With unemployment rates at 6.3% In Texas, and more tax’s taken out of the working citizens paycheck I can speak on the behalf of all of us, we are tired of giving out handouts to the un-needed. Unemployment benefits come from an employer-paid program that provides temporary help for qualified workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Of course one can’t predict if they are receiving a lay off and have to receive unemployment benefits to pay the bills. It is a nuisance to the working citizen to hear or witness someone collecting benefits and being a druggie. Texas lawmakers are considering a bill to require drug testing for people who receive these benefits. Is this ethical?
Absolutely
it is. In todays society most companies perform background checks,
pre-employment drug screening, and some require a credit check. If one is
collecting Federal funds from the State, it should be a requirement to take a
drug test and possibly random tests while receiving benefits. Of course it
would cost the State additional funds to extract the tests, but it would narrow
out the inconsiderate citizens that abuse the program. If one can’t pass a drug
test on while receiving benefits, how are they supposed to pass pre-employment
drug screening to obtain a job?
In my opinion we
are giving out too many “handouts” to the people that abuse the system. I’ve
included a picture above to conclude my point on abusing funds. A friend of a
friend found a receipt in the parking lot that was from a grocery store, and
the individual that was on welfare (food stamps) bought porterhouse steaks and
Lobsters and used there “Debt Food Stamps” card to pay for it all. It’s obvious
that they aren't buying the bare essentials and are doing well on our tax
funds. The Taxpayers pay for these programs and too many people are “riding for
free” without any requirements. The
key factor is the requirement that people receiving benefits are actively
seeking employment and that job seeking is verifiable. It is very interesting
to know that Liberals want to limit the ounces in my soda can, or how many
bullets I can buy, but cannot admit to unemployment drug testing would be in
their best interest. Hopefully Texas will pass the “drug testing” requirement
for Government benefits, whether it is for a lay off or welfare. I mean 36% of
your paycheck is due to taxes. If we have to pay them, lets make sure our money
is not being given to the drug addicts.
The idea that many welfare recipients are abusing the system is more of a stereotype than an actual problem. Of course there are people out there that abuse the system, but implementing drug testing as part of the solution isn't going to fix the problem—it’s only going to cost the tax payers more money.
ReplyDeleteDoug’s post on “No more Free rides” suggests that drug tests used as part of the screening process for unemployment and welfare programs will save the state/ tax payers lots of money by weeding out all the “druggies” that use these programs. The problem with this is that unemployment benefits are not paid by taxpayers; it’s paid by the employers (i.e. the company that laid that person off) through taxes that the employer pays to the government. So, having someone do a drug test to get unemployment benefits that they have already earned, and which taxpayers didn't provide, is only costing taxpayers money, because now they have to pay for all the drug tests. Doug also mentions, “most companies perform background checks, pre-employment drug screening…” this is exactly what we should do, which is to leave the drug testing up to the companies hiring the individuals that were laid off, and not the State government.
That leaves welfare recipients. Would drug testing people who receive aid in Texas result in lowering the cost of welfare programs? The short answer is no. This idea that individuals on welfare are poor, good for nothing, druggie, lazy, government fund sucking people is far from the truth. It’s a stereotype. And although there can be some truth to stereotypes, the percentage of people fitting this description is quite low. There’s an article in the Austin Chronicle that talks about this bill and some of the information is very interesting. The number of people on TANF in Texas is around 114,000 people, which is about 0.4% of Texas’ population, and of that, 85% of them are children. So, now looking at the numbers and the fact that unemployment benefits are paid by the employer, are there any legitimate reasons to start a drug screening process?
While it is sad that there are people out there that abuse the system, and how I would love nothing more than for them to receive justice, drug testing hundreds of thousands of people, which would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, is not the answer. The money saved by the very small number of people that might test “positive” on a drug test is in no way going to counteract the costs of implementing a drug screening program. Though, it would be good to catch the people that are abusing the system, it’s not worth the price tag; not to mention that it would only weed out the abusers that used drugs.
ReplyDeleteScreening for drugs while collecting Unemployment benefits is by far the most reasonable solution to weed out those not putting effort in seeking employment, and collecting a free paycheck. It is known that over 80% of employers require a pre-employment drug screening with the addition to random screening through out the employees duration with the company. Forrest is led to believe that Unemployment and Welfare Drug Abusers is “more of a stereotype than an actual problem”.
Senator Tommy Williams addressed the Economic Development Committee on March 13th 2013 to require drug testing for those that are receiving Unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission. According to TWC stats on pre-employment drug screening fails, the new bill (SB21) would estimate a savings of 13 Million over a five-year period. Provided by TWC, this analysis estimates administrative costs of $501,942 in fiscal year 2014 and $168,503 in fiscal years 2015-2018 which includes an additional 3.4 Full-Time-Equivalent positions each fiscal year to implement the provisions of the bill. Such laws have passed in Arizona, Indiana, Missouri and other states. In Florida, people who receive welfare benefits must pay for their own drug tests. Currently about 20 states prohibit unemployment payments for people who have lost a job because of drug use. More than a dozen states do not allow welfare benefits for someone convicted of a drug felony.
Now, as you might ask what does this have to do with Tax payers, or those who do not receive benefits. Well as Forrest mentioned that Unemployment Benefits “ are not paid by taxpayers; it’s paid by the employers”. Thus, is partly true. At the moment, employers pay a state tax for each employee. The money pays for state-issued unemployment checks – the first 26 weeks of them, anyway. After the 26 weeks is exhausted Obama implemented a federal extension to those collecting Unemployment. Currently, companies pay their federal unemployment tax on the first $7,000 of each employee’s salary. That rate has been the same since 1983. Once the benefits are exhausted from a company, money is then borrowed from Uncle Sam. Not only does the federal extension put a burden on the system, high unemployment rates work in the same way. Borrowing money is not interest free, and states will require a raised tax to implement the costs. Who do you think will pay for these costs? Just because unemployment rates go up doesn’t mean they will automatically tax the employer to budget costs.
Those who receive paychecks and buy groceries are all subject to pay taxes. It all comes down to my original point, If you can't pass a drug test, then you typically can't get employed, and I would argue you're not actively looking for employment. Therefore defeating the purpose of collecting benefits and would actively determine who is seeking employment.
As of Today- April 9th 2013, Arkansas Senate agrees to Drug Test those who are receiving Unemployment benefits. I think we will see a pattern in the near future, it is also one of Governor Rick Perry’s matter of contention to address.
Reference:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/fiscalnotes/html/SB00021I.htm