Friday, March 27, 2009


If you are suckling the government teat, if I concede that the existence of a government teat is necessary to a successful society, can we at least limit the teat to providing basics? Gruel and a laminated cardboard box, maybe? Booze, pot and meth go firmly into the "not a necessity of living" category.
Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

If welfare is acceptable, it shouldn't provide any cash. A check to the landlord(move back in with your family!) and a food stamp card should be the limit. You don't need cable, cigarettes, beer or weed. Your government-assistance-enabled landlord can cover the electric and heating bills. My share of the government teat is not hanging out there to provide you with freelance pharmaceuticals or any form of entertainment at all.

If you want the extras, get a job. Failing a drug test will keep you away from that, too.

On a side note, wtf is a poverty advocate? Does poverty really need someone pushing for its benefit?

On a practical note: If a reliable drug test costs $1500, and a leech welfare recipient receives $1200 in total benefits, it takes less than 2 months for failing a leech welfare recipient to pay for itself. Faster, if you count the approximately 90% overhead of government programs. The only consideration should be how many people will get washed out of the program compared to how many will pass the test, which makes those tests a waste of money. If 10 people apply for welfare, using the numbers above, that's $15,000 in tests. Over 1 year, without the tests, that's $144,000 in welfare. One person out of ten being washed out of the program will almost pay for the tests of everybody on welfare.

No comments: