000 of each employee’s salary. That rate has been the same since 1983. Once the benefits are exhausted from a company, money is then borrowed from Uncle Sam. Not only does the federal extension put a burden on the system, high unemployment rates work in the same way. Borrowing money is not interest free, and states will require a raised tax to implement the costs. Who do you think will pay for these costs? Just because unemployment rates go up doesn’t mean they will automatically tax the employer to budget costs.
Those who receive paychecks and buy groceries are all subject to pay taxes. It all comes down to my original point, If you can't pass a drug test, then you typically can't get employed, and I would argue you're not actively looking for employment. Therefore defeating the purpose of collecting benefits and would actively determine who is seeking employment.
As of Today- April 9th 2013, Arkansas Senate agrees to Drug Test those who are receiving Unemployment benefits. I think we will see a pattern in the near future, it is also one of Governor Rick Perry’s matter of contention to address.
Reference:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/fiscalnotes/html/SB00021I.htm
"Abusing the System", by Forrest H. on his blog site, Longhorn Politics, is an article written by him about welfare and unemployment recipients as being more of a stereotype rather than abusers of the system. Unfortunately, it seems there must be enough abusers to even relate this to a stereotype. He says that drug testing is not going to fix the problem. I agree to a point, no one single thing is going to fix the mess we have created that was initially designed to help those in need. I believe drug testing is a fabulous idea. I have to take a drug test for my job, which in turn pays taxes in various forms that finances many of these programs. I do not see the reason why a potential recipient of these benefits cannot be required to pass a drug test as well. Now, as I read his blog post I see that welfare and unemployment are far too intertwined. These are separate programs designed to assist two different situations. Both of which I will address shortly. When the big question arises about who might fund or pay for these drug tests, I say the person applying for benefits should. An example of similar situation is that the Attorney General charges me a fee for garnishing child support from my ex husband and deducts it automatically from my benefits. So why not institute a similar fee?
I would like to talk about the differences between welfare and unemployment. Unemployment is taxed come time to file. Welfare is not. Unemployment has no asset restrictions. Welfare has them. Unemployment does not take into account how many mouths you must feed in your household. Unemployment has no medical benefits, no dental benefits and my all time favorite: if you schedule in advance welfare will pick you up, drive you to your dentist, doctor or pharmacy. Wow now that's something unemployment won't do. You're on your own there. Now granted both arrive in the form of basically as cash, be it a check, voucher, credit type card or simply as cash. The system as it is now, leaves the doors wide open for abuse. Can you see it as well? And this one, in some states if you claim no residence and are what they call a "couch dweller" you qualify for welfare. I so do not see the possibility for strong abuse there. Nor can I imagine someone trading the debit card to someone with cash. I believe with that said, it's not very difficult to bypass the stereotype and shoot for the abuse of the system being quite high and very plausible.
So yes, much stricter guide lines and screenings must be put in place to keep some sort of decency in a system designed to help those truly in need. Both should remain short term assistance programs. Possibly, at the time of renewal, the recipient screens yet again. I will have to if I change jobs in a year.
But lastly I would like to tell you something I read that some places are considering implementing. I think it's a really great idea. Community service of some sort. Why not give back to the community that is giving to you?
Post a Comment