Pissed off FEDS!

According to the AP, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has signed a bill requiring welfare recipients to pass a urine drug screen to “ensure that welfare benefits are used for their intended purpose and not to subsidize drug use and criminal activity.”

This presents itself as a very tricky issue. As a libertarian, government sponsored welfare is against my principles. Then I think, ‘well, if it is going to exist, we better make it efficient’.

Then I woke back up to reality. NOTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS EFFICIENT. I imagine in the long run we will probably spend much more money on urinalysis and court costs then we could ever hope to save. Not only that, but if the government determines you ‘need’ this money to survive, it should not be in the hands of the State to determine what substances you can afford to put in your body. What’s next? Food stamps only spent on low-calorie, organic foods? Or how about government assisted utility payments determined by your “carbon footprint” that some central planners would decree an arbitrary number that makes a certain amount of CO2 emissions deem you immoral.

The bottom line is that even though welfare is money stolen from the government, and inefficiently redistributed to those they deem “needy”. In this bill I see a potential three new government departments.

We MUST stop giving up our liberties! We must stop legislating unconstitutional powers!

To this law I say, the only urine a FED will get from me will be directed on his shoes.

PISS OFF, FEDS!

 

7 thoughts on “Pissed off FEDS!

  1. This is a completely reasonable requirement. Welfare is a privilege, not a right, and the taxpayers deserve to have their money go to actually helping people and not supporting addictions. If some people find it a violation of privacy, all the better—perhaps they’ll think twice of applying for benefits.

    • Hey Dirk, Thanks so much for your feedback. All opinions are welcome AND respected here at theHumaneCondition. And I totally understand where you are coming from, but as I mentioned, I don’t even trust the government to give out welfare in the first place, I’m certainly not to naive to expect that they will efficiently drug screen recipients. I also use an old rule of thumb, that interventionist strategies almost always resulting the opposite of what the proposer’s intended. This bill was obviously written as a debt or deficit reduction strategy. So using my American political logic, it will probably increase both the debt and the deficit if instituted federally. Imagine the cost of urinalysis etc…

      And then we come to civil liberties, it was Ben Franklin who once said “Those who are willing to give up liberty for safety, deserve neither”. Empowering the government to enforce it’s morality upon its citizens (in the name of frugality) is one step in the direction of tyranny, and we are too close to that cliff for me to risk any more steps!

      Thanks a lot Dirk I appreciate your feedback. To be honest I originally felt the exact same way as you. I’ve come to realize that we suffer from an unnecessary inclination that government is the answer. I have given up that false illusion, and I now realize that no matter how noble the intent, the power granted will be exploited sooner or later. Until we do away with welfare altogether, I do not want to strip our citizens liberty away one by one until we are totally enslaved.

      You said “Welfare is a privilege, not a right, and the taxpayers deserve to have their money go to actually helping people” and I couldn’t agree more. But what is the most efficient way for the taxpayer to get their money to the people in need? Not taxation and redistribution, but direct assistance through private charities and community benefit programs. Perhaps if we weren’t so strenuously taxed to pay these welfare checks, there would be far more charitable donations, and just plain community awareness. If the government did not tell us “Yes We Can” or “We Already Did” fix all the problems of society, Humans would take far greater responsibility for the welfare of there neighbors and brothers and sister,

      Again, thanks for participating, and please come back!

      Adam

    • ” taxpayers deserve to have their money go to actually helping people and not supporting addictions. ”

      Taxpayers also deserve to not spend billions of dollars on drug testing a quarter of our population, on top of the trillions for welfare. We shouldn’t have welfare and we shouldn’t have a war on drugs -heck, I don’t think we should even have a state-, but we should always seek to minimize the state, the taxpayers’ burden, and the state’s infringement on civil liberties. Drug testing welfare recipients expands the power of the state and reaffirms the morally and practically inept war on drugs, further erodes the civil liberties of millions of Americans, and further burden’s the taxpayer by assuming an incapable government will be capable of handling such a program in a financially beneficial, or even neutral, way.

      This is how the state always expands. One law is made and fails, here the welfare state and it’s ensuing welfare trap. Then, some genius comes around and thinks, “Oh, we can fix law A with law B”. No, that is never the case. The fact is government is the problem 99% of the time, and the answer is never to throw more government at the problem.

  2. Well said. Smaller Gov is better Gov. If the Constitution was actually followed, and the Fed Gov only did what it is supposed to do, we would not have this enourmous debt bomb ticking slowly every day in the nation.

Thoughts? Login, or not, but tell me what you think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s