Want your food stamps? It just may be that you will have to pee in a cup first. That’s a proposal being floated by the Trump Administration. Is this government overreach or just good, old-fashioned common sense at work?
Liberty-minded folks will no doubt find this proposal a massive invasion of personal privacy. However, others might believe that it’s high time we put a few restrictions on those who are getting government subsidies. Thus, a hue and cry is expected from both the libertarians and the progressives. Perhaps it’s one of those policy areas where left meets right.
Take the Cup or Else
The plan, which is currently under review, would only apply to about 5% of those without any sort of disability who are applying for certain types of jobs. Some states have been asking for more control over their food stamp programs for years and have not been given the high sign from the Feds.
According to the Associated Press, “Federal law bars states from imposing their own conditions on food stamp eligibility.” But the Trump administration is reconsidering this strategy. This would clear the way for states like Wisconsin, who sued the USDA for blocking a drug testing program they planned to implement.
It’s a classic case of push me, pull you. Should the federal government mandate what the states are permitted to do with the food stamp program, or should the states have free reign? Considering that the current Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue is the former Governor of Georgia, one might justifiably surmise that he is all in for states’ rights. And he’s on record as saying:
“As a former governor, I know first-hand how important it is for states to be given flexibility to achieve the desired goal of self-sufficiency for people,” he said. “We want to provide the nutrition people need, but we also want to help them transition from government programs, back to work, and into lives of independence.”
This comes on the heels of another food stamp proposal that is not exactly getting rave reviews. In fact, critics of the USDA have had a field day with a plan to issue “Harvest Boxes” to Food Stamp recipients. The purpose would be to lower the cost of the program, fill the boxes with homegrown American products, and promote a more nutritious diet for low-income families. Much has been made of Food Stamp recipients buying, shall we say, not the most nutritious items with their government money and this would, if not solve the problem, go a long way to assuring that people use the government dole more wisely.
Without a doubt, these are innovative ideas, but are they just another example of government overreach as seen here in an article about a Maryland dairy farmer being harangued by the FDA? After all, the government does seem to have its hand in just about everything we do and consume these days.
On the other hand, who can say it’s not a good idea to keep those with Food Stamp privileges on the straight and narrow?
Then again, is it anybody’s business if Food Stamp folks are smoking weed or more? The argument can be made that if you are getting something for free, those doling out the goodies should have a right to a few rules and regulations to accompany the handout. This is clearly not one of those cut and dried issues, and perhaps that’s why it’s just an idea at this point.
Should it become more than just a proposal, then liberty-minded people will have to sit down and give this one a think.
Readers: Feel free to comment below. And remember to check out the web’s best conservative news aggregator Whatfinger.com
95 Comments
louigi
Liberals will be screaming about this. Most of their voting base is on some kind of Government assistance.
Guest
Guest
John Hudson II
I am all for giving the individual states the rights they were supposed to retain as per the Constitution.
Anonymous
5
mlopez
Why not? Starve the SOBs out. They would rather starve than give up their drugs. If they weren’t on drugs most of them wouldn’t need to be on food stamps. Let them spend the money for drugs on food. Why should the tax payer pay to keep them high?
Anonymous
3
Seeker
Oh man, this is going to be good to watch – the media with their howls of protest of civil rights violations, watching the heads explode, the claims of starving children, lower school test scores, plagues/sickness/premature deaths and of course the ‘race card’ being thrown into the argument – all because of the novel idea – you shouldn’t be able to get high, while taking the people’s money (meant for food) to buy illegal drugs.
Simple really – If you don’t want to peeina cup, then don’t eat the food paid for by tax paying responsible citizens.
snakeplisken
Well said , the race card will come out so fast…..This is not about race !! It’s abusing the system and using race is a never ending mantra that needs to be ignored by the authorities of issuing this benefit.
mlopez
Let the race card come out. why is it so many minorities are welfare bums and drug addicts? We have Winfrey Oprea. We had a black president. We have the lowest black unemployment in history Why do we subsidize losers and bums?
Guest
diane
Around Toledo you can go into certain restaurants and use your EBT card. It works like this: you purchase the food raw (stored with the regular restaurant food) with the card and then pay the cook separately to fix it for you…maybe a buck or two. Happens especially at these little market/restaurant places. Slight of hand.
Marine Assassin
RANDOM drug tests folks. RANDOM after the initial one.
