The Indiana House of Representatives on Monday passed a bill that would drug test some welfare recipients. From my limited research, it seems my opposition to such a bill is firmly in the minority. It's not that I am for paying for poor people's drugs. I certainly am not. In fact, when asked by drug abusers if I can help them out, I usually decline. Not many people want to actively contribute to someone else's perceived drug problems. But certainly drugs aren't the only "non-basic essential" (to use the federal government's phrase) that welfare recipients are purchasing. Should we start restricting welfare payments to those who smoke or purchase tattoos? What about those who use their EBT card to purchase a Polar Pop right before they whip out cash to buy Hoosier Lotto tickets? Should we stop sending payments to those mothers on Facebook who seem to post nothing but pictures of themselves out drinking with friends?
My point is that we are focusing on the wrong issue. When you establish a welfare state, you make private decisions a public matter. In the past, your nosy neighbors may have had a low opinion of your habits and probably gossiped about it to all who would listen. But now they have a stake in making sure your lifestyle conforms to their standards. Not only do they have motive, they also have the tool: Democracy. It is very tempting to vote for the guy who says he is going to make sure your money stops being used to purchase narcotics. As you can see, the welfare state doesn't only put your wallet in danger; It destroys privacy.
If these matters were decided on an individual level, instead of by the state, people could give their money to anyone they chose to and to no one they didn't. If a poor person decided to spend money on cigarettes and Mountain Dew, it would be between him and the gas station clerk. If you give your money to a church or charity to help the indigent, and you feel that institution is making poor decisions with your money, you can stop giving to them. This is not the case when it comes to state sponsored welfare. Instead, we find ourselves constantly trying to use new laws and regulations and never address the core issues.
Setting up drug testing for welfare recipients will not save us much (if any) money. In fact, I would not be surprised if setting up the bureaucracy to handle this program actually cost us more. It will expand the state's ability to pry into the private lives of its citizens and use tax money to bribe people to live, or at least appear to live, their lives in a way of which the government approves. It will also funnel taxpayer money to the hospitals which will do the testing (If you think hospitals need to be subsidized, perhaps you haven't paid a medical bill lately). Drug use will still be rampant. And unless the general economy improves, the welfare rolls will continue to swell.
There is a law of economics known as The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. It says people always spend their first dollar on their most urgent want and then spend each additional dollar on progressively less urgent wants. This means that every time you spend money on an addict's food or medicine, you are freeing up money for them to spend on less urgent expenses like drugs. The only way to make sure welfare money isn't used for drugs and other "non-essential" items is to abandon the welfare state. I highly doubt that Hoosiers are ready to do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment