The Welfare Program: Time to Clean House by Brad Flynn

The need for state and federal governments to protect citizens in financial straits is important. A protection has long stood the test of time in America, and has sustained many Americans when no other avenues receiving financial aid are available. In a broad sense, this protection is covered by welfare in its many forms. The time has come however, to review the welfare policies in place from each state, all the way up to Capitol Hill. It is important, in the ever changing economic climate, especially after the market collapse of 2008, that our nation reviews certain policies and its spending—welfare being one of them.National policies, such as welfare, need to be scrutinized for financially stability and sustainability to those who are in desperate need are able to get the help they require. The key to realizing this effort in modifying the welfare program is ensuring its operating at peak performance. This idea should be underscored in the previous statement with elaboration—that the welfare program is being dispensable to those in desperate need can get the help, so long as those people meet certain requirements.For far too long, the welfare program has run silently along, contributing too many families in need, and many families who have abused its purpose. Welfare should be a short duration assistance program focusing on getting people back to a normal sense living; or a better quality of life when personal finances are non-existent but eventually turn for the better through self-initiation. In any case, it is an important function of American government and to its citizens for however long it takes to get a family going again. The bigger picture here is that the welfare program needs to be re-examined. Policy makers need to address the validity of some of these payments being made to recipients. In recent years, states have addressed the issue by first identifying with recipients—are they even qualified to have federal or state assistance? The first method to this approach is to have those on welfare drug tested. Michigan was a leading state in this area of pondering how to screen the good recipients from the bad. Florida then came on board as the first state to initiate new policy closely linked to Michigan’s approach at controlling welfare spending through drug testing its recipients.Of course, both states have met much resistance from their judicial circuits in implementing the need to drug test welfare recipients—claiming that such a legislative provision would violate a person’s fourth amendment constitutional protection, in addition to possibly even violating a state’s constitutional search and seizure protection as well. In light of Florida and Michigan efforts to find new ways at controlling state spending in the area of welfare by demanding drug testing, “more than two-dozen states have also proposed drug-testing recipients of welfare or other government assistance” (Schneider & Kennedy, 2011, par. 7). Indeed this would be a bold new way at controlling rapidly inflating governmental costs and something that needs serious consideration. At one point, it was considered that Floridian welfare claims would decline by some 33% after the law went into effect. Of course, a lawsuit filed against the state of Florida pertaining to these methods of screening has erased that hope.The United States government reports a national debt in fiscal year 2012 in welfare programs alone to be at $668.8 billion; more than 10% of the nations spending. (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/us_welfare_spending_40.html) Of the potential $668.8 billion spent in welfare, how many legitimate payments to those not using illegal drugs can be claimed? It is not known because no one at the federal or state level conducts such measures to weed out illegal recipients. If drug testing was a mandated action to anyone seeking welfare payments, how much could the states and federal government actually save? Projections can be made; Florida for instance reported through “Governor Rick Scott who stated the measure would save [the state] $77 million” (Schneider & Kennedy, 2011, par. 8). The savings could be immense, but those in the judicial branches of government are restricting a true sense of how the welfare program could be more efficiently run.Recently, Tennessee has thrown its hat into this debate of whether or not to proceed with legislatively mandating the drug testing of welfare recipients. The debate raised questions about including anyone receiving any kind of governmental assistance; from workers compensation, to corporate incentives, to federal employees, etc. So what!—test, test, test! The government should do everything in its power to control spending and ensuring that public money is being spent the right way. Public funds should be distributed to the most qualified of individuals, and definitely not to those who conduct themselves in illegal activities such as partaking in drug use at the taxpayers’ expense.If the ACLU or other civil rights whistleblowers see that drug testing of welfare recipients is somehow unconstitutional, then maybe the states can come to a compromise that welfare ought to be a privileged benefit no differently than one getting a driver’s license. If someone wants to collect welfare provisions then apply. In applying for welfare, no differently than getting a driver’s license, the states should mandate implied consent that the recipient will give a blood test, or any test, to determine illegal drug use. However, under the same application of implied consent, the recipient can have the option to refuse. In that case, the state should withhold a percentage of welfare, or suspend welfare benefits over a period of six months to a year—just like a driver’s license revocation for not submitting to a test under implied consent. This way, recipients are not being mandated to give a drug test, but they will be penalized for refusing such tests, thereby the state can manage welfare expenses without being overly intrusive as Michigan and Florida courts have declared.SourcesKennedy, M. S. (2011, 10 24). Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Blocked. Retrieved 01 26, 2012, from The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/rick-scott-drug-testing-welfare-florida_n_1029332.htmlWelfare Cost Statistics: (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/us_welfare_spending_40.html)