Marine Assassin
I keep hearing about hungry black kids.
WHERE are they???
EVERY time I see a pack of them with stinky 295# mom who dropped out of high school and had kids for money, all the kids are 150% overweight.
Htos1av
When WAS the last time you saw a “poor” black in an old car?
snakeplisken
I have actually had co-workers tell me that they have had family members sell their food stamps for a certain percentage on the dollar. A lot of these people do work and are not reporting these earnings because they are doing these activities “underground” such as construction, giving false SSN’s, or just false info on W-2’s . THESE people are gaming the system and I see it all the time at local grocery stores here in TX. This is bs . I know people with kids that get turned down all the time for applying for EBT. The system is pathetic and broken.
Rand Camp
Only a liberal could find logic in drug testing the work force, while exempting the bloodsucking class .
John Warden
Should go back to commodities like in the old days. Get a box with cheese butter crackers eggs, peanut butter and whatever they used to put in them. I had an uncle that was a preacher at his church and the people would give him commodities for tithes because the had no money. He would give it to people that needed food.
Silence Dogood
If I have to pee in a cup to work and put money into the fund that they draw from then they should have to pee in a cup to receive said funds that I had to pee for in order to give.
UnabashedSarcasm
Don’t forget: a large chunk of those taking out are paying in too, they’re just minimum wage and/or part time employees. Ironically, the only people entitled to government benefits are those of us paying them in — and we are entitled to them, regardless of income level, because they were our dollars, taken by force, to begin with.
Silence Dogood
I get that. My daughter did that for a while and if you’re paying into the system while drawing out, you have already had to pre in a cup to get the job to begin with. Most places in WA drug test prior to employment.
mlopez
Really? I think not.
bjbrtn
First point, if you can afford drugs, you can afford to pay for your own food and bills.
Second point, despite areas that legalized pot, employers still drug test to be employed. It doesn’t make sense that drugs can prevent you from working but not from sponging off the government teat.
Deathdefiant
Well, that’s a stigma that’s going to have to disappear with either time or legislative force, depending on which states you’re talking about.
Pot is still in the middle of changing it’s public image from something that resembled a bathtub full of moonshine to something more like a classy bottle on a shelf. When it’s done, the average workplace requirements should reflect the public’s ultimate acceptance of the substance, as they do with alcohol, the consumption of which remains far more consequential than pot.
Top be honest, anything less would be interpreted as the kind of defiance that likely would result in some sort of formal anti-discrimination legislation in some of the more fanatically left-leaning states.
It’s likely that 2020 will be a significant year for addressing that sort of workplace requirement reform. This not just because of the industry’s rapid growth, but also because there is growing acceptance among the 40+ ‘Reefer Madness’ generations that have been the most vocal opposition all this time but are changing their tune as they age and retire and find there’s a growing number of high quality, professional and medically precise concentrate delivery systems hitting the market that are vastly superior to a cabinet full of pills.
mlopez
Drugged employees are a liability and not nearly as productive. Why should I be forced to hire them?
bjbrtn
I think it’s going to be awhile before businesses change on pot use. And you can be sure their insurance (both medical and liability) will have something to say about it. Most businesses automatically drug test anyone involved in an accident or mishap on the clock and the companies liability comes in to play if it involves a customer or non-employee. Whether the pot lingering in the system contributed or not, it will be used as an excuse for insurance to not pay. With that in mind, businesses aren’t going to knowingly hire someone they know uses drugs.
grassy knoll ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ
The ghetto is not going to like this one bit!
snakeplisken
Guilty parties will scream and howl, bit it’s time to enforce this stuff. The race card can only be used by so many for so long. Remember “Chicken Little, the sky is falling, the sky is falling…..”.
evemccoy28
I have to agree with the idea of food only items or the food Boxes and surpluses .
UnabashedSarcasm
I can certainly understand the argument that if you take the gov. dollar, you give up some privacy. After all, if you asked me for $300, it’s entirely my right to set terms for you accepting that money. If that means drug testing, so be it. If you don’t like it, don’t accept my money.
On the other hand, while many folks who have been on welfare their entire lives have never paid in, any of us who have had a job before have — whether currently unemployed or just not making enough to not qualify. Indeed, for those who work but fall under the max income and can get benefits, they’re paying in while getting benefits!
