Texas advances bill to require drug screening for welfare

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Improving and fixing the welfare system is a great goal. This is not the way to do it, however. It's childish and simplistic thinking that wastes taxpayer dollars.

Actually the Founding Fathers believed that Federal welfare was unconstitutional.

James Madison even believed that Federally funded schools were a subversion of what the U.S. Government was meant to do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2903629/posts

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791
Jefferson was arguing against the constitutionality of Alexander Hamilton's proposal for a National Bank, but his thoughts on other areas of Federal dabbling are obvious.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

And some later presidents:

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money." - Congressman David Crockett, 1830.

All the above quotes are from this article:
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

A short article by a man for whom I have the utmost respect:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/artic...detective.html

I believe that all public welfare and health care issues should be the provenance of the States, not the Federal Government.

[Skybird]

Governments are monopolists, monopolists in making laws that result in private property being declared public property and taking away form the former original owner ("taxes"). Like all monopolists, they have an inbuilt tendency for expansion, and must sooner or later collide with monopolists of the same type from other regions/nations. Therefore there is the tendency towards growing centralization and forming of fewer, increasingly powerful monopolists, and in the end only one monopolist will remain: the world government. Here people will have ended up in a society where they can no longer vote with their feet against their government, because this one government rules everywhere and the same law restrictions and taxes apply to everybody, everywhere. Such a state will be the implementation of the socialistic utopia, enforced by totalitarian control, not knowing private property or private responsibility, and thus demotivating against trying to improve, to do something out of initiative, to work for something better. Instead, since nobody can own anything anymore and all is public property of the collective instead, costs and deficits get socialised, nobody tries to counter that, and the society will degenerate in economic impotence, fatalism and laziness. We have seen that in the Eastern economies until the USSR collapsed. Not to own , not to produce and not to improve necessarily must be more attractive in such a society, than trying to gain something to own, to produce, to improve.

Socialism always must lead to cultural and social degeneration and political totalitarianism, since it appeals to the lowest in man, and defames and mercilessly supresses all quality that has the potential to ennoble him.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Governments are monopolists

And that's why every bit of government expansion must be fought tooth and nail even if it does cause certain Europeans to roll their eyes.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I believe that all public welfare and health care issues should be the provenance of the States, not the Federal Government.

And that's fine, and I would actually tend to agree with you. But putting an unwarranted search qualification on a social insurance program that (unlike the view of some of our mistaken posters here) requires mandatory participation is still protected by the Constitution, regardless if it's offered by the states or the Federal Government.

Everyone participates in the program. Every time money is deducted from your paycheck, or you pay property taxes or state income tax, you're paying your premiums for the social insurance. It's required by law. And that's where the "oh private employers make you take a drug test" analogy falls apart. So if you are in the position to have to make a claim on that insurance policy and apply for benefits, then why does that trigger a governmental search of your person?

It boggles my mind sometimes. They're against wasteful governmental spending, until they're not. They're against unwarranted government intrusion into your life, until they're not.

[Armistead]

Welfare isn't a right, it's a program with rules and regulations, most designed to prevent abuse, but we know the program is terribly abused.
I see no problem with drug testing as a qualifier for welfare.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And that's fine, and I would actually tend to agree with you. But putting an unwarranted search qualification on a social insurance program that (unlike the view of some of our mistaken posters here) requires mandatory participation is still protected by the Constitution, regardless if it's offered by the states or the Federal Government.

Everyone participates in the program. Every time money is deducted from your paycheck, or you pay property taxes or state income tax, you're paying your premiums for the social insurance. It's required by law. And that's where the "oh private employers make you take a drug test" analogy falls apart. So if you are in the position to have to make a claim on that insurance policy and apply for benefits, then why does that trigger a governmental search of your person?

It boggles my mind sometimes. They're against wasteful governmental spending, until they're not. They're against unwarranted government intrusion into your life, until they're not.

