If people are on TANF and doing drugs, encouraging them to get off drugs is not really bad policy. It's also helpful to get support from people that view much of welfare spending as wasteful to let them know that they are doing things to limit abuse. It's poisonous politically to tell people that are working that they can be forced to take drug tests in order to make money and pay taxes to the government, but the recipients of that tax money can't be forced to take drug tests. It used to not be cost effective (and I assume it still isn't unless the drug testing has gotten cheaper), but unfortunately the argument against it aht got public traction was that it was demeaning to the people receiving welfare, as if it drug testing was accusing them of being on drugs. THat obviously generated a lot of animosity from taxpayers, many of whom are drug tested, so it's going to be hard to eliminate drug testing (regardless of the fact that it's basically toothless as it is implemented) without getting politicians that support TANF spending kicked out of office.
ETA: All that to say, her comments are editorial content that don't belong in a straight news story. I'm not sure if this is being marketed as a news story though. Regardless, if there is a news organization that respects the difference between editorial content and news content, I'm not aware of it.
If you want to drug test people that receive government aid to ensure that aid is not being wasted, then farmers, research universities, businesses, and gobs of other categories that receive direct subsidies from the government should also be tested.
Then there are all those who benefit from indirect government subsidies like child tax credit, employer health insurance that isnt taxed, home mortgage deductions, etc where the individuals taxes are cut instead of sending them money. Test them too since its government aid and cant be wasted.
This money the government gives businesses and individuals can be directly tied to illegal drug use. Like money is given to a company from the government, the company pays a salary, and the worker then uses their paycheck. That company neednt actually produce anything of tangible value to justify the contract money. We can all point to examples where companies have literally just been given money by the government, right? Then there is the reality that some people take their tax refund check(that is a refund due to home mortgage and child tax credits for example) and blow it all on...blow, and hookers.
In both situations, the government is giving people money and its used on illegal drugs. Test em!
This has all been played out though. Florida's drug testing law a decade ago was deemed improper because the state couldnt show a substantial need for drug testing, making it an unreasonable search. The reality that welfare recipients are no more likely to be drug addicts than the average citizen means there is no substantial need to 'search'. <---this is my non-lawyer interpretation of what happened as its been a moment since I read about it.
Testing was done in multiple states to support this reality.
As it currently stands, this is basically just a divisive measure that some want to take to hassle welfare recipients and others want to take because they genuinely want to see the money spent 'responsibly'. That second group is coming at it from a pragmatic perspective and I get the motivation. They are misguided, but I understand the intent. They are focusing on something social that has been readily deamonized so it is easy to focus on, meanwhile the same effective waste is happening across America by way of government subsidies to businesses and nothing is said by those same people. They either dont recognize it as being effectively the same or it isnt even on their radar.
Next up on things to attack welfare recipients over, lets go after SNAP users and junk food! Honestly, it drives me nuts too- I dont know why so much unhealthy food is included, but there is only so much reasonable oversight government can do when its funding is continually slashed. OSHA is shorthanded because of being short on budget to function fully. Food safety and food prep inspections are backed up because of being short on budget to function fully. etc etc etc. We dont have the overall manpower to competently track and limit on a more granular level what shouldnt qualify for SNAP benefits. And similarly, we dont have the overall manpower to test and track drug use for welfare recipients. This is especially true when you look at the cost/benefit of other states that did this in the past(Utah, Michigan, and...Tennessee?...I think).