In that case, it’s merely returning money that never should have been taken in the first place.
Overall, if you’re gonna give folks money, just give it to ’em. If a person gets $300 a month that we all have to help pay in in taxes,then why does it matter if they use it to buy certified organic kale or a butt load of Doritos?
As for drug testing — what about smoking? what about drinking? What about making payments on a new SUV when a used car would work? What about paying for cable or satellite TV when that isn’t a necessity of life? All of these things can very well cost more than a recreational drug habit. Hell, if you’re making a car payment, chances are that payment is more than what you’re getting in food stamps.
If you want to limit what they can buy (like with WIC and the harvest box idea), mandate that they not drink or do drugs, or demand they not share those benefits with anyone else, then just tell ’em to F*** off and deal with their own problems — without the government benefits.
grassy knoll ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ
They should turn the welfare system funding into a nationwide food bank system and fill it with food only items. Let them have their dope and drinks but no money, just food.
UnabashedSarcasm
There are already food banks and churches and such that have food pantries based on donations. They also give out soap, toothpaste, toilet paper, etc. Some even have used clothes closets. Ideally, these would get enough support and use that neither a national system nor the current food stamp program would be necessary.
mlopez
Exactly and the government welfare isn’t necessary. It’s a bonus.
Marine Assassin
I like it!
mlopez
That’s how it all began in the 60’s. Government surplus agricultural food stuffs, but of course welfare recipients preferred name brands, chips and cookies and food stamps were a form of currency and so did corporate America.
grassy knoll ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ
Well, then we should eliminate their freedom of choice, eat what you’re offered or go to work.
mlopez
Oh I agree. They used to get butter and peanut butter canned chicken and fish, flour sugar, powered milk, beans that sort of thing, corn syrup, macaroni, you get the idea.
And of course they preferred cookies and name brands and so did the supermarkets as well as Archer Daniels. this is welfare for corporate America more than for welfare recipients. Well corporate america benefits far more.
longtermconservative
That’s a great idea, but with one important exclusion. These pee-in-the-cup tests should only done between the hours of 5:30 and 8pm. This way, the welfare recipient can come by AFTER work, which should also be required. Ditches need dug, trash needs picked up. All sorts of uses for them. Unless, of course, they want to get off the dole and be responsible.
Seeker
I disagree on the hours. Just make it 8AM to 8PM – so we don’t give the 2nd and 3rd shift folks an excuse to miss work.
longtermconservative
My apologies. Your idea is better than mine. No reason to discriminate on productive employees – even if they hate working.
Seeker
No problem – All depends on ‘what’ their ‘job’ is. I think the govt puts illegal drug sellers and prostitutes in jail just because they haven’t figured out how to tax their ‘entrepreneurships’.
Ziegler Von Strahn
So, here’s the problem. Florida actually tried this a few years ago. They stopped it after a couple of years. The few they managed to catch didnt offset the cost of testing everybody. It’s one of those, looks good on paper, but doesnt hold up in reality.
Now, that being said. WIC, Women, Infant, Children vouchers. Same kind of program in theory as food stamps, but you get an actual shopping list. You can get X gallons of Milk, X oz of Cheese, so forth and so on. I have no problem with doing this same thing with food stamps.
But the drug testing just isnt a good idea, and that isnt even breaching the subjects of invasion/charity. Just from a cost implementation, it doesnt work.
UnabashedSarcasm
That’s a very good point that I certainly haven’t thought of — and I suspect most haven’t. How much is this testing going to cost the taxpayers, and how effective will it be?
mlopez
Plenty effective
Seeker
So the elimination of welfare cheats being given benefits did not off-set the costs of litmus paper?
One less cheat receiving ‘x’ number of welfare dollars, would seem to me to enable the state buy a lot more of test results.
Call me skeptical of your example and I suspect the real reason is locals caved in to civil rights groups claiming it was some racial thing being unfairly placed upon minorities.
Ziegler Von Strahn
Not sure if Liberty Nation will allow links in comments, so, instead, go and google ” florida stops drug testing welfare ” First link is NYT article about it, and you can find Miami Herald articles about it. That litmus paper costs about 30 bucks a dip.
From the Times article:
From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.
Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said. ~end snip~
Maybe on scale, it becomes cost feasible, but in the one example we have of it actually being implemented, it didnt work out.
