Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAFDC was a part of the original SS program that we older folks knew as “welfare”. It was assailed by folks from all directions. The late Patrick Moynihan decried the incentive to have more children on welfare because the checks were sized based on the # of children. The Nobel winning physicist Shockley thought it encouraged the spawning of poor black kids who he wrote were inferior. I think he called it a dysgenic effect, but I may have that word not quite right. This was in the sixties.
Rs and some Ds pointed to the building of a permanent underclass.
It was in 1992 that WJC campaigned to get rid of welfare as we knew it. Ds in Congress opposed him. He finally found an ally in Newt. In 1996, AFDC was replaced by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Assistance is limited to two years, and not a lifetime. Work retraining or schooling is a requirement. Here is how the numbers dropped:
|
|---|
Many Euro countries still have permanent welfare, and thus have %s on welfare like we had on AFDC. I thought the move from AFDC to TANF was long overdue and I thought it put a big crimp in whatever “culture of dependency” had been created. I would oppose deleting TANF. I still think the public believes we have the old AFDC system, but I may be wrong. I offer this in the spirit of historical information, just in case it is new to some of you.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Didn’t this include an expansion of the Earned Income Credit to make work more alluring to the very poor? The EIC is part of the argument that the poor have no skin in the game and should have to at least pay some taxes.
LikeLike
I don’t remember that. I did not think EIC changed until the first GWB tax cut.
LikeLike
First, many thanks to mark for providing this info.
yjkt, I have had the same thought for some time and also (if I am interpreting your comment correctly) have related it to the current “no skin in the game” argument. But it looks like it has been changed many more times than I remembered. This article is old, but see an old Tax Policy Center paper.
LikeLike
Mark
Excellent post to stimulate some reflection. I’m still digesting the numbers. As a pretty far left progressive I’d still be the first to admit there is abuse in the system. I’m not for “more” government, I’m for better, more efficient government.
Looking at the trend lines it seems as if indeed we have reformed “welfare” as we knew it. Now the poverty rates seems more closely tied to the UE rate than anything else. But then I think we all feel that…jobs…jobs..jobs…
LikeLike
Thanks, Mark.
LikeLike
mscurtis and I were discussing poverty last week and plan to do a larger post on it. part of the difficulty in determining the numbers is the change in the calculations. you can move the line and create/solve poverty. the formula was changed a few years ago and “added” to the numbers by considering factors such as health care and child care expenses, which previously were excluded.
LikeLike
Maybe the numbers in Mark’s table don’t accurately reflect the number of poor in our country, but since the same scale is used it at least shows a large drop in then number of welfare recipients despite a slight increase in tne number of poor.
Is there a state aspect to welfare that isn’t reflected in Mark’s table?
LikeLike
Thanks, Mark. I was just having a debate over email with some of my college friends, one of whom suggested drug testing for welfare recipients. So it was helpful to provide him some numbers. Does anyone think we can get that number below 1.4% or think that an effort to do so would be worth the money we save?
LikeLike
ashot,
I thought I read somewhere that MI had already tried to drug test welfare recipients and was shot down. FL is in the middle of a lawsuit for a similar law.
Ah, here’s a link to the FL lawsuit with the relevant MI info at the bottom.
LikeLike
I’m not sure denying food to a kid is exactly the right punishment if mom takes a toke.
BB
LikeLike
What is the ‘right punishment’? I am not sure that helping a mom spend money she doesn’t have on dope and having a child raised in that environment is any better. Is a poor druggie unemployed mother a candidate for any sort of stable job? I don’t claim to know if the gov can be successful by trying to create an incentive to not do drugs in this manner. But discouraging people from drug use, one of the biggest obsticles to breaking the cycle, seems to me to be a worthwhile consideration.
LikeLike
If drug tests are OK for welfare recipients, should they be required of everyone who receives a gov’t handout? Submit a urine sample to get your mortgage interest writeoff!
LikeLike
Hmm. I didn’t see an option to reply to your comment, Dave, perhaps this’ll show up in the right order.
The SNAP program is handled via debit card right now, so the mother isn’t being given cash to spend on drugs. Yes, money is fungible, so I suppose that there could be an indirect link. It’s an incorrect assumption that a person who needs food assistance is unemployed.
