After a couple of posts on this topic, I notice where “Anonymous” people are claiming that the DiSanto Drug Testing for Welfare recipients proposal may only apply to recipients of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), and not as it sounded in the KCCR interview, to Medicaid recipients and the disabled.
But, even if it’s TANF recipients only, sometimes there are things you just can’t get out of your head, and that’s what I find myself facing with the introduction of the proposed legislative measure to require drug testing before recipients can receive welfare assistance.
Why? To this conservative, there are two insurmountable obstacles for something of this nature to be palatable.
First, it is the polar opposite of what most of us would consider compassionate conservatism. Consider 
if you will, a single mother abandoned by someone who left her with nothing except hungry children, forced to scrape together thirty-five dollars she doesn’t have so she can urinate into a little cup – just so she can try to feed her family while she’s job hunting.
I can’t imagine what that would do to the last remaining shreds of dignity that someone has as they try to better themselves. This measure presumes people applying for such benefits are guilty, unless they provide bodily fluids to be successfully tested.
The TANF program, as a condition of receipt, already has a provision where recipients are limited to a lifetime of 60 months of receipt, and the condition that the recipient must be seeking work. For those most in need, adding a pre-qualification of this nature is little more than class warfare against those least able to fight it. It is unnecessarily cruel, and speaks poorly of those who would insist on government’s hand being that heavy.
Was I mentioning the heavy hand of government? Second, and more importantly, the measure embodies the ultimate expression of the intrusive nanny state in its most malevolent form as it creates more government, and a dangerous overreach of the authority of the state to intrude into our lives.
We will literally be adding more bureaucracy for the purposes of government drug testing citizens of the state. Just like this proposal being the polar opposite of compassionate conservatism, it is the polar opposite of what we might term (and pardon me for the bastardization of Latin) “imperium de minimis” or, the least amount of government necessary.
If anything, it introduces a very, very dangerous concept that interactions with government should be prequalified based upon successfully passing a very fallible drug test that’s often prone to false positive results.
In this instance, the bill sponsors are introducing the concept with receiving TANF assistance. But what happens when someone comes along and says “we don’t want drug users owning guns, so they should have to pay for a drug test before receiving a concealed weapons permit?” It doesn’t take a broad leap in logic before a Democrat Governor or Legislature could take that step once it’s in place for other programs.
As government becomes more and more intrusive into our lives, expanded intrusion is a dangerous path to go down. Rights that you give up generally don’t come back to you. Just like taxes, you find yourself giving up more and more to government, until you sit there one day and say “What happened?.”
If lawmakers want to condition TANF on not using drugs, then why on earth would we not assume they are eligible for the program until they’re convicted of a drug crime, instead of expanding the nanny state yet once again? (Psst…. That’s what Montana does.)
I think they call that “Innocent until proven guilty.” Wow. That’s profound. What a concept! You know, that might be a good one to adopt in this country!
If someone is convicted for using drugs, that seems to be a far different situation than adding the “State Bureau of Urine Testing” to test everyone who came into the door. We don’t need more and bigger government programs costing taxpayer dollars. What we need is sensible policy.
If we’re that concerned with making sure that welfare is not used for purchasing drugs, put the burden on those who have been adjudicated of breaking the law, not those receiving the assistance.
Because what’s being proposed in this years’ legislative session isn’t what I would consider an American value. They aren’t even Republican ones.
It is uncompassionate conservatism and the nanny state at its worst. And we can do a lot better than that.
NOW we’re geting to the heart of the matter.
-=-We don’t need more and bigger government programs costing taxpayer dollars.
Utah’s experience has been to save a significant amount of money through testing. Efficiency is a conservative value. Besides, the bureaucracy is already in place so there would be little increased cost in terms of personnel.
Compassion? What better compassion than proving to someone that they have a problem (addicts/users rarely come to Jesus on their own), and need to get help, instead of FUNDING the problems? What more compassion than to turn an addict into a productive and contributing citizen? How much savings in that process? What’s the return on that “investment”?
