Skip to comments.(Missouri) House passes drug testing for welfare recipients
Posted on 02/02/2011 4:48:20 PM PST by Angelus
JEFFERSON CITY The House yesterday approved a measure that would impose drug-testing on welfare recipients. The measure passed by a vote of 116-27 and now heads to the Senate.
Sponsored by Rep. Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston, the measure would apply to all new applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, and those who are in TANF work-eligibility programs. If a state welfare worker determined there was reasonable suspicion the recipient was using drugs, the applicant would have to submit to a test or have their family benefits cut.
Opponents of the bill used the projected $2 million cost to question whether the bill is cost-effective. Others noted the absence of a requirement that the state provide drug treatment for people who fail the test. Although the bill requires anyone testing positive be referred to a treatment program, it does not require the state to provide the treatment.
This bill has nothing to do with treatment, Brandom said. This is not a bill that is promoting treatment for addicts of any kind.
That is a key failure of the bill, opponents said. They wont receive treatment for their sickness, but they will be penalized, said Rep. Leonard Hughes, D-Kansas City.
In reply, Brandom said the bill is intended to protect children. While the TANF benefit would be cut by the amount designated for the applicant, the rest of the money would be given to a third-party administrator to spend on behalf of children in the home.
You would never convince me that a parent who is addicted is using their cash on their children rather than their addiction, Brandom said. Those tax dollars are for people who are going back to the work force, not for illegal recreation.
(Excerpt) Read more at columbiatribune.com ...
No drug testing for welfare recipients.
No ID requirement at the polling place.
No birth certificte for the President of the United States.
“If a state welfare worker determined there was reasonable suspicion the recipient was using drugs...”
Yea. This will work (sarc)! How many state welfare workers do you know that would submit anybody to a drug test? The tests should be mandatory.
Jay Nixon will veto it.
A typical democrat response. Here, I'll help you out:
It will do nothing to cure cancer.
It will not promote world peace.
It will not affect the outcome of the Super Bowl.
A more intelligent approach might be to look at the bill and see what it will do.
Most companies require their employees to be drug tested before they are allowed to earn money which is then taxed to provide welfare...The recipients of this “largess” should be required to pass the same tests before they are given the fruits of other people’s labor.
I am subject to random drug tests to keep my job, I see NO reason why someone benefiting from my willingness to take a drug test to not have to take one themselves.
They don’t wanna pee in a cup? Then don’t take the money.
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.
This should cut the welfare rolls by around 80%.
“In reply, Brandom said the bill is intended to protect children. While the TANF benefit would be cut by the amount designated for the applicant, the rest of the money would be given to a third-party administrator to spend on behalf of children in the home.”
So the children will still live with an addict?
I would like to take this one step further. If a recipient is found to test positive, rather than cutting off the benefits for the kids, that money should be put in a fund and administered by a 3rd party to see that the kids get the needed benefit, while the parent undergoes drug treatment.
It protects the kids’ welfare, and makes the addict seek help. Possibly, a trusted relative should be given control of the funds to make sure that kids get the benefit. Not sure if this would work, but, on paper, it sounds like a good idea.
116-27 is a pretty Veto-proof margin, there.