Urine Tests

Urine Tests

An interesting comment that came in from a reader:

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do , on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their [rear], doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

First of all, remember that "public assistance check" is something of a misnomer. Back in 1995, after Republicans took control of Congress, the old system of welfare was substantially revised. General Assistance (which was never very widespread or generous) largely went away. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was widespread, open-ended, but not particularly generous, was replaced with Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), which imposes significant limitations on its recipients--and it is not open-ended.

I know that there was a significant problem with AFDC. I had a distant cousin who ended up on AFDC, off and on, for many years. I asked her once how many AFDC recipients she knew where the core problem was her situation--a husband who never let work get in the way of his drug habit. She told me that every AFDC recipient she knew was in that category. She indicated that in about half of these homes, the mother managed to get food and rent paid out of the AFDC check, and whatever was left was spent on alcohol or pot. The other half of the homes that she saw, drugs came first; if there was anything left over, the mother would be able to feed the kids.

As I understand it, TANF has fundamentally changed the equation. There are obligations on TANF recipients to get training for a job, and there is a limited time during which one is eligible. In spite of the enormous whining from liberals about the suffering that the AFDC to TANF transformation was going to cause--it actually worked out surprisingly well. I suspect that there are still TANF recipients in the same drug-funded madness that my cousin was in--but I also suspect that simply ending the open-ended nature of the program probably changed things a bit. It would be interesting to see if TANF recipients are as deeply enmeshed in the drug culture as AFDC recipients used to be.