Innocent until proven guilty is s criminal concept–irrelevant to receiving benefits. For example, am I entitled to a SBA loan unless the gov’t can prove I’m guilty of some criminal or nefarious act? Absurd!
–What we need is sensible policy.
What we need are sensible and thoughtful columns.
Unless you’ve been on the front lines of fighting addictions funded by our gov’t without review, I’m not sure you have much to stand on.
Would they test your group for pain pill addiction, Lynn from Plankinton? Or is that a little too close to home?
We are, in fact, addicted to Porter.
Please, don’t take our drug away!!!! Test me! Test him! Test her! Test us Porterplum!
grrrrrrr….you big shugah plum placebo!!!!
You’re odd.
Whether Porter is odd or not Troy–it just doesn’t matter.
He’s simply addictive.
Why not take away benefits upon a conviction? That doesn’t require more government.
Who is going to periodically review TANF recipients’ criminal records? Administratively, it would be easier to regularly test ALL recipients.
Hint: the TANF recipient isn’t going to voluntarily disclose a conviction, especially a drug conviction, knowing that it would end the benefits.
“Administratively, it would be easier to regularly test ALL recipients.”
Are you kidding?
“Who is going to periodically review TANF recipients’ criminal records?”
The state regularly runs information against the UJS database of convictions for other reasons, it’s not a big leap to add another database. Alternatively, the case worker could double check from their desk, just like they do for things like Notary applications.
Click, Click, Click. Done, and no one had to pee in anything.
Well again, you’ve lost sight of the picture.
Frequently, TANF recipients do commit crimes, and are convicted of those crimes. It takes time for the conviction to appear in the NCIC. Meanwhile, they’re receiving benefits EVEN while in jail (because they cannot afford the fines and have little prospect of ever paying them).
Once out of jail, they need the benefits again. MAYBE the TANF deskjockey has caught up with them by that time.
Like I said, your proverbial single mother is rare, and usually not in jail or committing crimes.
–The state regularly runs information against the UJS database of convictions for other reasons, it’s not a big leap to add another database. Alternatively, the case worker could double check from their desk, just like they do for things like Notary applications.
1. Do you want a TANF deskjockey to have access to criminal records?
2. What happened to your concerns about gov’t intrusion?
–As government becomes more and more intrusive into our lives, expanded intrusion is a dangerous path to go down
A TANF applicant/recipient is ASKING the gov’t to intrude. It’s irrational to ask the gov;t to intrude to provide cash assistance, and then to object to gov’t intrusion!
Wow, best post I’ve read here in a long time, right on the money. You mentioned my key points of tests not being 100% accurate, the aspect of being “innocent until proven guilty”, and the simple humanity.
The only thing you missed was the fact that these test requirements have been tried in other Republican states and failed miserably. Waste of time and money at the expense of the poor.
–The only thing you missed was the fact that these test requirements have been tried in other Republican states and failed miserably.
Provably false. I’ll try again: Take Utah for example: spent $30,000 on testing; saved $350,000.
— Waste of time and money at the expense of the poor.
Only if facts don’t matter.
$30,000 would only do 857 urine tests at the $35 rate this bill calls for. Does Utah test everyone or do they use some other metric to determine who to test?
What happens to the kids of people who fail the drug test? Removed? Go hungry?
–What happens to the kids of people who fail the drug test? Removed? Go hungry?
Adults who do not follow a remedial plan are removed from TANF.
Children are not tested, and the children and [clean] adults who are responsible for those children are not penalized.
Are they removed from their now positive drug tested parent?
–I can’t imagine what that would do to the last remaining shreds of dignity that someone has as they try to better themselves.
The assumption here is that those seeking TANF are somehow noble. That suffering and seeking help is somehow noble in nature. That there is somehow dignity in suffering. All of which should be respected and treasured and nurtured by us and our gov’t.
