Determined to keep Michigan on the frontlines of the nation’s divisive, unnecessary culture wars, Republicans in the state government have found another way to single out a group unpopular with their base. Fresh off their success in banning domestic partnership benefits for public employees – a move seen as a victory against the “gay agenda” – they’re now focusing on welfare recipients.
House Bill 5223, introduced last month by Rep. Jeff Farrington, R-Utica, would require applicants for cash assistance to pass a drug test. Those who failed or refused the tests would be deemed automatically ineligible. Those who passed could receive welfare payments if they met all of the other requirements, but the cost of the tests would be deducted from any benefits received.
A similar plan is under consideration by the Michigan Department of Human Services. In that case, actual tests would be administered only to those who failed a “screening” process of some kind.
The ostensible reason for either policy is that we would save money. The thinking goes like this: Because everybody knows welfare recipients are heavy drug users, widespread screening would be a good way to reduce the number of people on assistance. Such a plan also would, in theory, provide a powerful incentive for those on the dole to get clean and stay that way, enhancing their employment prospects.
Sounds reasonable, right?
Here is the thing, though: There is no evidence to back up the underlying assumptions and therefore no reason to believe that the program would save much money. In fact, based on the recent experience of a drug-testing-for-welfare plan in Florida, there is plenty of reason to believe the whole thing would be a boondoggle.
The Florida plan went into effect on July 1, 2011 and was in operation until it was halted by the courts last October (the case is complicated and the state is expected to appeal). It’s impossible to know how well the program would have worked over the long run if it had not been put on hold, but the Tampa Tribune was able to examine some of the early results.
According to a story published in August, Florida officials told theTribune that “about 2 percent of applicants (were) failing the test; another 2 percent (were) not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.” Because the Florida law required the state to reimburse people who passed the tests, the program was expected to save the state, at best, a bit under $100,000 per year, according to the Tribune’s number crunching.
Michigan’s savings could presumably be more because our state would not reimburse those found to be drug free. But the budget impact would likely be insignificant. The cost of the tests – $25 to $150 per person, depending on the type – would represent a real burden, however, for those struggling to get by on public assistance.
People might disagree about whether imposing that cost is fair. But let’s back up a bit. Remember that, in Florida, only 2 percent failed the drug tests and only 2 percent refused to take them. Thus, among the Florida applicants, no more than 4 percent were users of illegal drugs. That compares to a rate of 8.7 percent of the whole U.S. population over the age of 12, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In Florida, at least, welfare applicants were found to be less likely to use illicit drugs than the overall public.
Those Florida numbers reinforce the findings of academic researchers such as University of Chicago’s Harold Pollack, who has found illegal drug use among welfare recipients nationwide to be fairly rare and confined mainly to “casual” marijuana use.
So if the goal is to find drug users and punish them, Michigan would do a lot better by randomly testing everybody in the state above middle school age. (Doing that would be unconstitutional as heck, but you get my point).
If drug use among welfare recipients is not out of control (or at least, less out of control than in the country as a whole), then why do it? Michigan’s Rep. Farrington has described it as a matter of fairness. On his campaign website and in media interviews, Farrington has said that if private employers require drug tests for job applicants, then the state ought to do the same with people who go to it for money.
I understand that argument, I really do. But welfare recipients are not the only ones who benefit from state spending. If poor people are being tested for drugs, then why exclude wealthier people who make money doing business with the state? Why not test the top executives of companies that get state tax credits? What about members of the state Legislature who draw nice salaries from the state? Clearly we don’t want our tax dollars subsidizing illegal drug use by those people, either. Am I right?
I don’t want to assume anything about Rep. Farrington’s personal motives. Based on what I have read about him, he seems like a decent guy. But, as state legislators consider HB 5223, I would encourage them to examine why they really are bringing up this idea.
If the purpose of HB 5223 is to create better public policy, save money and attack the state’s drug problem, then it is a waste of time and should die a dignified death in committee. If the bill was drafted to help Republicans pander for votes by playing up the worst false stereotypes about poor people, then it is cynical, disgusting and beneath the dignity of those who call themselves public servants.
Either way, I hope HB 5223 never reaches the desk of Gov. Rick Snyder. If it does go to the governor, he should veto it.
