Scott Walker

Scott Walker's Repellent, Unconstitutional Call to Drug-Test Welfare Recipients

|

Never trust a politician to do the right thing. And by right thing, I mean not simply an action that is morally defensible but one that is constitutional.

Hot Air's Noah Rothman reports that Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) is proposing "to impose narcotics testing on prospective recipients of food stamps and unemployment benefits." Rothman points out that Wisconsin is one of five states that tests applicants who have felony drug convictions and, more important, that Walker's blanket proposal is almost certainly unconstitutional:

A 2003 case out of Michigan established that "suspicionless" drug testing for prospective social welfare beneficiaries represented a violation of their personal liberties. The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in that case that drug testing can be imposed on an applicant only if there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

That's how it should be. There's no reason to treat food stamp recipients or collectors of unemployment benefits (for which they paid unemployment insurance) as moral defectives. You'd expect Walker, who in 2012 hailed the rise of a new class of "libertarian" governors to Reason, to grok that.

There's also a question of cost, too. Walker is supposed to be tight with a penny, right? That's part of his, er, charm.

Yet his sort of drug-testing is not only repellent on ethical grounds, it's a clear waste of money. If a recent program in Missouri is any indication, Wisconsin will be collecting urine by the bucketful to catch very few bad actors (and that assumes smoking dope, say, should be a reason to pull somebody's benefits). Last year, Missouri started testing suspected drug users (note: suspected, meaning there was at least some hypothetical reason to think a person was using drugs). The state ended up spending $500,000 to test 636 people, of which 20 were found to be using. So around 3 percent of suspects tested positive and each test cost around $786. Before courts ruled Florida's drug-testing regime illegal, the Sunshine State spent $115,000 on piss tests and ended up coughing up $600,000 in reimbursements to applicants who had been denied benefits.

So why might Walker be doing it? Rothman supplies a disturbing answer:

The answer seems clear. These reforms are rather popular with base Republican voters, and the institutions which would oppose Walker's reform are not. This is a pretty clear indication that Walker is interested in translating his successes in Wisconsin into the Republican presidential nomination.

And Republicans wonder why Americans have a negative view of the party? Something like 72 percent of Americans disapprove of the GOP and just 23 percent of millennials identify as Republican. If calling for drug tests of welfare recipients and out of work people is "a clear indication" that you're running for president, who can blame us?

Related Stories:

"The Golden Age: How Americans learned to stop worrying and love workplace drug testing"

"First They Came For the Urine Drinking Crossing Guards (and Maybe Former Reason Staffer Matt Welch)…"

"Urine — or You're Out: Drug testing is invasive, insulting, and generally irrelevant to job performance. Why do so many companies insist on it?"

Advertisement

NEXT: Can one get an injunction to enforce Godwin's Law?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. it’s a clear waste of money

    It’s not about the money. It’s about the attitude that says, rightly or wrongly, “I have to piss in a cup to work my ass off 8 1/2 hours a day to pay your danged unemployment so you can sit on a couch. Damn right, you’re going to piss in a cup too.”

    Unless you figure out how to answer that attitude, you’re going to have to deal with this issue again next year.

    I submit that pointing out cost savings won’t do it because, to the folks working, these are tax dollars well-spent.

    1. Unfortunately, I think you’re right about the crabs-in-a-pot mentality, misery loves company and most people are more pissed off at seeing somebody escape the torment they’re enduring than the torment itself.

      But I’ve always said that I don’t give a rat’s ass if even somebody as loathsome as Donald Trump cheats on his taxes, if you’re cheating on your taxes I’m gonna cheer you on because it ain’t cheating the system when the system is rigged to screw you over any which way it can.

      If you can game the welfare system for drug money, more power to you. Whatever money you don’t snatch away is just being wasted by paying the salaries of people like Scott Walker.

      1. As a principled position, that’s awesome. As a position likely to persuade others… well, I’m probably not the best judge.

