From the onset, I was apprehensive about House Bill 0353 because it targeted a specific group of individuals, specifically: Florida's poor. To be clear, my apprehension would likely be present no matter the geographic location of the group. Despite my skepticism, I read several different views about the bill. Most of the articles and comments I read that support the bill centered on the argument that it is not fair for Florida's taxpayers to have their money spent on assisting those in need, if those receiving the assistance are spending it, in part or wholly, to purchase illicit drugs. On the surface, this argument sounds valid. Many people within our society, especially those in political circles (left or right, it doesn't matter) believe that the use of illegal drugs is wrong. Logic follows then, that those who maintain these values and beliefs would not want to contribute to another person's drug habit, even if indirectly.
This is the point where my views on this matter tend to separate from many others. House Bill 0353, while described as a method for preventing taxpayers' money from being given to people who would use the money to buy drugs, is in my opinion, ill-suited for its stated purpose and instead, serves to further marginalize an already stigmatized group. If one were concerned about preventing their taxes from contributing to illegal drug habits, wouldn't it be better to focus on the population where the majority of illegal drug use occurs?
Before we get there however, I believe it is prudent to look at what welfare is and who gets it. According to the Office of Management and Budget, there is no category of the Federal budget titled 'welfare'. There is, however, a portion of the Federal budget apportioned for 'Income Security'. Other agencies, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, call these 'Safety Net programs'. Income security consists of several subgroups, many of which are traditionally associated with the term welfare. These groups include: Food and Nutrition Assistance, Unemployment Compensation, and Housing Assistance. Another subset of income security is Earned Income and Child Tax Credits. The inclusion of this program under income security helped to facilitate an interesting thought process for me. What do we, as a society, consider to be welfare? Is it only compensation derived from government programs designed to provide assistance directly to the poor? By some definitions, there are government programs that provide assistance or a type of financial aid to people and families that live above the poverty line. Should we then require those recipients of federal benefits to also pass a drug test?
The graph you see below was taken from the 2009 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).
What else might there be? Another aspect of this argument that lies just beneath the surface is that there are those who feel their money is being abused by those receiving welfare. In other words, those receiving welfare don't deserve it. I will not argue that there aren't any people who receive federal or state assistance that take advantage of the system...I don't consider myself to be that naive. I do however believe that those who do take advantage of welfare are fewer in number than most people would care to think. The American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on Women, Poverty, and Public Assistance published a paper titled "Making 'welfare to work' really work" which examines some of the stereotypes associated with people who receive welfare:
It is far easier to focus on groups who have little to no voice, or are socially and politically marginalized. What do you suppose the response would be to a bill that would require all retired military veterans to take a drug test each month before receiving their pension check?
I don't think that Florida's HB 0353 was conceived with ill intent. I do however, believe that it stopped well short of addressing the issue it claims to represent. While I don't think that everyone needs to be treated the same to be treated fairly, to me, this legislation certainly seems to be less than equitable to all parties involved.
Before we get there however, I believe it is prudent to look at what welfare is and who gets it. According to the Office of Management and Budget, there is no category of the Federal budget titled 'welfare'. There is, however, a portion of the Federal budget apportioned for 'Income Security'. Other agencies, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, call these 'Safety Net programs'. Income security consists of several subgroups, many of which are traditionally associated with the term welfare. These groups include: Food and Nutrition Assistance, Unemployment Compensation, and Housing Assistance. Another subset of income security is Earned Income and Child Tax Credits. The inclusion of this program under income security helped to facilitate an interesting thought process for me. What do we, as a society, consider to be welfare? Is it only compensation derived from government programs designed to provide assistance directly to the poor? By some definitions, there are government programs that provide assistance or a type of financial aid to people and families that live above the poverty line. Should we then require those recipients of federal benefits to also pass a drug test?
The graph you see below was taken from the 2009 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).