I do know of one case. The person in question was a single mother. Her daughter was sexually abused (I forget if this was a boyfriend). It was a smallish town and so became fairly notorious, to the point where she was fired due to the distractions. That’s when this person sought assistance. Let us posit that she took an occasional toke (not true that I know of, but she certainly had the stress). Denying her assistance would not have helped her or the child.
More generally, I don’t think these proposals are designed at encouraging anything. There is a right punishment for use of illegal drugs. Denying need based assistance isn’t the right one in my view.
As long as we’re going in that direction, why simply limit drug testing to government benefits? As it is in society’s interest to have sober drivers, the same logic passes for required drug testing for anyone with a driver’s license.
BB
LikeLike
Couple of quick thoughts in agreement with BB. First, I’ve seen studies that show drug use among welfare recipients is about the same as the general population. So welfare payments don’t seem to encourage or lead to the use of drugs any more than waking up in the morning does. Also, the numbers provided by Mark seem to refute the notion that welfare recipients are having lots of babies that go on to become welfare recipients themselves and swelling the numbers of welfare recipients. While I don’t think anyone has explicitly made such a claim in this discussion, it was raised in my other email discussion on the topic and it was something I found to be interesting.
LikeLike
“As long as we’re going in that direction, why simply limit drug testing to government benefits? As it is in society’s interest to have sober drivers, the same logic passes for required drug testing for anyone with a driver’s license.
BB”
Drug testing is usually a condition of applying for most jobs with medium to large companies in the private sector, hence the difficulty in getting traction on the idea that it’s a burden for welfare recipients. I.e. “if I have to do it, why don’t they have to as well”.
Recent NYT editorial blog on this issue:
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/drug-testing-and-probable-cause-a-response-to-readers/
LikeLike
I get tested annually as a volunteer EMT as part of a physical. and i had to submit to a polygraph.
LikeLike
BSimon/BB – Half the jobs I have had required drug tests. I agree with jnc4p on this – it seems as if it is a requirement for a lot of jobs for everyone. The question of why not make it the same requirement for the mortgage deduction is intersting. It kind of seems that it fits in along with BB’s feeling that “I don’t think these proposals are designed at encouraging anything”. That might be where we differ – i do think in this case it is trying to encourage people to find jobs (or better paying jobs)…along with providing them assistance while they are looking or training or educating. So the goal of the program is twofold – to handle a short term issue and address it for the long term. BB, yes I know that not all people on it are jobless or that all jobless people are on it. They are however either unemployed or underemployed and need more money (hence the assistance). Are you telling me that the legal punishment (for drugs) for your example would have been better for her or her child (or society in general or the taxpayer)? Being convicted and jailed seems to me to be a substantially worse punishment.
There are various and different requirements for most government funds or privledges that come your way. Drivers need to pass a test at a minimum. To get the mortgage deduction, you need to own a home and have a loan, file taxes and fill out a Schedule A.
The goal of the mortgage deduction, one could argue, is looking to encourage people to own their own home. Assuming one thinks the gov should be doing this, I guess you could argue that drugs may hinder the encouragement by decreasing the ability for the person to afford it. I am not sure i buy that or that the gov should be subsidizing home ownership in the first place. But it is an argument that could be made.
LikeLike
I’ve had jobs where I needed to be screened, though never one with random screening. I’ve also had jobs requiring a clearance, for which one must disclose past drug use. I’m also not persuaded by an argument that goes along the lines of I had to do it, so she or he should have to do so as well. Should we be requiring drug testing of all individuals seeking a job? If it’s tied to government benefits, perhaps one should tie it to Medicare/Medicaid/SS. Yes, I know (or hope so), reduction to absurdity.
This is a solution in search of a problem. I’m sure the medical testing industry will be delighted with the additional income. Unless you’re going to couple this with counseling and treatment programs, this just means a few (more) kids go hungry. Huzzah.
BB
LikeLike
I read that the drug testing in Florida was specifically tied to one narrow welfare benefit that would not hurt the benefits children recieved. Assuming that’s how it actually worked, it would mean the government would save even less money. More likely, it means the government loses even more money.
