Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Is A Bad Idea


I remember when a facebook friend of mine had a status that said: Drug testing for welfare recipient, GENIUS! I looked at that post and thought: He never needed food stamps ever did he? He grew up in a middle class suburb at a time when the middle class was roaring like a freight train all over this country. He is a white gay man who doesn’t know the realities of those on food stamps. Most people who support this may come from a few vantage points: Food stamp recipients are lazy (I qualified for them while I wasn’t working but collecting unemployment and looking for work) that food stamp recipients are all drug users (states that have implemented that policy doesn’t bear out that view) and that somehow if you are on assistance you must be using drugs. Simply put, this is a conservative view that a man who lobbied for marriage equality parroted this on his page. I don’t see how someone getting 1K/yearly through foodstamps can crash the economy but Wal Mart and GE getting millions of dollars while paying no taxes gives the economy a boost.

But speaking of economy, the more these states pass these bills, the more I am thinking of one organization. ALEC, ALEC is responsible for the Stand Your Ground Law and is a corporate interest group that is pushing legislation like this to promote profit at the peoples’ expense. To me, this SMACKS of ALEC stamp of approval
FL itself is a welfare state (just like these tax dodgers are Welfare Kings and Queens), and is notorious for being one of the first that implemented this and of the people tested for drugs before receiving assistance, guess how many failed their drug tests?

You’re going to be blown away: 2%

Yes you saw that 2% and another report here: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/04/welfare-white-and-drugless/ shows that welfare recipients are LESS likely to use drugs than the general population. Also let me state that like Rick Perry’s sister who will get rich from the new abortion law (not only are they profit over people, they’re also profit over principles) Governor Scott stood to gain money from this law because he transferred his testing clinics to HIS WIFE…Now I also believe that when the recipient passes the test, they must be reimbursed. So this doesn’t save any money and soon EVERY single state that offers this “service to save money” is only interested in making more money for themselves. It is a terrible day in America when we would give money to the rich and starve the poor. This is the perpetuation of anecdotal evidence, lazy scholarship or none at all, same stereotypes that we’ve been dealing with since Reagan’s famous “Welfare Queen” speech was given in 1980. Even after it’s been debunked for years, it still fits into a narrative that despises the poor while refusing to acknowledge the deeper socioeconomic issues that make the need for assistance possible as well as the very system of drug use fueled by low socioeconomic status as well as poorly financed communities. Not only is it a bad idea, it’s like saying: I’m going to tax you 30% keep your wages the same then I’m going to ridicule you when you need help.  This is simply saying: it’s your fault that you’re poor; we will close you off to education and other higher pursuits and keep that for ourselves.


Another part of these laws that I’m suspicious of is how they will implement or justify these tests. Will we have rogue social workers on the lookout for any suspicion of drug use to say “probable cause”? Do some of the legislation have referrals to a treatment facility or what if they have kids? Will they go home and beat the hell out of the kids for complaining that they’re hungry? These seem to me another way to continue the failed war on drugs that was waged with the Reagan years that simply meant: Not tough on cocaine, but crack and other urban drugs...what about the war on poverty? That went down when they waged war on it, and we need another one right now. THIS is not the way to go. The best way to go is


1.       Increase the monthly benefits as they are not enough to feed a family now. Close a loophole and/or tax subsidy for businesses to pay for it

2.       Investing in education, and even FREE classes for adult education, not private ones. This includes white and blue collar jobs as well as vocational schools for skilled labor. If you offer free education and pay the teachers with grants, I am sure we can find people willing and eager to learn these new skills, get their certifications and move on up the ladder of success

3.       Funding urban schools the same way that we fund suburban ones. Our cities are a hub that could bring great things to the neighboring suburbs

4.       Fully fund things like infrastructure, bridges and roads, public transportation. This creates jobs not only for the construction crew (and having education and FREE training programs for them—if they miss more than 2 classes they must pay for them) but for local businesses

5.       See what we can do to make sure that city construction is done by companies that hire LOCAL CITY DWELLERS, and other things.

6.       Raising the minimum wage. Many people who claim that people can live off of the current $7.25 minimum wage are probably not living on it now. They don’t know how hard it is. I say that the minimum wage should be closer to $12. According to the Economic Policy Institute Research and Ideas for Shared Prosperity they say that if the minimum wage kept pace with inflation and cost of living that it would be around $19. Senator Elizabeth Warren has said it should be about $22 so I’ll say it should be at least $19

7.       Close corporate loopholes and put those monies into the above things  and we would see our economy turn around

8.       I also say that in urban areas, we should put solar panels onto places like shared housing, and put forth a program that would be able to teach people how to harvest and use solar and wind energy for electricity like they do in Germany

9.       This is an interesting one too. Encouraging neighborhood gardens like the Massachusetts St Market (?) so that it can become a place for the neighborhood to get fruits and vegetables at appropriate seasons. And also teach children how to grow indoor vegetables if possible. This can help alleviate hunger as well as teach them how precious our food supply is. This could lead to great possibilities, I can see it: All these plots of urban farms (in lawns, backyards on rooftops etc) This could decrease a great deal of hunger in children. It also gives them a skill to hone

10.   Reach out to broad coalitions to make them possible. Working partnerships can definitely bring folks together around a common goal that otherwise would be unmet

A local thing I would do is take some of the power from NFTA and have city wide public transit with a few routes going after midnight. I say take a survey of those working overnight and maybe run those every 45 minutes to an hour but that’s a whole ‘nother subject


So besides blaming poor people for being poor and rigging the tax code against us, conservative narrative will never come close to a real solution for  hunger. Just blame the hungry and say they’re not worth it while telling the Koch brothers and ALEC to pass the shrimp.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Parker v. Hurley Prental Rights Violation or Elaborate Setup? I'll Explain

Conservative Family Values: All Fantasy, No Facts A Few Reasons

The Comments NOM Blog Is Likely To Take Down--or Not Approve