This issue allows me to stretch my brain in balancing my leanings toward both conservative economic policy and liberal personal liberty. As a taxpayer, I don’t want the revenues generated from my labors to support the drug habit of another person. However, if that same person wants to do drugs on their own dime, then have at it.
The facts as I understand them are below:
1. As of July 1, 2011, any applicants for state welfare benefits in Florida will be tested for drugs as part of the application process.
2. The drug test is paid for by the applicant. The applicant is reimbursed if the test is passed.
3. An individual that fails the test can designate another person to receive benefits on behalf of his or her children.
4. A failed applicant may not re-apply for one year or may re-apply following the completion of a drug abuse program.
Right away with fact number one, I notice that this does not apply to current benefit recipients. It is new applicants only. I have not located a copy of the law yet, but no news outlet I have seen details any provisions for testing those already receiving public assistance. My guess is that the law does not apply to those already in the program in order to better stand up under Constitutional scrutiny.
The fourth amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The fourteenth provides for due process before cutting off a welfare recipient’s benefits. Interestingly, the fourteenth amendment also provides for something interpreted as “freedom of contract.” This allows a corporation and an individual to enter into a private contract free from government restrictions. A government agency may be different than a corporation, but the freedom of contract concept could possibly be in effect here. Therefore, if an individual wants welfare benefits, they enter into a contract with the government to submit to a drug test before receiving said benefits. I’m no Constitutional expert, but it seems reasonable on the surface.
Fact number two provides for a portion of the funding for the test. It curtails the extra expense for drug testing when the applicant fails the test. Those that pass are reimbursed. That’s nice. Now I stick my big fat BUT in here. What kind of bureaucracy has been created or enlarged to administer all this? I haven’t seen any projected figures on how much it will cost for the testing equipment and employees to perform the necessary tasks. Will it actually be less than money saved from not paying out additional benefits? I suspect additional infrastructure would be minimal considering drug testing is very common and not particularly expensive. There are well-established parameters on how to perform such testing. It would be necessary to print new forms adding in the drug test to the application process, but that too seems small.
Let’s project that one denied applicant would have received from $100 to $700 per month for a family. Per the ACLU, average cost per drug test in 2008 was $42. I have no idea how many applicants would fail the test. I’m going to base it on 1 in 100 applicants will fail. Spending would be $4,158 on 99 drug tests. If the failed applicant would have received the minimum, the state would be avoiding a payout of $1,200 per year. The maximum not paid would be $8,400.
Admittedly, there are a lot of factors not included here. Benefits may also include rent assistance, food stamps, medical care and insurance and other allowances. At any rate, if more people are closer to the minimum payout, there’s not a lot of saving here.
Fact number three above seems like a big concern to me. I am going to assume the designated benefit receiver would have to go through the same application procedure. If they don’t, the whole program is an utter waste of time. Still, that’s quite a loophole. I’m sure most parents or siblings would do this for an applicant without too much complaint. Or maybe anyone would do it for a small kickback, further corrupting the purpose of public assistance funds.
I like fact number four. One year seems like a reasonable amount of time before re-applying. Time for a BUT again. It seems like an added cost to keep tabs on this and even more so, to track time spent in drug abuse programs and determine if such programs were indeed successful.
On the surface, I don’t really have an issue with requiring welfare recipients to be drug free. Just like your parents said “my house, my money, my rules” when you were young, the government can say the same thing when it’s footing your bills. I do have an issue with the cost of keeping up with the program. I commend Florida for the requirement, but this should be watched closely to see if the savings outweigh the costs.
You may have noticed I said “on the surface” in the previous paragraph. That was your cue I’m not done rambling just yet. If you don’t like freedom, this is where you get off the ride. Stop reading (if you haven’t already…yawn) because now I’m going to state two more things that may be heavily disagreed with.
Drugs should be legal. Really. It’s my choice if I want to do take drugs. That doesn’t actually invalidate drug testing to get free money. If you’re taking a hand-out, you can be told what to do by your benefactor. It’s just like when you are employed and your company states you will be tested if you agree to work there. Absolutely. That is a contract. Employers have a choice to hire on that basis. Which companies will be more successful? Ones with slacker druggies or ones with productive people taking pride in their work? A contract is still regulation, but you choose it so it is also liberty.
Welfare should be completely reformed and mostly shut down. Now’s the time to say “WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!” I’m sure most people would agree that children should not be allowed to starve. For the most part, they’d agree that the government should subsidize the care and housing for those unfortunate enough to be born to parents that can’t actually take care of them. Oddly, if approached on an individual basis to give money to families living in poverty, a lot of people would keep their cash for themselves. But they don’t seem to mind the government taking money from their pay and donating it to the same families. All I’m saying is that we have way too many people milking the system. I don’t want kids to starve, but I’d rather their parents paid for them.
I’ll end this with one final caution. A law frequently does more than intended or opens the door to even more laws. How long before Florida decides that since driving is government-regulated, all drivers must be drug-tested before receiving a license? What about testing for a business license? Then perhaps a fishing license?