    2. This. The people who are paying for welfare benefits have a not-unreasonable suspicion that a non-trivial number of people who receive welfare benefits use the money not as a bridge to re-entering the workforce and achieving self-sufficiency, but in furtherance of a sit-on-my-ass-and-get-wasted lifestyle.

      1. Which is why doing away with the transfers in the first place is the real answer.

        1. Why do you hate children, Bill Dalasio?

          1. Hate children?!?!

            Nothing of the sort! Without children, who’d reach into the tight crevices of my uranium mines?

            1. Opium-addicted Chinese coolies?

              I hear they tend on the thin side.

        2. Sure. But realistically, that’s not on the table.

          What Walker is doing is saying, essentially, “Welfare benefits should be reserved for people who actually need them, not for layabout dopeheads.” Nick can rage about it all he likes, but a lot of folks agree with that.

          1. “layabout dopeheads.”

            I love conservatives. They just can’t keep it in.

            1. Bo…you know that FYTW was portraying that sentiment as Scott Walker’s, right? Just so we’re clear.

            2. Hey, Bo, as somebody who already practices law to someone who aspires to practice law: you’re going to be a really fucking shitty lawyer unless you figure out this reading comprehension thing.

              1. Fair enough, I read that one wrong.

                1. Maybe I was thinking of his 5:25?

                  “The people who are paying for welfare benefits have a not-unreasonable suspicion that a non-trivial number of people who receive welfare benefits use the money not as a bridge to re-entering the workforce and achieving self-sufficiency, but in furtherance of a sit-on-my-ass-and-get-wasted lifestyle.”

                  1. Or maying you’re just still failing at reading comprehension.

                  2. And you dispute that statement ?

                    I think the test should be given but the results interpreted in a different manner.

                    Urine tests are so easly to pass that anyone who fails one should be given welfare because they are too mentally deficient to take care of themselves.

                    The rest of the healthy ones should be on their own.

          2. Alternatively, stop drug testing employees. Then people can’t say ” if I have to pee in a cup to pay your bills, you should have to pee in a cup to steal my money.”

            1. Good luck with that. I brought it up that solution to a coworker once.

              Once.

              He looked at me like I had three heads.

              1. Only a druggie wastoid would suggest ending drug testing.

                1. I guess so!

                  Then again, you should have seen the look he gave me when I told him that I would walk out of this place without a second glance if a union ever got involved.

          3. Why isn’t it? How much or the pro-food stamp and unemployment vote is going to Walker anyway?

            1. Seriously?

              I hate to be the one to alert you to this, Bill, but there are a lot of voters who (a) vote Republican and (b) aren’t down with dismantling the welfare state wholesale.

              1. And (c) receive payments themselves.

            2. You might be able to get a majority to vote for getting rid of the safety net but only if you could really convince them that there was a private solution that could do it better. We have a long way to go before we can convince enough people of that.

          4. You think layabout dopeheads don’t need food stamps. I’m reminded of the sage words of Alfred Doolittle:

            “If there’s anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it’s always the same story: ‘You’re undeserving; so you can’t have it.’ But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow’s that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don’t need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don’t eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more.”
            Read more at http://www.monologuearchive.co…..sh1sBg5.99“

            1. There was supposed to be a question mark after the first sentence in my post. Damn the lack of an edit feature!

          5. “But realistically, that’s not on the table.” What’s the matter? You don’t want to win the war?

    3. I submit that pointing out cost savings won’t do it because, to the folks working, these are tax dollars well-spent.

      Well I’m a working taxpayer and “the folks” can fuck off with spending more of it on this bullshit. It will also presumably entail expanding and enriching the bureaucracy more too. Fuck that.

      1. Yes. The urine test are easly to fool and the hair tests are very expensive.

        If someone can’t pass a urine test when they know it’s coming they are too stupid to care for themselves and need welfare.

        Urine test only satisfy the insurance companies in case of litigation due to accident or theft of some type.

      2. “It will also presumably entail expanding and enriching the bureaucracy more too. Fuck that.”

        Exactly: any legislative reforms should be directed at reducing the bureaucracy, which would also be a much smarter political strategy.

    4. I submit that pointing out cost savings won’t do it because, to the folks working, these are tax dollars well-spent.

      So what, $75,000 spent to save $750? Wow, what a fucking bargain. Sign me up.

      1. Again: it’s not about saving money nor is it about the point of government spending being justified when it finds bargains.

    5. It’s about taking away the fun factor for the freeloaders to me. I want to smoke a blunt and do shrooms and lay around with my shine all day driving my tractor on the farm but no I have to go to an awful job in an awful town with 2 IDs hanging around my neck and PIN codes and drug tests and guys with guns walking around all day. I’ll even volunteer some cash to watch the guys disapointed face when he finds out he failed his test and doesn’t get my hard earned money to spend on booze and hookers.

  2. I propose that Scott Walker carry out the testing himself by coating his body and clothing with a chemical that reacts to drug metabolites.

  3. Yup, this is pretty ridiculous.

    Of course, I’ve little doubt that Nick would get a little squeamish at my preferred alternative:

    Disqualify everyone from food stamps and unemployment benefits by getting rid of the programs. Period. Full stop.

    1. “I’ve little doubt that Nick would get a little squeamish at my preferred alternative”

      Because he’s not a real libertarian like you, right?

      #GOPThursdayNightGetTogethers

      1. Ever the True Scotsmen, eh, Bo?

        1. What’s greater here, the irony or lack of awareness? (To help you, think about what Bill was saying about Nick).

          1. I said Nick would be squeamish at the idea of eliminating food stamps and unemployment benefits. He’s suggested as much before.

            I’m not suggesting Nick is a proggie hack.

            I’ve reserved that honor for you, Botard.

            1. Projection, converse style.

              1. You know what Bo, you were right the other morning. I can’t imagine where the “Bo is a purity obsessed asshole” meme came from.

                1. He’s not a purity obsessed asshole. He’s a proggie stooge. If he were the former, he’d be equally likely to attack people for “left deviationism”.

                  1. I tend to think he is an honest libertarian with some weird daddy issues. Who knows.

                    1. Let me see if I can explain why I disagree. There’s a lot of liberal-leaning libertarians in these comments. Heck, my impression is that would probably tend to include you. But, as much as I argue with you/them, I really don’t have a problem with you/them. I see you/they are arguing in good faith, respect where you/they are coming from, and sometimes learn something.

                      I don’t see that with Bo. By his own admission, he comments to “balance out” conservative leaning libertarians in the comments. He consistently takes the position of defending progressives, even when those progressives don’t deserve defending from a libertarian perspective (a comparison of Larry Craig and Lena Dunham should tell you all you’d need on that). He tosses around labels like “socon” or “neocon” toward people who, while more conservative than I, certainly don’t fit that description. He takes the people’s acknowledged point of view as a means to try to discredit them.

                      In short, I don’t think Bo argues in good faith. I think he plays games to try to dismiss people rather than address their arguments. Now, maybe I’m wrong. It’s possible that, rather than being a progressive concern troll, Bo really is just caught up in the mindset of a junior high school “mean girl”.

                      In either case, I don’t see much reason to take his opinions of much beyond “that dress Julie wore to the prom” or “what a bitch Cindy is” particularly seriously.

                    2. “There’s a lot of liberal-leaning libertarians in these comments. Heck, my impression is that would probably tend to include you.”

                      Converse projection. Zed’s about as close to a libertarian that leads neither way on the board. But to a Red Partisan he will seem to the left of you.

                      “He tosses around labels like “socon” or “neocon” toward people who, while more conservative than I”

                      Who, other than Eddie, have I called a ‘socon?’ Also, if there are people here more conservative than you, that’s something.

                      “Bo really is just caught up in the mindset of a junior high school “mean girl”.”

                      Is that what they call it at the GOP Thursday night get togethers?

                    3. Nope, no failure to argue in good faith here, whatsoever.

                      Christ, Botard, I noted your worst qualities here and, rather than try to engage my arguments on any substantive level, you proceed to put them on full display for all to see.

