In a recent blog
entry entitled “Mandatory Drug Testing to Receive Welfare Benefits”, the author
of “Politics: Not Worth My Vote”, discusses existing welfare programs in the
states and the beneficial and detrimental factors they bring into play. In this post, the author’s main intent is to
examine the relationship between welfare programs and the recipients who insist
on abusing the system. Ultimately, her
goal is to find a way to eliminate the latter while still maintaining the
former, and I believe she has some very excellent thoughts and ideas on how to
formulate this change.
First off, the
author states that welfare programs are designed to assist those who are
experiencing temporary financial struggles and are unable to provide for
themselves and their families. While
these programs are incredibly effective tools in helping those who are going
through tough times, the system is often heavily depleted by recipients who
abuse the benefits by purchasing drugs. As
a result, the author mentions that many states are working toward enforcing a
mandatory drug test in order to regulate who is receiving these benefits.
I agree
completely with the author on this particular subject. Unquestionably, welfare programs are
enormously successful tools that help to foster the financial burdens of those
experiencing a difficult time financially.
However, as the author mentions, this system is frequently being taken advantage
of, and I completely agree that we need a solution. Her suggestion to finding this solution is to
enforce mandatory drug tests in order to collect benefits, and once again, I
have to agree. I believe that if states
were to implement a drug screening before receiving benefits, we could greatly influence
a different outcome. Not only would this
proposal eliminate recipients who are harming the system, but it would also
preserve the welfare program for those who truly need the help.
The author also
brings to light the fact that these drug-using individuals often have children
that desperately need the benefits the welfare programs can provide. Is it right to deny aid to the parents, when
the children will suffer the most? This
is one question the author attempts to answer, and her response is to implement
a plan of action that places these addicts into a rehabilitation center or
substance abuse class. If the individual
remains in these classes, then they are allowed to keep the assistance. While I believe the entire welfare system is
far too damaged and void of morality to be miraculously healed by the
engagement with rehabilitation, I do believe it is a good place to start. With this kind of system, these addicted
adults could receive help, but there’s no way to determine if it will make any difference. Addicts are people whose dispositions are
often set in stone, and while I believe the author has her heart in the right
place, I don’t necessarily believe this will solve the issue, but it is a route
worth traveling.
In addition, the
author mentions that if drug testing were to be put into effect, taxpayers
would be left with the bill. It is certainly
a factor that must be considered, but in actuality, taxpayers are already being
burdened with welfare program debt. The
difference between the two is that the cost of a drug test is far more
inexpensive than the paying for months or years of assistance.
To summarize, my
belief is in accordance with the author’s: welfare programs should be available
in the United States; however, it should only be given to those who desperately
need it and who are receptive to assistance in order to become financially
stable once again. I agree with the author
when she states that it’s impossible for the government to weed out every
welfare recipient who is ill-suited for the program, but the proposal of drug
screening is an excellent way to work toward creating a system that can fully utilize
its resources to affect the lives of those who desperately need it, not those
who misuse it.
No comments:
Post a Comment