LikeLike
I do not have strong feelings about this. I tend to side with FB but I certainly understand the other side of the issue and strong points were made for that side.
Just a few observations…I know a truck driver who is part of a group that gets random screening. This guy smokes weed, never while he drives and only recreationally. He and his fellow drivers are experts at how to blow through the test with all manner of gimmicks. They routinely beat the tests anyway.
Statistics here in Florida (are you going to make me find a link…I can if requested) show that the % of drug use among folks on Gov’t assistance is actually lower than the % of users in the general population sample.
And lastly to respond to FB’s point…
“This is a solution in search of a problem. I’m sure the medical testing industry will be delighted with the additional income. ”
One of the most offensive parts of Governor Rick Scott’s proposal was the fact that the company the state was going to utilize was a company Scott had “previously” owned..and placed in a blind trust or his wife’s name. To add insult to injury folks applying for aid had to pay for their own drug tests up front…if they passed the money was refunded..if not they lost their gamble.
But I readily concede this is a difficult issue and I understand both positions.
LikeLike
Several of you cited the fact that you’ve had to be drug-tested for employment as why this isn’t an overly onerous burden for receiving welfare, but let me ask you this: why should you be drug-tested?
NoVA, I can kind of understand the EMT thing, since you have access to presumably addictive drugs, but why a polygraph?
Unless any of you are commercial vehicle operators or do something else that would put the general public at risk if you were habitual drug users, why should any of you be drug-tested? I think that’s overly intrusive (and yes, I know that taroya and qb got into it over this question, but I’m not trying to stir up a hornets’ nest).
LikeLike
I object to drug testing for employment (though I’ve taken one, more interested in getting a job than anything else), but I object to the tax payers paying extra money indefinitely for a politician’s campaign strategy. In theory, I don’t disagree that drug use should disqualify one from public assistance (at least, for anything other than rehab), but in practice it’s just an additional cost burden to the tax payer. Certainly, social engineering is in there, but until I see the benefits, I’m going to remain of the opinion it’s more big government, spending more of my money, mostly in order to get elected so they can spend more of my money.
LikeLike
*Like button* Kevin nailed it. It’s a campaign strategy. They could call it stimulus because I imagine it would stimulate job growth in blood testing labs, since there would be some 4.3 milion test that would occur. Arguably it is also class warfare. And as Mike points out, in FL it may also be some good old fashion nepotism.
LikeLike
I have never undergone a drug test for employment and I don’t know of any law firms that test their employees. It’s preposterous to think that if I were to lose my job I could then end up being drug tested by the government.
i do think in this case it is trying to encourage people to find jobs (or better paying jobs)…along with providing them assistance while they are looking or training or educating.
How does requiring me to pee in a cup encourage me to find a job? Particularly if any company is going to make me do so? If anything, having to drive to a drug testing facility will take away from time trying to find a job.
This of course doesn’t even address the issue of whether it is at all economical to drug testing or the issue of false positives. Is there a process to appeal the drug test? If not, why not? If there is an appeal process, it only adds to the expense.
LikeLike
“Several of you cited the fact that you’ve had to be drug-tested for employment as why this isn’t an overly onerous burden for receiving welfare, but let me ask you this: why should you be drug-tested?”
I’m not arguing it’s good policy. I’m in favor of legalizing most currently controlled substances.
I will however take up the argument that drug testing is somehow an unconstitutional burden on welfare recipients rights to tax payer dollars.
LikeLike
One reason a lot of companies drug test for employment is because their workers comp insurers give them a better rate if they do.
LikeLike
“NoVA, I can kind of understand the EMT thing, since you have access to presumably addictive drugs, but why a polygraph?”
I honestly don’t remember the justification. It was just another hoop to jump through. Probably something about wanting only “moral” people or something. it was weird though, i was pinging on truthful answers because i would tense up as the question as asked. so i retook it and passed. but i keep pinging on “did you lie on your application?”
if you haven’t taken one before, it’s yes or no questions, and you review the questions before you take the test. the idea isn’t to surprise you or have a conservation. i don’t see how the machine is at all useful.
