Now or Later?
Screening 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
My comment wouldn't fit, so I've posted it on my blog as part 2. http://longhornpolitic.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteI ran across this article and I found myself agreeing with Doug - mostly - on the issue presented. I believe in helping people but only as far as they help themselves. Why would I want my hard earned tax dollars to go towards taking care of someone under the influence of drugs or someone that could care less about helping themselves? As far as that goes I believe that it is an excellent idea to screen welfare applicants with drug tests. Now, here is what I don't agree with; the numbers. I have been following the welfare drug screening legislation around the country for quite some time now and I can tell you that even though the idea is a really good one, the execution is below poor. One of the main reasons that it doesn't really matter if we test them or not is the cost; it doesn't save us (taxpayers) a single dime to see these people drug tested.
ReplyDeleteLet me be clear, I am not advocating to just keep the system the way it is and let people keep getting their welfare without any sort of repercussions if they are drug users, but maybe we should find a way to create a better system. There is a thing called "lobbying" and I am sure you have all heard of it, so it should come as no surprise that there are drug testing companies that lobby our government and more specifically our legislatures. What better way to satisfy the general publics appetite for welfare reform (with drug screening) and to receive a great big campaign contribution than to pass a law that requires drug screening for welfare applicants; oh and by the way, Company X who provided my campaign contribution will also be the company we use for the drug test. This is exactly the problem that I am talking about and a solution needs to be found if we are to see any positive results.
The last problem with this system is the money; sure, the applicants are required to pay for their tests which saves the state a lot of money and gets rid of the drug addicts right? Wrong, as the laws now stand, an applicant that is found to have no intoxicants is refunded the cost of the drug test by the state which it was administered, coming directly out of our pockets. So with such a broken system it is no wonder that the ACLU is getting involved and suing under infringement of our Fourth Amendment rights but I digress. I want to stop here and say that on the whole I do agree with Doug on his post, it was a great piece and we should find a way to fix the system, screen for drug users, and spend less money. Will this ever happen? I don't know but I can tell you for now until we fix the broken system, these forays into experimental legislation is the same as flushing our tax dollars down the toilet.