Addressing Welfare: To Whom it May Concern

Dear Poor People:
Dear Drug Users:
Dear Poor, Drug Users:

Last week on Facebook, a friend posted a controversial headline that sparked a lively cipher of opinions & facts about the state of America's welfare class. Specifically, friends chimed in on whether or not people on welfare should be drug-tested in order to apply for and receive benefits. Florida Governor Rick Scott trailblazed a new law that will commence the program beginning July 1; the first of its type in our country!

DLS founder S. Holmes studies America's indigenous welfare class.

I contend that this is "controversial" because ideas about economics can be either Positive or Normative. Positive economic statements are factual in nature; that is, they can be tested (E.g., "Randomly testing welfare recipients in Florida will result in a majority of positive outcomes"). Normative economic statements are opinions, and while popular, are in essence reflective of a person or group's values (E.g., "People on welfare deserve to be drug tested more often than people who are not on welfare").

One of Scott's campaign promises was to unburden the Florida taxpaying class by reducing the benefits extended to TANF (not Federal food stamp) recipients. TANF is a Federal welfare program - that by design - limits the amount of time people can receive benefits (the T stands for 'temporary'). The 50 states are allowed to allocate TANF funds how they see fit. In Florida, the Department of Children & Families (DCF) decides who's eligible. Without argument, rampant drug addition (and otherwise riotous living) among persons receiving cash transfers from working citizens should be checked and corrected. Just last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that $69 million was squandered from the state's coffers on gambling trips to Vegas, Hawaiian vacations and pilgrimmages to the Disneyland Resort.

Scott's seminal law in Florida will require recipients to complete a 3-step process:

1. Pay for the drug test out of pocket.
2. Pass the drug test to qualify for benefits.
3. Test negative periodically to continue receiving benefits.

If a person tests positive, they are denied benefits for one year after the first infraction and banned three years after the second.

The goal here (presumably) is to lock out people who would be most likely to spend cash on drugs. That way they can focus on getting clean and holding a job. Thus the tax burden is lessened, Florida's unemployment rate falls, and people have more cash and less dope to contend with.

Delasol presents a few fallacies that accompany a purely Normative view, just for discussion's sake. Not that Scott is wrong to implement such a program, but is it really addressing "the welfare problem?"

• Yes, you read correctly, people desiring welfare and work must pay for the drug tests out of pocket. Not exactly an incentive to go..and without jobs, where does this money come from?
• Assuming a positive approach to Governor Scott's view that people on welfare are disproportionate drug users, we can test this. No need, actually, since the state of Florida ran a pilot testing program in 2001. The results? If you use drugs in Florida you are just as likely to be on welfare as you are to be employed*.
• A 2011 report on cost effectiveness** of such a program revealed that taxpayers end up paying more to execute drug testing on this level (without suspicion) than less humiliating methods that spare the dignity of people who choose to "just say no."

Is there a more direct way for Floridians to address the welfare problem? Or does the focus seem to be more on identifying the drug problem by class??

You can watch a clip of Gov. Scott's CNN interview with correspondent T.J. Holmes here.

Personal, practical economics. For everyone.

dls

*"No significant difference" was found among drug users by class or employment status.

**Conducted by the Center for Legal and Social Policy (CLASP)