LikeLike
Mark
OT to this thread but I’m still learning where to respond…Just wanted to say thanks for your response on “the” thread. I went back and you’ve made many excellent points.
In addition I got to read Scott’s thoughts and they too have made a large impression on me.
As I’ve stated frequently I come here to learn..and I did exactly that from you and Scott so thanks to both of you!
LikeLike
One takeaway is that perhaps welfare receipt is not a significant cause of the permanent underclass / cycle of poverty.
LikeLike
Thanks for all the comments here.
Based on anecdotal evidence, of which I am aware, from the Head Start Association, the “cycle of poverty” is broken for Head Start kids – there is not a second generation of them.
Based on anecdotal evidence, of which I am aware, from UT Health Sci in Houston, the “cycle of poverty” relates to “depressed mothers”, the favored euphemism for single stupid teenaged mothers. In Austin, SSTAMs are mainly of the poor white and poor black persuasions, as the support structure of extended family tends to be alive even in poor chicano neighborhoods. Support structure for middle class and up single mothers is also better than for poor ones, on the whole.
I think it used to be related to AFDC, as well, but I do not know that.
LikeLike
Jnc, great example of something the private sector gets wrong; but why repeat the mistake with gov’t?
LikeLike
bsimon,
Private sector drug testing is not unconstitutional. You have the choice to participate (apply for and/or take the job) or not. OTOH, two district courts have now ruled that mandatory drug testing of TANF (public benefit) recipients is a violation of the 4th A proscription on unreasonable search and seizure.
As an aside, specific to FL, I have an issue with the state government funneling money to the governor’s “wife’s” company for drug testing of welfare recipients.
LikeLike
Right. I wasn’t speaking to constitutionality, just to it being an invasion of privacy. It may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right.
LikeLike
Sure, legal does not necessarily mean right. But in our society, the only way to prevent the wrong thing from being done is to make it illegal, and that doesn’t always work either.
I don’t have an answer, but splitting the baby isn’t the worst thing in this instance.
LikeLike
BTW, I don’t think drug testing for welfare recipients is a burden for them (far from it), but I do think it’s a poor investment of tax payer’s money. And I can only imagine that winning a no-bid contract for drug testing from the government figures in to the push for such legislation.
LikeLike
Kev,
In FL, the recipient had to pay for the drug test up front, then was reimbursed if the test came back negative. So there is some burden — if you are on public assistance, coming up with $30 for a drug test might be a problem. In the few months the law was in effect, 32 people tested positive (mostly for marijuana) and ~7,000 tested negative. I think a significant number also opted out of testing.
LikeLike
So, some burden. I still don’t think it’s unreasonable (personally, obvious courts find different), but someone has to pay for all those reimbursements, and it’s going to be the tax payer.
LikeLike
Mike
Thanks for the excellent information on Florida. As a fellow Floridian I can back your statements.
I’ve also learned to scroll and entire thread before posting. lol
I repeated the information you had already shared, but you did so in a more concise and cogent fashion than me so I’m glad you were here to voice my concerns.
LikeLike
jnc,
I will however take up the argument that drug testing is somehow an unconstitutional burden on welfare recipients rights to tax payer dollars
Sure, I’m game. So what grounds are we debating? I think the Supreme Court case law is pretty clear that urinalysis is a search, so we’re debating whether suspicionless (prospective) searches of welfare recipients is reasonable? In Chandler, SCOTUS held that there must be a “special need” to overrule the requirement for individual suspicion to drug test someone (political candidates, in this case). Are you arguing that there is a “special need” to drug test welfare recipients? If so, what is that need?
LikeLike
*like*
LikeLike
Much of the discussion is focused on illegal drugs. But does your employer have a right to know what else is in your urine? If you’re on antidepressants, or heart medication, should your employer know? Should they know how much you drink coffee? Booze? Whether you take vitamins?
LikeLike
Judging on the amount of coffee in my pee, especially if I haven’t had breakfast, I should get a raise.
BB
LikeLike
Not nice, FB, not nice. My nose hurts now from the wine.
🙂
LikeLike