The Big E over at MPP is saying that a MN Legislator is wrong for wanting to drug test welfare recipients. (of course insulting him the whole while) Now it doesn't look like a big money saver, however I think it is still a good idea. At least when physical or behavioral indicators are present, and especially when kids are involved.
MPP Drug Test Welfare Recipients
Salon Inane Money Eating Sham
Deseret News Utah Saves $350K in First Year
NY Times Drug Tests Falter
Salt Lake Times Testing is a Mixed Bag
Since the "user" rate has been very low in other states where it has been tried. I wonder how those numbers account for people who self-exited the state programs rather than be caught? This could be by moving to another state...
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think it's pretty clear that it's a money waster. Besides, if you want to protect the taxpayer's money, then let's start having recipients of corporate welfare pee in a cup, too.
Well, it's been part of the GOP platform for a long time, and it makes eminent good sense, regardless of the cost-benefit ratio. But I wonder if the still more sensible and cost-effective measures would be similarly treated? For instance, how about a requirement that welfare recipients look for or even accept work? That was, after all, in the 1995 welfare bill, with a five-year limit, so why are ANY of those folks still on welfare? Why don't we go back to the pre-GreatSociety days, and have welfare workers do home visits to "help" but also to see if there is a "man in the house," and deny benefits if there is? Heck, we don't even have to send somebody out. If you have another kid while on AFDC, there has been a man in the house, and you and the kid are HIS responsibility.
Here's another idea: Have the politicians who are addicted to tossing around OPM (Other People's Money) tested for addiction. And maybe for sanity.
Sean,
Please give me some examples of corporate welfare. By this I mean cases in which the government writes and mails a check to an individual or corporartion, just like they do for real welfare.
Liberals always talk about Corporate Welfare, however I have a hard time finding examples. Thanks.
Please remember that tax credits, exemptions, deductions, etc technically are not welfare, since the government isn't spending our money.
"since the government isn't spending our money." Really, then why do the liberals always say that giving a tax break to business or to rich individuals is "unfair" because "somebody has to pay that"? I guess from their point of view, government can never make do with less.
You want an example (I'll bet Sean has many), I will cite Solyndra. OK, a check wasn't written directly, but the taxpayers are out $1/2 billion just the same, and most of the money went into a corporate crony's pocket somewhere.
Speaking of that, the cost to complete the Princeton fusion reactor is only $100 million, yet Obama has already thrown almost $2 billion into alternative energy projects that have FAILED. Speculate as to the reason, but rewarding his crony contributors and pleasing the radical environmentalists looks like a good one.
Tax credits, exemptions, and deductions may not "technically" be welfare, but they serve the same purpose. And that's the reason our tax code is littered with all of these sorts of arrangements -- to avoid the "welfare" tag.
Thanks, Sean. Proponents of the FAIR tax or flat tax have long said that the bulk of lobbying doesn't go towards getting direct federal subsidies, but to gaining favorable treatment in the tax code. It's a lot easier.
The only reason I would favor giving some business a tax break to stay or whatever is because corporations should not be, and don't really, pay taxes anyway. It's still corporate welfare, though, because it goes to some and not others.
Oh come now, don't be silly... Every citizen in the USA gets deductions, exemptions, etc. And many get tax credits for one thing or another, especially all of us with kids.
So Sean, Are you saying we should get rid of the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, home mortgage interest deduction, home office deductions, standard deduction, etc, etc, etc... Because they are some kind of welfare???
And Jerry, I guess I agree that those secured "loans" that Obama's friends defaulted on were pretty much welfare. As was the $10 billion we lost in the GM deal, which seemingly went mostly to the Union and it's members.
I agree with Jerry that a simple tax code would make more sense...
However how would the politicians manipulate our behavior, reward their voters and keep the accountants/tax folks employeed?
Exactly. A fair and sensible tax code would be one in which every dollar was treated exactly the same, regardless of where earned or where spent. If it is dollar #1,000,001, it should be taxed exactly like $ #1. Actually, I am willing to allow ONE deduction, and that is an income exclusion up to the poverty level or thereabouts-- something that both the flat tax and FAIR tax plans provide. This makes the tax perfectly progressive above that point.
And that was my point, that the tax code costs us billions of dollars every year just in compliance costs, not to mention the radical distortions of the free market that it creates. Imagine if every "giveaway" to a corporation had to be passed through Congress as an appropriation, rather than tucked away in the minutiae of the tax code?
I have had a hard time deciding my opinion on this. As usual my concern is primarily for the kids. The Utah program made me realize that the details are crucial.
I support drug testing as a way of
identifying drug abusers/addicts,
connecting drug using parents to social services, removing kids in cases of neglect/abuse, counseling parents into treatment etc.
I would continue to give drug using parents benefits for like 6 months while they are monitored by a case worker, encouraged to quit, enrolled in treatment. Maybe I would continue to provide reduced benefits for longer, with continued monitoring. It's a thorny problem with no easy answers regarding what is best for the kids.
I don't think my variation of a program would save the state any money.
Laurie, I think you have a great idea. The problem with welfare is that it is essentially a free check that puts no expectations on the recipient. It's a one-size-fits-all government solution that OUGHT, for reasons of effectiveness, be done by private charity. If we had these folks appealing to a private charity, one-on-one, or even a government "case worker" of the old-fashioned kind, we could restore these folks to human dignity, get them exactly the help they need and put them back on track to being productive members of society. If they were willing, and if not, no soup for you! Hard-hearted, yes, but we shouldn't be shoveling tax money (or charity money) to somebody unwilling to make an effort on their own behalf. Things like drug testing are just trying to band-aid a system that is doomed to fail, because it doesn't treat people with individual compassion and caring. It CANNOT; it's a government program.
Post a Comment