Saturday, July 21, 2007

Urine the money

Got this from a friend who vicariously blogs through me; though he should start his own blog, like I've been telling him, because I'm sure he'd have fun and would put out some good conservative posting. Not sure who to credit this bit with.

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit.

In order to get that paycheck I am required to pass a random drug test,which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass the urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? Because I have to pass one to earn it for them.

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt using my taxes to get high.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?


little-cicero said...

A novel idea, but one must keep in mind that urine tests are not free, especially when the government is involved (not known for their bargain-shopping). Will the prevention of welfare waste pay for the direct cost of laboratory procedures?

Palm boy said...

I can hear the ACLU right now...

No money for urine!

Ya, that was awful.

Ben Worley said...

True enough LC, but sometimes in investment based on principle is worth it. The best example I can think of is New York City, whose police started enforcing all the "little" laws as part of a broken windom policy. What they found was that they were catching big criminals doing little things while fostering a greater respect for the law in general. In this case, I think it might be worth the cost of drug tests to send the message that welfare is a special, limited benefit for those who are temporarily down on their luck, not something that they are owed by virtue of their heartbeat.

Uncle Ben