Sorry, there is nothing dignified about being poor. There is NOTHING dignified about asking for help. Those who are genuinely poor because of circumstances beyond their control have their pride and are willing to work for it, and to be tested.
But that is rare when it comes to gov’t benefits like TANF. By and large, TANF applicants/recipients know and use the system as if it were their own personal bank account. They do not suffer from a lack of pride or dignity in general Quite the opposite and quite disturbing. These are the ones who are the angriest at having to substantiate their situations because they don’t like the T of TANF.
Your proverbial single mother trying to get back on her feet is rare.
As I said, unless you’ve spend time with these situations, concerns about dignity and compassion are waaaay down on the list.
Here are some facts to consider:
1) TANF is a program primarily designed to help poor families with children in the house.
2) It is difficult to remove a child from a home under any circumstances and conviction of a crime and use of drugs is not sufficient reason.
3) Requiring drug testing will adversely impact children through no fault of their own.
I get the visceral desire to not provide welfare to drug users. Like Andrew said above, many TANF recipients do game the system. But at the same time, many of them think gaming the system is their best means to feed their children. However, because there is a limit to both consecutive time limit and a lifetime limit to receive TANF, it can’t be gamed in perpetuity.
That said, I don’t get the willingness to impose suffering on children to do so, especially children already in a horrible situation.
Sidenote: I would be more open to the philosophy proposed if the following were to also happen:
1) We had emergency means and capacity to remove children from such homes and put them in foster care (this will require both the procurement of additional foster homes and cost much more than the TANF savings) because I think it will be good for these children.
2) We had the ability to provide addiction treatment to parents who lose their child so they can be returned to their parents as soon as possible.
Sidekick Jonass has again muddied the waters with half facts.
TANF payments are based on needy adults with children. If one of those needy adults is disqualified because of drug use etc., TANF payments CONTINUE. They may even increase if two grandparents step in. There is no cost to the children under such a scenario.
Food? the SNAP program provides food assistance ($) AS LONG AS IS NEEDED.
Child care? DSS has child care assistance ($) AS LONG AS IS NEEDED.
Health care? Medcaid for adults. CHIP for kids.
These programs are all separate from TANF.
As I said, comments have been made here by people who really don’t have any clue about TANF or other similar programs. Their “facts” are little more that self-serving efforts to appear to be “caring”. Ignorant comments about a willingness to impose suffering on kids is just unchristian.
I’d suggest that they should get in the field to better inform themselves of these situations–but they’re more interested in patting themselves on the back for being “thoughtful” and “compassionate” rather than becoming truly informed.
They have no basis on which to make any judgment about these situations.
Andrew,
What is up with the insult? I’m just referring you by the name your parents gave you.
You seem to speak with some certainty with regard to DiSanto’s bill and intent (is it even submitted yet?). Do you know her? Have you seen a draft of the bill?
Does the DiSanto bill:
!) take away TANF it the child is living with a single mother and she fails the drug test? I’ll presume your statement about one drug-free parent or grandparents doesn’t affect it.
2) take away child care assistance?
3) Will it affect SNAP?
Andrew? The Julie Gross imposter is back?
Never left
Oh. That’s too bad.
One thing that has not been considered are the taxpayers funding these programs.
Struggling families where both parents are working, having to pay every day with sales taxes and federal income taxes–what about their children? What about them?
Why are PP and Troy willingly imposing suffering on those kids?
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
Powers and Jones coming out as “compassionate conservatives”? Don’t you step on my blue suede shoes.
Now we see the problem.
Troy believed that the post at 5:54 was about him, and so he went off on another paranoid rant chasing another rabbit down some imaginary ole. Sorry friend, the post at 5:54 was not about you. We’re just not that into you pal!
Folks are tiring of your nastiness:
Anonymous
January 16, 2016 at 10:44 am
“Mr. Jones:
Its clear that you have confused religion with church.
