Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Late Welfare Wednesday post: drug testing doesn't save money
I know this will just SHOCK everyone here.
Two things:
1) Note that the ~$45,000 the story says this cost the state of Florida doesn't include any additional administrative costs.
2) The continued support of this law in the face of data showing its futility is infuriating. So much for fiscal conservatism.
No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests
MIAMI ? Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.
?Many states are considering following Florida?s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn?t,? said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. ?Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn?t save money, as was proposed.?
This week, Georgia instituted a nearly identical law, with supporters saying it would foster greater personal responsibility and save money. As in Florida, the law is expected to draw a legal challenge. The Southern Center for Human Rights, based in Atlanta, said it expected to file a lawsuit once the law takes effect in the next several months. A number of other states are considering similar bills.
The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an ?unreasonable search? by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law ?appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.?
From July through October in Florida ? the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven?s order ? 2.6 percent of the state?s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.
Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.
?We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,? the document said.
But supporters of the law said four months of numbers did little to discredit an effort they said was based on common sense. Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said.
?We had to stop allowing tax dollars for anybody to buy drugs with,? said State Representative Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year. Taxpayer savings also come in deterring those drug users who would otherwise apply for cash assistance but now think twice because of the law, some argued.
Chris Cinquemani, the vice president of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based public policy group that advocates drug testing and recently made a presentation in Georgia, said more than saving money was at stake.
?The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,? he said, ?that our money wasn?t going to addicts, that taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.?
Florida?s governor, Rick Scott, who supported the measure last year, agreed.
?Governor Scott maintains his position that TANF dollars must be spent on TANF?s purposes ? protecting children and getting people back to work,? said Jackie Schutz, the governor?s deputy press secretary.
Last month, Mr. Scott signed into law another drug testing measure, this one permitting state agencies to randomly test up to 10 percent of their employees. The tests can be conducted every 90 days and agencies can fire or discipline employees if they test positive for drugs.
The law, which the civil liberties group said it believes is unconstitutional, takes effect in July. The courts have largely upheld drug testing for workers with public safety jobs.
Re: Late Welfare Wednesday post: drug testing doesn't save money
I cannot properly articulate how stupid I find this statement to be.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home DPresuming these results are accurate on their face, this seems to be the same type of "common sense" used by those who choose not to vaccinate their children.
Really, to the extent this continues, I blame Florida voters for not pressuring their representatives in the face of evidence that they are needlessly costing taxpayers money for what apparently amounts to a feel-good measure. What's particularly aggravating is that the "deterrent" argument is likely something that can never really be measured and it therefore provides the perfect platform for those who want to continue the testing.
But it's easy to ignore facts when it feels so good to finally get a dig in at the people you hate. Let's face it, most of us would part with a chunk of change if we got to stick it to a group of people we really disliked. That's all this is. I don't think the fact that everyone's looking the other way at the lack of monetary savings is really that surprising.
Yeah, it's idiotic.
And it also ignores what we've been discussing here for months - if you ARE that concerned, test everyone who gets taxpayer money. Test the people we discussed the other day who get more back from the IRS than they paid. Test those who received federal student loans, particularly people like me who will benefit from SL forgiveness. Hell I'm a federal employee so I should be tested anyway probably. Test those who receive SSI. Etc etc.
But we don't do that. So this isn't really about taxpayer money not going to drugs at all but rather about perpetuating a stereotype about those who apply for TANF.
It may not be able to be measured definitively, but the study found that applications didn't drop once the policy was implemented. If huge swaths of people were being deterred from applying for TANF because they knew they'd test positive, then applications should have dropped off steeply.
That's certainly more logical that the "common sense" these idiots are clinging to.
I want all elderly who receive SS or utilize Medicare to be tested for pharmaceuticals. We could save the nation's economy in one, giant, glorious sweep.
Also, I want everyone at the bailed-out banks to be tested, given that they are all on welfare.
And you KNOW some of those clowns will test positive for coke!
The argument could be made that they didn't drop because a rash of new, drug-free people applied in light of the continued weak economy while a rash of drugged-up people were deterred. It's not necessarily a logical argument, but that's the point - it speaks to the fudge factor that can be utilized to aver "deterrence!"
Bingo.
I can see that.
You know, I can't think of a group I hate to the tune of $45k. Hell, 75% of the reason I want CA to repeal the death penalty is because it's too damned expensive and we're flatass broke.
No, it's not surprising at all.
Every passing day, I become more convinced we do too muchshit in this country based on feelings and things that sound nice in theory. Maybe it's being married to an academic, but I've become a huge fan of data - both the object and the character on Star Trek TNG.
Also, this really should be the nail in the coffin on the idea of the GOP as the party of fiscal responsibility or smaller government. But somehow, they will convince people that this policy is designed to save money. VOMIT.
I'm pro death penalty, but even I balk at the numbers involved.
I think that approximately 98% of my politics can be summed up by the phrase "I am cheap." The other 2% is fogey-hatred, which really is a subset of being cheap but warrants its own category because I'm just so intensely irate about their disregard for their own children.
Star Trek marry me. I'll let you sit in the Captain's chair.
One giant, glorius sweep indeed. With a nice little bonus at the end (I'm sure many bankers would test positive).
Yeah, I'm not surprised/shocked/outraged by people's refusal to focus on the facts. It sucks, but it's nothing new.
Oh yes, the "but think of the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren" argument. If your original one doesn't work, better have a fallback!
I love you. That is all.
So those who tested positive for marijuana because someone passed a joint to them can still collect welfare? Because, after all, they were exhibiting thrifty behavior!
Westboro Church. Bam.