Senior government and politics and information systems major
There’s no question that, after the Nov. 4 elections, we’re going to be seeing many changes throughout the country. With Republicans winning a majority in the U.S. Senate and 24 gubernatorial races, a conservative-leaning economic philosophy will likely impact politics at both the national and state levels.
As a fiscal conservative myself, I’m not the biggest proponent of government welfare programs. A common stereotype about the political right is that we cringe at any mention of the word “entitlement.”
It’s true: Excessive spending is something on which we should be keeping a close eye. For instance, according to the Office of Management and Budget, about $1.16 trillion will be spent in discretionary spending, or nonmandatory expenses, a large 55 percent of which accounts for military spending. Meanwhile, $2.56 trillion will be spent on nondiscretionary spending, 50 percent of which accounts for Social Security, unemployment and labor benefits.
But just because I favor fiscal restraint doesn’t mean I support every potential effort to curb access to welfare. After his gubernatorial win earlier this month, Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisc.) suggested recipients of food stamps and unemployment benefits undergo drug testing, according to The Washington Post.
From a moral perspective, testing welfare recipients looks like a good decision. After all, who wants to give government benefits to a meth addict?
But the narcotics-testing debate involves more than morals. From a practical standpoint, it is an excessive waste of money.
Case in point: Missouri. Last year, the Show-Me State spent eight months conducting 636 drug tests, and 20 were found to test positive. The total price? Almost $500,000. That’s spending half a million dollars to find that about 3 percent of those tested were actually using drugs.
These types of policies also run into legal troubles. Last December, a federal judge struck down a Florida law requiring drug testing for welfare recipients on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, these are “unreasonable search and seizures.” Since the government has no legitimate reason to believe every individual screening for welfare benefits is abusing drugs, it isn’t reasonable to “search” all of these applicants.
Even if a welfare recipient were using drugs, it isn’t the government’s job to be a moral actor in this case, especially if this welfare recipient might have young dependents who don’t use drugs.
Being a conservative isn’t synonymous with being a Republican, and I think this is particularly true when it comes to drug testing. Although the GOP isn’t a big proponent of welfare spending, this doesn’t mean it should abandon its fiscally conservative values when it comes to addressing how to use this type of spending.
With Gov.-elect Larry Hogan about to enter the Governor’s Mansion in January, let’s hope his message of economic constraint stretches to drug-testing in this state. Hogan’s views on this issue haven’t become public, but if they do, I hope they’re on the right side of the aisle.
If more conservative or libertarian-leaning politicians oppose laws requiring drug tests of welfare recipients, they can send a consistent message to voters across this country: We oppose excessive spending and impractical policies, regardless of the issue addressed.
Caroline Carlson is a senior government and politics and information systems major. She can be reached at ccarlsondbk@gmail.com.