Noone has slandered any one else.
Why not accept the correction instead of being such an a-hole? You of done this on other topics. What is your problem dude?”
Maybe it’s time to take a break TJ?
I’m sorry I misinterpreted a post that starts with a a reference to Jonass (vs. Jones) and commented specifically about what I asserted was in reference to someone else.
With regard to “nastiness”, where in this thread was I nasty as I intended nothing to be nasty.
Maybe it’s time to take a break TJ.
Think about it.
I interpreted ‘Jonass’ as a swipe at Troy Jones.
Andrew, you need a very long break. Your insidious behavior is old. As are you.
Since DiSanto wants to enact drug test legislation for welfare recipients, let’s add all people who run for and win a political office, state government employees and anyone who is paid with taxpayer funds. This would include DiSanto.
Is there some way on this blog to differentiate the various “Anonymous” commenters? Troy calls someone “Andrew” and as near as I can tell he’s referring to one of the no name anonymous commenters. Someone help me out.
Nick/Andrew/Shear/Anonymous/Anonymous/Troy/TJ/Anonymous/Porter/Pat/God/Jesus/Allah
There is no need to distinguish among the various commenters who use anonymous or some pseudonymous monikers or who claim to use their “real names”.
Discussions should be about ideas, philosophies, and principles. The source of good ideas does not matter; nor does the source of bad ideas. A good idea is no more “good” or valid or worthwhile simply because someone put a name to it. Anyone who believes otherwise simply does not love Truth or the pursuit of Truth.
Some folks have issues with being called out for misinformation, sanctimonious screeds, and endless public demonstrations of piety that often precede unchristian comments. The new testament principle of praying in private (Matt 6:6) and living a principled life are ignored for example.
Instead of demonstrating some humility when the inevitable mistakes are exposed, they strike out in anger and vindictiveness and censorship, believing that they are above criticism. I really don’t get how being corrected on a political blog (in SD no less) somehow gets transformed into a personal crusade to shame or disrespect the other? To me, there’s something seriously wrong with a person who reacts that way, but I’m no psychiatrist. Predictably comes the name-calling, “behind the scenes” intrigues that someone knows the “real” names of someone else, and the endless claims to victimhood that another is “picking on them”, or “stalking”: or “trolling”. A few folks here are very good at derailing discussions with side trips into this childish abyss whenever they/he/she are challenged for accuracy, consistency, and rationality.
It SHOULD be about ideas, philosophies, and principles. It’s tough to maintain focus on those goals when too often they get sidetracked with haughty and petty vindictiveness.
I, for one, respond to anyone whenever I have something to contribute (or believe so!). I don’t focus on the name of the author or go looking for one author or another. It’s usually the topic that attracts me. Some topics bore me, like what SD Dems are up to, so I don’t spend much time on them. I certainly question commenters based on their prior comments or positions, but that goes to consistency and principles, not personalities. Comments based solely on personal knowledge (“my friend X says…”) and claims that no one else without experience X can comment are annoying, uninformative, and unintelligent, and so I usually respond with mockery or a quick demonstration of the lack of rationalism and lack of intellectual value found in those approaches.
Sorry Nick, I don’t share your need to keep up with the latest soap opera intrigues of commenters here. If someone wishes to remain anonymous or use a pet name or use their “real name”, I respect that. For the life of me, I don’t know why that matters ON A BLOG, or why someone wishes to DISRESPECT that choice of monikers out of petty vindictiveness, especially when they claim very publicly and loudly to be Christian. Again, it’s the hypocrisy that is unchristian, not the personality. I try to keep up with ideas and events.
I only wish more folks would.
Maybe if every commenter were forced to use “anonymous”, things would be more civil and focused on the actual ideas.
Hey, that’s a good idea!
My point is how did Troy know to call someone “Andrew”? Was he guessing? Making stuff up? Why didn’t he just say “Anonymous@time X”?