From KCCR News, it looks like some people can’t wait to increase the authority State Government has over people’s lives.
South Dakota lawmakers start their legislative session Tuesday with many bills, with some that will cause a great deal of debate.
One of the more controversial bills being brought forward this session is a bill that would require random drug testing for TANF recipients. TANF, known as South Dakota Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, has provided cash welfare to poor families with children since the 1930’s.
Bill co-sponsor Liz May of Kyle says it’s the same bill that was killed in committee last year.
and…
The bill would require the Department of Social Services to randomly test two percent of the adult applicants for the cash benefits upon application for benefits.
Ugh. Really? That dog didn’t hunt in 2016, when a similar measure died 9-4 in committee a year ago, and with good reason.
It increases government. It adds bureaucracy. And it sets a dangerous precedent – if South Dakota State Government can conduct drug tests for one interaction with state government, why not others, such as drivers licenses, sales tax licenses, or to receive a notary public certification?
Some of us prefer to not give big government that much authority in our lives. You think that sentiment would be shared among all of those going to Pierre calling themselves Republicans.
Good for Liz May. That’s great! I like her more and more every year.
Anyone else heard that a former state senator is planning to run for state party chairman?
There is one difference here. Welfare recipients are asking for taxpayer dollars to support themselves. The other entities mentioned above are not requesting the taxpayers to support them. IMO if a person is on welfare and needs my assistance to meet his daily needs, those needs had better not include drugs. If they can afford drugs, they can afford necessities. I would also favor tightening up food stamps as far as what they can be used for – basic food items (not including pop, chips, junk food, etc).
At the end of the day, is expanding government to include a million dollar program worth it to identify the 0.2%-8% of individuals who might potentially be using drugs and would be identified by such a test? Keep in mind the only states that have implemented this program that have identified more than 1% of welfare recipients through drug-testing give tests based on “reasonable cause.” Randomized testing would likely result in a lower failure rate of the drug test, as it would be design test more drug-free individuals. Catching drug users might make people feel good, but shoveling $4000 (assuming a $40 dollar cost for each test) plus administrative costs to identify a single individual at face value is a waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere.
With regards to food stamp usage, while everyone would love for food stamps to apply to solely produce, dairy, starches, and meats, the reality is that the individuals who use food stamps are for the most part rational. Produce and dairy spoil, junk food doesn’t. If you have limited fridge/freezer space (assuming you have one), you don’t buy what’s healthiest, you buy what lasts, and what doesn’t require temperature control. Second, bang for buck, “junk food” has more calories per and oz for oz is cheaper. Ideally, I would favor food stamps being used for healthy food, but I’m not going to recommend adding onerous requirements and regulations that don’t account for reality.
Drug testing welfare recipients has not been very successful at all in the states that have implanted this policy. There are not that many positive results to justify the costs of this program. The positive test results are surprisingly very small. The skeptic in me either just sees this for political reasons to rile up the lesser informed base and fuel cronyism for some private entity that would financially benefit from this.
Drug testing childless recipients makes sense to me… But only childless.
What would be the threshold to justify the costs of this program? If the results do not justify is this not wasteful spending? One could game the system I suppose prior to a test but that would of been taken into account in the states that implemented this and did not see the numbers of those who tested positive? I’d rather see improvements to the program that allow nutritional foods rather than junk food such as pop and chips though it will be fought by companies like Frito Lay and soft drink companies.
That would be great. Let’s have a kid so we won’t lose our welfare payment!
Did you know that the children do not get the food anyway? The food is frequently sold to others at a cut rate cost in order to get money for drugs.
I like the idea of testing individuals on welfare, who are getting tax payer dollars. 1. If the recipient is not using, they don’t have to worry . . . small inconvenience to have for the assistance. 2. The taxpayer will find out how much, or little, the program is being abused by users. 3. The bill could add a sunset that if say if less than 1%, or whatever, of the welfare people are using than the testing is not needed and it drops from our laws.
Would we expand the drug testing to anyone that is getting taxpayer dollars? government contractors? those that get subsidies? government employees? Legislators? We need to make sure our tax money is spent wisely and no laws are broken right?
No, they are supplying a product or a service for the taxpayer money they receive. If you want to give your money to drug users, go right ahead, but I don’t want mine going for illegal drugs. Maybe with money saved we could help the law abiding needy a little more.
I wish there were a way also to keep smokers from getting my taxpayer dollars to subsidize their habit essentially. If they have enough moola for smokes, they should have enough moola for food. I know this isn’t possible, is an extension of govt power, but I am tired of subsidizing people who would have enough money for more of their essentials if they gave up smokes, booze, etc.
I agree; when I go to the food pantry to drop off a donation, there are always people waiting their turn out on the sidewalk, smoking.
What if the state decided to test something else. Would you say “I like the idea of testing individuals who have a drivers’ license. If they’re not using, they don’t have to worry . . . small inconvenience to have for the safety.”
Why do you want to give government that much authority?
If you call yourself a Republican, you should remember the words of Henry David Thoreau – “That government is best which governs least.”
Authority to help ensure that we are not paying for someone to buy drugs? To help ensure that children are not in a house that drugs are being used paid for by the taxpayer? Yes, I want the government to be sure that these don’t happen. They don’t want to take the test, don’t take the taxpayer’s money. Hmmm, I seem to recall that you supported the vaccination of all young girls even against their parents objections, but that nanny state was ok!
I am not paying for anyone to have their driver’s license. I AM paying for food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, EITC, Medicaid, etc. Big difference!
I would like to get back to a federal govt that only does what is mandated by the Constitution. I would like people to develop a sense of personal responsibility, of making priorities for the welfare and safety of their own family/children. That being said, I realize this will never happen; people have become too accustomed to being taken care of by the big federal govt. The mentality of “If I have a problem, someone else will bail me out or feed my kids or clothe me etc.” But I do think we who are footing the bill for all the irresponsible people in this society do have a right to insist on some accountability from those we are mandated to support. This in no way disparages anyone who truly is in need of assistance due to disability etc. But disability does not include smoking, doing drug, or drinking.
By Mr. Powers reasoning, we shouldn’t require people to even fill out any forms to justify the receipt of the publics money. Just scoop it out in shovel fulls why take any precautions to make sure that it’s being used properly! It’s absolutely fiscally conservative to require needy people receiving taxpayer dollars to be drug-free. They are supposed to be looking for active employment, newsflash to Mr. Powers… most employers nowadays require their employees to be drug-free!