                      You really are pathetic.

                      But, I’ll tell you what, the next time I’m interested in finding out about Julie’s dress or whether Cindy is a bitch, I’ll let you know.

                    4. More importantly,

                      Bo is an anti-semitic piece of progressive shit.

                      The only thing he hates more than SoConz is teh Juuus.

                    5. I have yet to meet a snivelling mendatious lefty asshole who didn’t have serious Daddy problems.

                      Not one.

                    6. He’s in law school, studying how NOT to be honest. We’re just his practice material.

                  2. “he’d be equally likely to attack people for “left deviationism”.”

                    There’d have to be some of that to attack it.

                    Of course, I do attack PB and Tony regularly. But your partisan antenae don’t pick that up.

                2. More proof partisans have an utterly atrophied sense of irony.

      2. Actually, no, rather because he’s said he has a soft spot for social welfare programs.

        But thanks for trying, Botard.

      3. By the way, Twitter hashtags?

        Just can’t keep away from the proggie SJW argumentation techniques, can you?

        1. I actually got it from Eddie (Notorious BIG), but keep on trolling along.

          1. Except I commented before you showed up. So, in what way am I the troll here?

            Oh, wait, for Botard, anyone to the right of

    2. ^^This.

  4. Look, your tax dollars are their god given right, and of you ask them to do anything at all you’re violating their right to take your money against your will or something.

    1. ^ this ^. Why isn’t Reason shouting this obvious paradox from the rooftops?

      1. Because the ‘editors’ are proglodytes stuck in the wilderness, longing for rescue by a worthwhile msm outlet.

        Bullshit articles like this one from Gillespie are signals to their future employers that they aren’t really one of those crazy bagger libertards.

    2. Exactly. Since when would Reason defend the welfare state?

  5. Require every congresscreature and administration weenie to make a public statement under oath detailing their every ingestion of a psychoactive substance.

  6. There’s no reason to treat food stamp recipients or collectors of unemployment benefits (for which they paid unemployment insurance) as moral defectives.

    Pretty sure that you can purchase actual unemployment insurance but it is quite costly and has to actually adhere to some principle of risk/liability. What the government calls “unemployment insurance” is simply a tax and a wealth transfer.

    If you assume that being a recipient of stolen money is morally defective then anyone on the receiving end of a wealth transfer is morally defective. If you assume that having been robbed by government makes this moral defect go away, you believe that “two wrongs make a right”.

    1. Well said.

    2. “There’s no reason to treat food stamp recipients or collectors of unemployment benefits (for which they paid unemployment insurance) as moral defectives.”

      Unemployment benefits are paid from taxes levied on employers. The individuals receiving unemployment didn’t pay for any unemployment insurance.

  7. Great Divide Yeti is like we’re not f’ing around beer. Nice treat. One’s enough.

  8. I have a couple coworkers who think this way. They’re subject to randoms plus UA if they have any kind of accident. In their mind, they don’t understand why they have to undergo that inconvenience if people getting free money don’t.

    If I were brave enough to have opinions in the workplace, I’d tell them that they shouldn’t have to pee in a cup, either. No one should.

    I understand that it’s ultimately about the contract between the employer and the employee, but I assume that type of policy is driven by the illegality of the substance itself.

    1. Insurance companies are a majr driver.

    2. If I were brave enough to have opinions in the workplace, I’d tell them that they shouldn’t have to pee in a cup, either. No one should.

      There is nothing unlibertarian about making welfare conditional on the completion of any rational or non rational act by the recipient. Don’t want to pee in a cup then don’t take the welfare, loser.

      Want to take the welfare then be prepared to perform any act that the benefactor demands, including peeing in a cup or hopping on one foot for eight straight hours.

  9. There’s no reason to treat food stamp recipients or collectors of unemployment benefits (for which they paid unemployment insurance) as moral defectives.

    I would suggest you do not conflate the two, because food stamp recipients do not pay “hunger insurance”. Otherwise you are committing a Category Error.

    Considering that there is no valid reason to think that Food Stamp recipients are the same as unemployment benefit recipients, then there IS a reason to think that Food Stamp recipients are moral defectives. Food Stamps come from money taken from somebody who worked for it, to then give it to someone who did not work for it. That is called “theft” among good people.

    1. good point OM

  10. If it was part of a bill to drug test every recipient of government funds, contractors, TANF recipients, government employees and elected officials then I’d find it less odious.

    1. You’d have to test just about every American in that case. Everyone has their hand in everyone else’s pocket in one form or another.

      1. Some of it is more overt than others, and it isn’t all welfare and unemployment, that’s for sure. Focusing on them alone is just Republicans targeting principals, not principles.

      2. I think a large number of them already are drug tested to some extent. Most government contracts require a “drug free work zone”. I remember the HMIC of the FBI bitching that he couldn’t find tech people who could pass a drug test. The military test. What I want is drug testing for politicians.

        Actually, what I really want is IQ testing for politicians and the results made public.

        1. “What I want is drug testing for politicians.”

          This. And it should include anti- depressents and other physoactives.

          I know in my heart Pelosi is on something.

    2. Government contractors are required to have drug testing regimes in place.

  11. You`first, Walker.

    1. But he’s not a welfare recipient…

      oh wait…

  12. Living in WI, I think there might be a bit of “reaction-ism” in this as WI welfare has been breathtakingly generous and abused. Something has to rein this in. The “safety net” is simply way too high. I work for a manufacturer, and the wages we can afford to pay sometimes is LESS than the what one can get on the safety net, at least for some period of time, as some portions of the handouts might sunset. I really think that, for many, it comes down to – do I bust my ass 8-10 hours a day for $11.25 per hour, or do I learn how to play the safety net system, “earn” the equivalent of $11.43 an hour and sit at home (in some cases, perhaps many, using recreational pharmaceuticals). In short, while we might talk about completely banning coerced handouts, the real solution is to push down the safety net “income” and make it less attractive so that busting that ass is required to survive after some period of time. Walker’s approach is a typical Republican approach that doesn’t really cure the problem, but plays well with the constituents. In a way, it’s a win-win as they don’t really take any handouts off the table, and the red sheep get something to like. Pushing the per hour wage down from $11.43 to $7.00 (or below minimum wage) will only enrage the left and not be remembered by the right over time. Going after “dopeheads” resonates.

    1. In short, while we might talk about completely banning coerced handouts, the real solution is to push down the safety net “income” and make it less attractive so that busting that ass is required to survive after some period of time.

      And as you say, it really isn’t fixing the problem, which is that it’s an indolence subsidy. And, personally, I don’t really care whether the layabouts are doing drugs all day or drinking Milwaukee’s Best all day.

  13. I’m not for this. But I don’t think it can be dismissed as quickly as Nick wants. Welfare recipients are receiving taxpayer money. It isn’t unreasonable for the taxpayers to set conditions on who receives that money. In our system, this is supposedly done on the taxpayers’ behalf by their elected representatives in government.

    Now because it’s government, there are limits on what conditions it can set given Constitutional protections. That is a good thing, and I support that. In fact, I’d like to see fewer restrictions on how people spend that money, so that their lives aren’t being micromanaged by bureaucrats in Washington, which probably contributes to the cycle of poverty in the first place. But the reason usually cited for needing to limit government is that it holds a monopoly on force and certain functions. It can throw you in a cage, a private entity cannot. But in this case, no one is forcing people to take welfare money. No one is threatening them with jail time or fines if they don’t take it. Government hardly has a monopoly on charitable giveaways. I’m not saying that makes this a good idea, or even Constitutional, but it’s not entirely without merit, and perhaps more to the point, it will resonate with a lot of people.

  14. I am against welfare as a whole. But the second best thing to me is making it less fun and easy to collect.

    1. The main reason being it might actually become less popular. Less popular = back to social stigma status = easier to repeal.