I think a much better arguement to have is following the WIC vounchers program. If their health and well being is being paid for by the state, then the state should implement it in the way that best maintains the health and well being.
Leesa Donner
Yes you are permitted links so long as they aren’t the same link all the time.
Seeker
Well, that was 108 less leeches drawing benefits from those who needed them – which means it did work for 108 of them. Maybe the govt needs to buy test stripes in bulk from Canadian pharma firms?
Call me skeptical of NewYorkSlimes as well.
Perhaps state officials could just stand in the kroger checkout lines and select those who use EBT cards to purchase food and then pay cash for beer/cigs?
mlopez
They could do random, they could do any # of variations. Whatever they decide they should do it in conjunction with a work program. I’ll bet it becomes cost effective once they have to report for work everyday and then we can administer drug tests as deemed appropriate.
Seeker
Maybe their new bosses will do the right thing and report their new hire needs to be tested because they’re not acting quite normal on the job that day?
mlopez
As I said, there are any number of ways to approach the problem. The only thing that is necessary is to have a determination to weed dysfunctional, criminal and irresponsible elements from the rolls of our public dole. Tax payers shouldn’t be forced to support social programs to assuage liberal sentiments.
mlopez
Florida? Florida has hanging chads for Christ’s sake. Florida has cowards for police. Florida is hardly any standard for good policy
Htos1av
Since Yeb! was governor of Florida:
Come on vacation.
Leave on probation.
Return on violation.
We need Nuremberg military tribunals on all pols since 11/22/63.
mlopez
Is that your birthday?
snakeplisken
It will always come back to the “race card” being played. We need to get a strong backbone and deal with facts here, abuse is abuse, no matter what color of skin you have.
mlopez
That’s what advocates always say about welfare reform. It’s total bullshit. and anyway, it’s not about money. It’s about subsidizing drugs and abhorrent behavior, dysfunctional lifestyles. Parents who are supposed to be supporting their children are dependent on public welfare and using drugs? What’s wrong with that picture? And what’s wrong with you for not seeing what appears so obvious to everyone else?
Ziegler Von Strahn
I’d an old git, but maybe you’ve heard of pissing good money after bad? …
Notice in my posts, I havent breached the subject of morality? Because Government should be about getting the best result for the least amount.
No, I am not interested in making sure there are no drug abusers on food stamps if it costs more than just giving them the money. Nobody in their right mind should as a taxpayer.
Have you ever had to balance a check book? Keep track of costs? Anything with a fiduciary responsibility? I get the emotion, but good government doesnt come from emotion, it comes from reasoned responses.
mlopez
No that’s exactly what you’re missing. I’ll tell how better to balance the check book. Eliminate the spending and stop rewarding the dysfunctional. End the subsidy for druggies and make recipients show up for work.
UpNorth
A much simpler and easy to implement plan is: Have tax money recipients follow the same rules as taxpayers… Either show a receipt for what it’s spent on or lose 40% of the portion of next months “benefits” that aren’t covered by a legitimate purchase.
This allows people who really need assistance to get it and will eventually weed out the scammers.
evemccoy28
Thats a good idea. Lets do the same for money launderers and the like as well whether on foodstamps or not.
Scott
YES!!! Let’s test all government subsidy recipients. We can start with those who use the mortgage interest tax deduction.
UnabashedSarcasm
Don’t stop there. Let’s get some highway checkpoints up — like weigh stations on the interstate, but for everyone — so we can stop people at regular intervals and test them for drug use before allowing them to use publicly funded highways. And libraries? Why don’t you pee in this cup before leaving here with that book the state paid for.
mlopez
Fine why not? We have DUI don’t we?
evemccoy28
Very good point, unabashedsarcasm! I totally agree!
Seeker
Right after you pass the law which requires a drug test before obtaining a voting ballot.
But maybe some folks need an IQ test as well – so they at least know the three divisions of govt., the name of the current Vice President, whom we fought to obtain our independence, or what is the Bill of Rights. Something your average college student cannot answer.
mlopez
I’d be willing to compromise. How about even a law to show proper ID which proves you are a citizen?
mlopez
Yeah let’s punish productive households who are supporting themselves in favor of your sensibilities, welfare bums and drug dealers.
Scott
mlopez the whole point is that they are not supporting themselves. They have their hand in the taxpayers pocket to support their lifestyles. If the food stamp people are leeches then so are the these folks.
