As more people turn to the government for assistance in times of economic hardship, states are fighting back by making it more difficult to receive aid. Employing the motto “If we have to piss to pass, so do you,” state governments are enforcing drug screens before eligible applicants can receive welfare, food stamps, and public housing. Is this an attempt to even the judicial scales or a ploy to curb money spent on government aid?
Either way, I’m not sure how fair it really is. According to Hammurabi’s Code, “an eye for an eye,” “a piss for a check,” it makes sense. If I have to pass a drug screen to earn the money deducted for welfare, then you best pass to get it. But here’s the loophole: drug tests at the work place are not instituted by the government; drug tests for welfare recipients are. So a more accurate description is “I might have to pass a drug test to earn money, but you definitely have to if you want welfare.” Because each one is regulated by different standards, the stereotype that those on welfare are more likely to be drug users is reinforced, making it even harder for citizens hit the hardest by economic woes to get back on their feet. Especially because there is no reported significant difference in drug use among the employed and those receiving government aid.
Again, this becomes a bipartisan debate. An article from the New York Times describes how Republicans favor the drug screening laws that encourage budget cuts, while democrats believe it is only creating more indignity amongst those suffering the side effects of our less-than-perfect economy. In situations like this, it seems like some politicians come up with the most stock-response to their party and stick by it. We’re all just humans, and we make mistakes. Sometimes people experiment with drugs. Some people go through a phase. No one is perfect, and we need a law that takes that into account. But we also need a law that considers America’s best interest, and such a law would limit budget spending on government aid and focus on things like education and healthcare.
Leave it to a state split down the middle to come up with the most reasonable solution: something that takes the dignity of the person and the interest of the states into account. Florida requires participants buy their own drug test. If they pass, they are reimbursed and receive aid as needed. People who fail are disqualified for one year (only six months if they receive treatment). Payments can continue through grandparents or other relatives so kids aren’t cut off as a result of their parent’s mistakes. After enforcing this policy, Florida has seen the number of welfare recipients return to the same level as the beginning of the recession.
Florida’s approach says “if you pass, here’s your aid and $40 for the test. If you don’t, you have a chance to redeem yourself, and we won’t jeopardize your kids. See you in a year.” The results speak volumes about laws that favor a split and aren’t too heavily influenced by either party. This makes me rethink my previous sentiment about our bipartisan government, and, ahem, nation. Although such a divide can sometimes leave half the population unhappy, it can also create a compromise that pleases everyone. And I guess that’s what a democracy is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment