As of this week, in the state of Tennessee, if you want welfare benefits, you’ll have to submit to a drug test.
Although I’m no fan of mandatory drug testing, I’m a bit surprised as to how upset some folks are over this requirement for welfare recipients. Particularly Hedy Weinberg, the director of the ACLU’s Tennessee chapter.
In a recent Huffington Post piece, Weinberg was quoted, saying. . .
“This law singles out limited-income people and requires them to submit to humiliating and intrusive searches of their bodily fluids because they need temporary help making ends meet.”
Well, yes. That’s exactly right.
I’m not really sure it matters if someone’s getting high while collecting welfare. It’s not as if these folks are operating heavy machinery or launching satellites. But the truth is, if you’re collecting welfare – which is taxpayer money – you shouldn’t be using it for drugs. So no, I don’t have a problem with this. Why would I? Because some say that it’s unconstitutional? So is taxation for the use of welfare.
Look, I’m not particularly opposed to helping out those in need. In fact, while I don’t think it should be dictated by the federal government, it’s not such a horrible thing to look out for our American brothers and sisters. To do so is honorable, virtuous and noble. But I also don’t want to be a sucker, ponying up my tax dollars to support the drug habits of welfare recipients. I don’t know anyone who would.
Of course, if we really want to get into it, let’s also talk about corporate welfare.
Corporate Welfare Booming
In 2012, the U.S. government spent nearly $50 billion on public welfare programs. These included things like food assistance, low-income housing, and financial aid. That’s not chump change. However, it’s considerably lower than the roughly $100 billion that was funneled into corporate welfare programs.
Of course, some will claim that corporate welfare (i.e. – business subsidies), are required to help U.S. companies compete in the global marketplace. But budget analyst Tad DeHaven from the CATO Institute cleared the dust from this smokescreen in CATO’s July 25, 2012 Policy Analysis when he wrote. . .
…corporate welfare often subsidizes failing and mismanaged businesses and induces firms to spend more time on lobbying rather than on making better products. Instead of correcting market failures, federal subsidies misallocate resources and introduce government failures into the marketplace.
Corporate welfare doesn’t aid economic growth and it is an affront to America’s constitutional principles of limited government and equality under the law.
If we’re going to implement drug testing for welfare recipients, shouldn’t this include all welfare recipients? Including corporate welfare recipients?
Drug Test the Banks
Although physically you can’t run a drug test on a “corporation,” you can run a drug test on its corporate officers.
Let me ask you this, dear reader. . .
What if all taxpayer-funded corporate handouts came with drug testing requirements? Would those corporate officers submit? Of course they would. And I suspect most of those who are down on their luck, and need a little help will do the same.
The bottom line is that if you’re going to suck from the government teat, you may have to do something you don’t want to do. If it bothers you, then don’t take the handout. It’s pretty simple, really. But if the state of Tennessee is going to drug test those receiving public welfare, shouldn’t recipients of corporate welfare also be tested? After all, just imagine how much coke is being bought with those fat bonuses the big banks keep handing out. The same banks who siphoned billions from taxpayers to stay afloat.
Just something to consider as this debate heats up.
