Today in Moronic Memes #5

This one has been floating around for a while on the internet. The first thing I'd like to point out about the policy of testing welfare recipients (and by the way, there is no program for "welfare" there are an assortment of programs with various eligibility requirements), is that the policy doesn't work and costs more to implement then it saves.  In Florida, the program was in place for several months and had a success rate of a whopping 2.6% ,while costing taxpayers more than it saved.  Additionally, Florida Governor Rick Scott was co-founder of a drug testing company, so in a way that very policy was a sneakily executed welfare program for Governor Scott.
The next part addresses the supposed constitutionality of drug testing welfare recipients.  In the case of Florida, the law was found to be unconstitutional.  The reasoning is rather simple:

1. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires reasonable suspicion/probable cause that a law is being broken in order for a search to be conducted. 
2. Welfare is a public service provided by the government.  The Florida law mandated blanket screening of those utilizing a public service without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
3. Logic would dictate that anyone utilizing any public service would be subject to warrant-less search and seizure.  This means that pretty much everyone would be subject to a random search.  Walking on a public sidewalk?  Piss in a cup.

Maybe you still think they should be able to drug test welfare recipients universally, but realize that in law precedent does matter and that this ultimately would be applied to other public services and not just taking a drug test and not just for welfare recipients.  It is OK to drug test people who work for several reasons one of them being the Constitution protects you from the government not the private sector.  The other reason is that there are compelling government interests in drug free workplaces.

There is a not so subtle implication embedded in this statement, namely that welfare recipients don't work, an implication that is misleading.  They may not work full time or above a poverty wage, but many welfare recipients do in fact work.  I feel it necessary to say I categorically reject suspicion-less drug tests as a condition of employment with the lone exception of people whose job it is to enforce drug laws.  All that being said, it seems that the author(s) of this meme have a problem with the Founding Fathers and freedom as much as they have with welfare recipients.

Furthermore, there are other practical problems with this kind of policy.  First, the only drug that you are actually likely to find in the result is marijuana as it has a much longer half life than most street drugs.  If you did get a positive result for other drugs it would be indicative of a much more serious problem and I'm speaking purely for myself here, but I'd rather let that drug addict use that money to pay for their next fix then spend money imprisoning them also at a much greater expense to the taxpayer never mind the threat to public safety.  I find it hard to believe that someone taking the risks inherent in being a poor drug addict is going to suddenly quit drugs to be able to collect a few dollars in "welfare" services.

Secondly, when people talk about getting rid of welfare, I'm curious as to what they expect the eventual outcome to be.  People so lazy, dishonest, and/or irresponsible that they are willing to lie and cheat to stay on welfare would otherwise be in jail.  Welfare is far cheaper than jail.  Additionally, for most of these programs a key requirement is children.  Regardless of what the parent is up to, I fail to see how cutting off a parent from food stamps, or housing, or cash assistance does not hurt the children more so than the parent.

Third, we're all on public assistance.  Do you claim homeowners tax credit?  Why, as a renter, should I pay for your house?  This is framed as a tax credit rather than a hand out, but functionally, when it comes to me as a taxpayer, there is no difference.  Roads?  Just welfare for drivers.  Public schools and child tax credits?  Just welfare for people with children.  Do you have healthcare?  Odds are that is subsidized by the government too.  Employers receive a tax break when they offer health insurance, Medicare pays out more than it takes in in payroll tax, and if you don't have insurance and they show up at the ER any unpaid costs will be borne by the taxpayer and fellow consumers.

This is a bad solution in search of a problem.  Our welfare system could be improved upon and aspects of it encourage dependence however this kind of policy is deliberately designed to distract from actual problems.  We offer major corporations tax breaks that amount to billions of dollars, we ignore tax evasion to the tune of billions of dollars, we repeatedly allow defense contractors to defraud the government, we pay for tax breaks on the homes of millionaires, we tax investment income at a lower rate than normal income, and we don't extend the payroll tax beyond the first $110,000 of income.  All this is done at a major cost to the average taxpayer, far greater than someone receiving food stamps.

If you want more people to work, make work more lucrative.

Sources:

Media Matters
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/18/hannity-omits-the-food-stamp-facts-most-recipie/189991

National Conference of State Legislatures (summary of testing laws)
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=1

Tampa Bay Times
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-solantic-and-conflict-of-interest-whats-the-deal/1161158