How about instead of pitting some Americans against others, we eliminate all these subsidies, none of which is authorized in the constitution in the first place?
mlopez
I’m up for all of that actually and especially, most especially the corporate subsidies.
mlopez
Yes do Mr. Social justice. Let’s just call the blood sucking leeches out on the carpet to include your energy subsidy.
Marinesgt77
I say test them. The VA tests me on a regular basis. And I do not receive any monetary benefits.
Still Out of Service
states should have the right to set this and other laws effecting people within their border.
the state laws should not be more liberal than federal laws
louigi
I watch 300 lb black women order 1,2 and 3 hundred dollar cakes at Publix and pay for them with an EBT card. The next day they bring part of the cake back with some sort of excuse, it was the wrong color, I didn’t like it, and get cash back. These dirtbags know how to work the system while the rest of us pay. Not to mention the fact that they are loudmouthed, disrespectful, arrogant pigs.
mlopez
That’s your welfare money at work
evemccoy28
Thats not all of them who are on assistance and yes some people do take advantage of the system but so do many people who arent as well. People will be people and have to accept the con sequences of their actions especially if they break the law. It doesnt mean that the rest should suffer or be punished due to the behavior of others.
Dave Hunter
Drug users sell their food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar, taking away the benefit to their families, so yes, do drug testing.
Seeker
Usually in some neighborhood market, owned/run by your latest middle east immigrant/owner, who sends the profits to CARE, to buy bombs for terrorists back home.
Dave Hunter
And several of these owners have gone to jail because of it.
Seeker
Yep, but not enough to ‘deter’ the others. I’d like to see more closer look on over-seas monetary transfers.
Dave Hunter
I’d like to see a special tax enacted for overseas money transfers that exempts those who have filed tax returns.
Seeker
and are not certified, oath taken – citizens?
Dave Hunter
Doesn’t matter. If you can’t prove you’ve been paying taxes why should the government let you transfer funds out of the country?
Seeker
Always follow the money – stop the money and you stop the problem.
Example – DOJ stopped money going to Palestinians terrorist buying missiles/bombs to kill by stopping CARE sending money to them by passing the hat to neighborhood arab owned 7/11’s stores giving from their profits.
mlopez
I agree. However, you miss the real point. Food Stamps are also welfare payments for and to corporate America.
Kozlowski
Test only when there is a conviction. Otherwise we ought to all be presumed innocent. But if convicted of a drug offense, sure go for it.
Leesa Donner
I love the common sense of our readers! Excellent point Kozlowski. Thanks for your input.
UnabashedSarcasm
Really, this should apply to everything — including employment.
7cubed
You want to pee in a cup, go pee in a cup. I steer clear of this activity myself.
Seeker
And politicians should be following the same rules they enforce upon those who elected them.
Htos1av
^^^^The most concise, logical, comment on this thread.
Deathdefiant
Nah. Test them all. Find a way to make it cheap and test them ALL.
This isn’t a court of law. Like a job application, it’s not innocent until proven guilty here.
You ought to have to prove you are worthy of receiving money that was taken from people who actually work for it. There is no God given right to other people’s money in America.
Seeker
If you’re taking govt cheese, then you gotta play by their rules. Don’t take the cheese and take all the drugs you want…as long as the producers are not victims of you drug abusing takers.
Police are tested for drugs, along with military personnel, air traffic controllers and many more employers – If you’re under their jurisdiction – you play by their rules to continue to get a paycheck.
evemccoy28
Half of them are on drugs themselves or steal them from drug offenders in order to let them go! Thats so judgemental! Then do it to smokers, drinkers, and the like. Hell do it to the people who lack common sense as well! Everyone has an addiction to something in some form or another so whats the difference? Help them instead of persecute them for it! Its a hassle to even become eligible for all the strict rules and income requirements placed in effect which barely covers food for families in the first place. Then to dictate what kind of food to buy on top of it or mandating how also? Its asinine! Alot of the people who get them do work and pay taxes on their own government benefits but dont make enough money to still support their families or can afford education to get better jobs! Dont be so quick to judge people just because they are poverty stricken! They suffer enough without having to be judged and put to shame as it is for being under government assistance!
Takiwa
Unfortunately the hard drugs like meth don’t stay in the system longer than 48 hours.
Seeker
Then look for black teeth and open sores on the face.