Let's change the rules then. Why not, been going on for 4 years now. New rule, if you would like to participate in the welfare program you need to agree to a drug test. The other rule still stands. Everyone who takes home a paycheck pays into the welfare system. After all, one day you might need it. Welcome to the new America.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It boggles my mind sometimes. They're against wasteful governmental spending, until they're not. They're against unwarranted government intrusion into your life, until they're not.

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.

Ah....men

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.

But it's not only your tax dollars, it's theirs too. I was on unemployment once in my life, and I was happy that I had paid my payroll taxes in the past so that it was there when I needed it. It wasn't voluntary at all...try opting out and you go to jail for tax evasion.

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But it's not only your tax dollars, it's theirs too. I was on unemployment once in my life, and I was happy that I had paid my payroll taxes in the past so that it was there when I needed it. It wasn't voluntary at all...try opting out and you go to jail for tax evasion.

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

I agree you make a good point, just shows anything the govt. does cost 100 times what it should. With all the red tape, I'm sure running a drug program is much more expensive for the taxpayer.

Saw another clip that even with a so called improving economy, people getting food stamps is still increasing, now almost 50 million. The stock market is soaring, but still no real job growth, in fact, last month in many states umemployment rose, it did mine.

We've created an economic model that is creating a two class system. Our jobs still go overseas in mass. The rich are getting richer, now about 15% of the rich control 80% of all real wealth in America. No party is addressing what is needed to build a thriving middle class, both still support the rich getting richer, only difference the Dems want social programs for all the poor created, the GOP just wants them to die on the vine.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Armistead

No party is addressing what is needed to build a thriving middle class, both still support the rich getting richer, only difference the Dems want social programs for all the poor created, the GOP just wants them to die on the vine.

Amen. It's class warfare alright, and it's both sides against the middle.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

No we are not, I've addressed this: the point shouldn't even be to "catch" drug users!

[Tchocky]

No Fourth Amendment trouble there, no?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

No Fourth Amendment trouble there, no?

The appeals courts certainly think there is. So add that to the list of stupid expenses that Texas is incurring with this boondoggle.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No we are not, I've addressed this: the point shouldn't even be to "catch" drug users!

Your right - its not. But what Mookie wants to ignore is that the HHS (A Federal level governmental agency) puts drug abuse at between 5% and 37% based on measurement variables.

"Studies of the prevalence of substance abuse among welfare recipients have varied widely in their findings, with rates of between 4 and 37 percent reported. Much of the difference in prevalence rates found in these studies is due to different data sources, definitions and measurement methods, particularly the different thresholds used to define substance abuse. Another key difference is whether alcohol abuse and/or the abuse of prescription drugs are included in the estimate. In addition, drug use and abuse is higher among single men in States’ General Assistance (GA) caseloads than among single (largely female) parents on TANF. So studies that define welfare to include GA beneficiaries often find higher rates. Typically, lower end estimates of around 5 percent or less focus on indications of diagnosable abuse of or dependence on illicit drugs among TANF or (for early estimates) Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program clients. Higher rates, in the 10 percent range, tend to include any past month use of illicit drugs. Rates in the highest ranges (15 percent or more) usually define substance abuse to include alcohol abuse and include any past year (rather than past month) use of illicit drugs. The highest rate noted to date in any study, 37 percent,[5] included female welfare recipients reporting having used any illicit drug at least once in the past year and/or two or more binge drinking episodes in the past month (with binge drinking defined as having had 5 or more drinks on the same occasion or within a couple of hours)."

Source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/DrugTesting/ib.shtml

The only way to get the "low" end numbers is to use "diagnosable abuse" indications. Anything else - even a "well I used once about a month ago" leads to 10% or higher numbers. Taking 10% out of the welfare pool - even considering the costs of the testing - would still be a positive on the balance sheet. Dropping 15% or more - all the way up to the "female welfare recpients" who are doing drugs "at least once in the past year" and going out and getting totally wasted 2x or more in the last month - yeah that would be a bonus.

Oh - and seriously - alcohol SHOULD be on the list of abused substances - because if your on welfare - where are you getting the money to go out and get "5 or more drinks" in the space of a couple of hours? Or maybe that's how they get knocked up?