Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

How is it fiscally conservative

to voluntarily spend more money than you already do on a program to add an extra step that won't actually change anything?

Answer Question

Asked by NotPanicking at 11:10 PM on Jun. 8, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,174 Credits)
Answers (9)
  • And line a politican's pcoket in the's not.

    Answer by Sisteract at 11:12 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • If this is in reference to the drug testing for welfare recipients in FL, I agree with you IF it wouldn't change anything. While there would be people that slip through, I think the good would far outweigh the oversight of a few users slipping through and getting welfare.

    If it's in reference to something else, it doesn't make any sense and is not fiscally conservative to add a step and cost that does nothing, or demonstrably will make it worse. But an imperfect system where some manage to still take advantage is still better than no system. So, basically, same as above.

    Answer by KateDinVA at 11:16 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • While there would be people that slip through, I think the good would far outweigh the oversight of a few users slipping through and getting welfare.

    Well, that's evidence you didn't read the actual law. Everyone still gets their benefits. Nobody is turned down. The only difference is, if you fail the test, you have to appoint a trustee to be in charge of handling the money for you. And aside from that, more people will pass than fail, and they pay for all the passed tests. Is it worth it to spend the money to test 990 people to catch the 10 that fail, when you're still going to give ALL of them the money anyway?

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 11:20 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • You're right, I didn't read the law and didn't know they still get the money. That does water down the benefits, I'll grant you that.

    Answer by KateDinVA at 11:22 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • I think the only way it would make sense is if it were to protect whatever entity creating the program from litigation.

    If this is about the FL drug testing for welfare, I think it's cost prohibitive and no state is doing well enough to blow money on testing, especially given the fact that the money is given anyhow.  I wonder what happens when the recipient fails and then designates someone to receive their money, and the designate runs off with the cash.  What happens then?  Does the designated recipient have to take a test as well to make sure that they aren't going to run off and buy drugs?  Too many questions left unanswered.


    Answer by QuinnMae at 11:30 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • I don't see where it makes any sense.

    Answer by hot-mama86 at 12:36 AM on Jun. 9, 2011

  • They just need to change the law. It's obviously a typical legislative law. Makes no sense. First they should take the $10 out of their first check (and any subsequent tests). Second, appointing someone to take care of their money for them is ludicrous.There is your waste. I say if they test positive they should have their awarded amount cut in half. If they have less money to spend they will be more likely to buy food and not drugs. If they fail 3 in a row they should be denied welfare money.

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 9:30 AM on Jun. 9, 2011

  • Is there no drug treatment referral?


    I don't have any answers. I guess the only good case would be if, like in the case of my cousins, they are on drugs and their mother becomes the trustee and provides the funds for her grandkids, so the kids actually get food etc instead of it being used for drugs. Maybe.

    But it does sound very expensive. I don't see any good solution that doesn't hit the kids and therefore us in the future, when they're in foster care or have expensive emotional/legal issues.

    Answer by Tracys2 at 9:42 AM on Jun. 9, 2011

  • I don't see the point in testing them if they are going to give the money anyway. And lets face it, you're friends/family are normally like you are so they would only be giving another druggie the money to handle. If they appointed someone from the government, they would end up spending even more money. I say just kick them off and get it over with. If your job can fire you for drug use, then why are we paying people to sit on their lazy tooshes? Not that all welfare recipients are lazy, but I've seen quite a few of them.

    Answer by attap5 at 12:33 PM on Jun. 9, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.