  15. I have a solution. Let’s just do away with drug testing for everyone as a violation of civil rights, and let’s do away with welfare except for those who truly need, like people who genuinely cannot work or who have fallen on hard times and needs a limited amount of time to get back on their feet.

    Lifetime and even generational welfare, just because, is bullshit. Drug testing is bullshit also.

    1. Get out of here with your logic.

    2. And employers who don’t want to employ drug users get their freedom of association trampled on?

      1. They had any to begin with?

  16. “Unconstitutional”?

    Is it prohibited in the section of the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the authority to take my money directly and hand it directly to other citizens who can’t be bothered to work?

  17. Unless and until Wisconsin imposes a drug testing regime on every state employee, emphatically including governors, legislators, and their staffs, I don’t want to hear about imposing a drug testing regime on anybody else.

    Lead from the front, Walker, or STFU.

  18. My solution? Pass a law saying that politicians need to pass a piss test. (Or submit one.)

    When the politicians explain that they shouldn’t have to pass one (and they will) and they discuss the importance of privacy (and they will), force them to pass a law that gives *EVERYBODY* the umbrella that they feel applies to themselves.

    Also: I’d like a pony.

  19. I don’t know … as far as I’m concerned, being on welfare should be as humiliating, degrading, and miserable experience as we can make it, to make sure that people make every possible effort to get off of it as quickly as they can.

    1. I’d replace the entire welfare state with self-sustaining labor camps, run similarly to the military. If you find yourself down on your luck, you go there, they assign you a job and a dorm. They tell you when to wake up, when to go to work, and regiment your free time so it’s not wasteful. Whatever the people living in the camps produce, pays for the camps. No tax money get confiscated, yet nobody starves, and the whole thing is voluntary.

      1. I think this is called China. Can the world handle more than one China? Maybe…

        1. There might be a slight difference in the camps being mandatory or voluntary.

          Just a slight difference.

          Most people receiving gov benefits could pick up trash in the park or something.

          It’s kinda stupid that we have to pay city employees to clean the parks and streets and then pay some other people not to do so.

        2. “Can the world handle more than one China?”

          According to Thomas Friedman, the answer would be yes.

      2. Probably wouldn’t pay for itself. if it would, you could run it as a for-profit company, and someone would already be doing it. Unless there was some regulation (minimum wage) preventing it.

    2. I think this happens in NY to a point. People have to clean ghettos to stay on le’ stamps’n room’n board.

    3. *ding*

  20. You people are clowns. He’s asking for drug testing from people who are receiving stolen goods. As if taking a piss is worse than the theft.

  21. Hey, here’s an idea: Everyone receiving a check issued by a government entity (Fed, state, local) is subjected to periodic, unscheduled drug tests. This should include elected officials.

    1. Swell point, actually. You test me? then test your fucking selves ol’ gubment.

      I’m all for it in all sincerity. When shit goes 2-way it gets interesting and immediately genuine.

    2. Kind of problematic for people who are just getting back some of what they put in (SS, Medicare, tax refunds).

  22. “Rothman points out that Wisconsin is one of five states that tests applicants who have felony drug convictions and, more important, that Walker’s blanket proposal is almost certainly unconstitutional”

    So was the creation of all of those welfare programs to begin with.

    “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison

  23. Really??? Why aren’t you screaming about my having to take a drug test to get hired? Fair is fair.

    1. Because that’s a private transaction and therefore covered by contract law. Since welfare comes from the government that means that it’s the government violating your privacy rights by forcing you to take a drug test just like they are violating your rights by forcing you to take welfare benefits. Er, wait a minute…

      Again Nick misses the problem being the welfare benefits that precede the drug testing.

      1. What about government employees?

  24. If its unconstitutional to drug test welfare recipients then its unconstitutional to drug test federal employees, state employees, local government employees, military members, any government employees at any level of government. Where are the lawsuits against drug testing them? Where is the ACLU on that issue? If its right and proper to drug test as a condition of employment from the government then it should be right and proper to drug test as a requirement to receive payment from them as well. Its just the process all government employees are already subjected to.

