Several major problems with this.
1. I don't remember all the specifics, but Scott or his wife are linked or have been linked to a drug testing company who would likely to benefit greatly from conducting the testing. That's a conflict of interest.
2. From the above article:
"Positive tests will carry an immediate six-month ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. A second positive test will result in a three-year ban on state assistance."
So if a child's parent is on drugs, the solution is to not give them assistance? Why would the children's suffer more because their parents are on drugs?
2b. The solution to a drug problem is simply to cut off their funding? If they're addicts, that's not really going to matter. The responsible thing would be to put them in drug treatment programs and get them off drugs in order to help them be more responsible parents. "Teach a man to fish..." and all that.
3. The Florida legislature approved has approved pilot drug testing programs in the past that found no difference in drug usage among welfare recipients and the population at large.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...lfare-recipients-drug-testing-cash-assistance
If they had, they would have realized that back in 1998, the Florida Legislature approved a pilot project for the Jacksonville area and parts of Putnam County. The goal was to design and initiate a drug screening and testing program for applicants seeking cash assistance under the state's TANF program. The results weren't all that promising.
The pilot examined 8,797 applicants who participated in the initial screenings over an 18-month period and came to a stark conclusion. Drug use wasn't a problem. Only 335 applicants showed evidence of having a controlled substance in their system and failed the test. The low figure may raise concerns about the pilot's methodology, but there's still little justification for a new program that is likely to produce negligible results.
Ads by Google
Advertisement
Drug testing welfare recipients may make for good campaign speeches, but given the growing costs of Medicaid and problems of fraud in Medicare, Floridians would be better served if the next chief executive focuses on those more pressing problems.
It's not like there's big money to be made from abusing TANF benefits, the cash assistance program that is the state's core welfare program. There are 57,794 families in Florida receiving cash assistance, a figure that has been trending downward in recent years. On average, those families get $240 a month in assistance, peanuts on the rip-off scale when compared to other social services, particularly Medicare fraud.
4. From the article above:
"The law, which goes into effect on July 1, will mean about 4,400 drug tests per month, according to the Department of Children & Families. Taxpayers will reimburse welfare applicants for negative drug tests, which can cost between $10 and $25."
$10-$25 adds up as does the bureaucracy necessary to process reimbursement and conduct the tests.
5. This is Scott's core argument:
“While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Governor Scott said. “This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars.”
OK. So then why go after welfare recipients getting $240 a month instead of people who are getting more substantial subsidies from the state government? Why not go after businesses getting tax cuts from the government? Heck, why not go after the teachers who instruct our children? There's no argument for going after welfare recipients and nobody else, especially since pilot programs show that welfare recipients don't have a bigger drug problem than anybody else.