  25. Everytime this comes up the first thing comes to mind is if they test me as a taxpayer and I fail, then they don’t collect taxes from me, whether it’s sales, income, property, you name it. If that were the case, then I’d be on board with Walker’s testing of welfare recipients.

  26. I think I understand Mr. Gillespie’s point…..BUT…..If I have to take and pass a drug test to get and keep the job by which I am forced to pay the taxes that are used to fund such entitlement programs, I have no problem with welfare recipients having to take and pass drug tests to receive my tax dollars in the form of food stamps and other federal aid.

    Of course, this all could be easily resolved by either legalizing drugs or, at a minimum, decriminalizing them.

  27. I don’t think there is anything morally wrong about this as a libertarian – it may be economically unbeneficial however. Welfare testing may cost more than not testing, making it a silly option, however I think it is perfectly acceptable to ensure that people who are receiving free tax money are not spending it on any drug. And that comes from a supporter of full legalization.

  28. A feeble attempt to slow the moral and economic downward spiral caused by the welfare state. Any fucking libertarian knows that to stop this spiral this country needs to go on the gold standard to stop the government from printing money. Deficit spending is a key ingredient that facilitates the welfare state. It wouldn’t matter if you demand recipients be shot out of a fucking cannon. Bureaucrats still need money and power.

    1. We need to test people who are the beneficiaries of our (and our grandchildren’s) enslavement? Go ahead, test, don’t test. Does it make me any less a slave?

      1. Oh, and don’t forget to drug test the slave.

    2. The gold standard argument is silly. The government can just change the “value” of gold. Voila, more money printed.

      Money is too important and too prone to manipulation to be in the hands of governments.

      There is nothing wrong with a fiat currency; the problem is and always will be the (mis-)management of the currency.

      1. Gold has inherent value that the govt. can’t change even if it makes it illegal to own.
        There is nothing wrong with fiat currency except that it is mismanaged?
        I guess private fiat currency will never be mismanaged.

        1. Once the government controls the internet, where will that leave precious Bitcoin?

  29. I’m not surprised (nor do I like it, of course) since he’s gone his entire governorship without pardoning or commuting a single sentence, even when the Pardon Board has recommended it.

  30. As an owner of a leather jacket, I have to say I regret that I disagree with Mr. Gillespie.

    Welfare is an entirely voluntary arrangement for the recipient, and I have known some people who qualified for some varieties of it (unemployment and foodstamps) that chose to not take advantage – an antiquated sense of shame plus it seemed like a hassle.

    The money I receive comes with strings attached such as showing up every day on time and being sober. If people don’t want to be paid for being sober, they can look for work that pays to be intoxicated. If somebody wanted to pay me a subsistence wage for not working but staying sober, I would probably say no and look for work that lets me do what I want on my own time.

    I don’t get how requiring welfare recipients to be more-or-less sober all the time is unconstitutional or any more counter-productive than paying people to be poor is counter-productive in general. At worst Walker’s plan is better politics than policy, but repellant and unconstitutional – no.

  31. As far as I am concerned it is a violation of my rights that I have 10s of thousands of dollars stolen from me every year to pay for welfare. It’s also crap that the money directly increases the cost of staple food for everyone due to demand. Go see how much WIC allowed food has jumped in the past years. So yes I have to pass background checks, badge in badge out, random drug testing to get a paycheck that’s destroyed from taxes. Get in line right behind me welfare rat. This is money well spent.

  32. I agree with Mr. Gillespie’s conclusion (merely for cost-saving reasons), but I do not support his reasoning. Drug testing welfare recipients is most certainly constitutional.

    For example, the State cannot force a person to buy car insurance, but the State CAN make buying insurance a condition of owning a car. In the same way, the State cannot force a person to submit to suspicionless drug tests, but it CAN make drug tests a condition of receiving welfare.

    In both cases, personal liberty is maintained. A man cannot be forced to buy insurance or take a drug test. BUT, if he makes the personal choice to buy a car or receive welfare benefits, he implicitly agrees to the conditions of that decision.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.