"Current illicit drug use differed by employment status in 2009. Among adults aged 18 or older, the rate of illicit drug use was higher for unemployed persons (17.0 percent) than for those who were employed full time (8.0 percent) or part time (11.5 percent). Among those in the "other" employment category, which includes retired persons, disabled persons, homemakers, students, and other persons not in the labor force, the rate of current illicit drug use increased from 4.9 percent in 2008 to 6.0 percent in 2009."
Given the information above, one might think that in order to prevent taxpayers' money from being given to those who may use that money, in part or wholly, to purchase illegal drugs, one might draft a bill that requires everyone to take a drug test in order to receive federal benefits. Why focus solely on those who comprise less than one-third of the issue? Unless that's not the real issue..."Although the rate of past month illicit drug use was higher among unemployed persons compared with those from other employment groups, most drug users in 2009 were employed. Of the estimated 19.3 million current illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2009, 12.9 million (66.6 percent) were employed either full or part time. The number of unemployed illicit drug users increased from 1.3 million in 2007 to 1.8 million in 2008 and 2.5 million in 2009, primarily because of an overall increase in the number of unemployed persons between 2007 and 2009. Increases also were seen in the numbers of past month illicit drug users among adults who were employed part time (from 3.1 to 3.6 million) and those in the "other" employment category (retired persons, disabled persons, homemakers, students, and other persons not in the labor force) (from 3.1 to 4.0 million). NSDUH estimates the numbers of persons who were employed full time were 122.2 million in 2008 and 114.8 million in 2009; the estimated numbers of unemployed persons were 9.0 million in 2008 and 14.7 million in 2009. The rate of current illicit drug use among unemployed adults was 19.6 in 2008 and 17.0 percent in 2009; although this difference is not statistically significant, the rate in 2009 may reflect the inclusion of persons who had been employed in 2008 but were unemployed at the time they were interviewed in 2009."
What else might there be? Another aspect of this argument that lies just beneath the surface is that there are those who feel their money is being abused by those receiving welfare. In other words, those receiving welfare don't deserve it. I will not argue that there aren't any people who receive federal or state assistance that take advantage of the system...I don't consider myself to be that naive. I do however believe that those who do take advantage of welfare are fewer in number than most people would care to think. The American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on Women, Poverty, and Public Assistance published a paper titled "Making 'welfare to work' really work" which examines some of the stereotypes associated with people who receive welfare:
Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support
Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent
A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.
Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility
Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages
Welfare programs have been our country's response to poverty, and everyone agrees that those programs have not solved the problem. Jared Bernstein (1996) of the Economic Policy Institute identifies wage decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. While hourly rates of pay have fallen for the majority of the workforce since the late 1970s, by far the largest losses have been for the lowest paid workers. According to Bernstein (1996), between 1979 and 1989, the male worker, for example, at the 10th percentile (meaning 90 percent of the male workforce earns more) saw his hourly wage decline 13 percent, and since 1989 he lost another 6 percent. For women workers at the 10th percentile, the decline over the 1980s was 18 percent. The low-wage female worker gained slightly since 1989, but by 1995, her hourly wage rate was $4.84, down from $5.82 in 1979 (all dollars are in 1995 inflation-adjusted terms).
Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women
Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children–Most Women on Welfare Are White
Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).For me, the argument that supports laws such as Florida's HB 0353 is not focused on the true issue. That issue being that people who have the privilege of not being in need of government assistance are allowing some of their implicit biases about poor people and families to influence decisions that are aimed directly at those same poor people and families. Perhaps its attribution error at work that causes people to see welfare recipients as lazy people who just want a free ride rather than the environmental causes that put that person into their present situation. Perhaps its the myth of meritocracy that so many Americans subscribe to that says "You can achieve anything as long as you work hard for it" that causes people to then look at someone using food stamps and come to the conclusion that they just aren't trying hard enough.
It is far easier to focus on groups who have little to no voice, or are socially and politically marginalized. What do you suppose the response would be to a bill that would require all retired military veterans to take a drug test each month before receiving their pension check?
I don't think that Florida's HB 0353 was conceived with ill intent. I do however, believe that it stopped well short of addressing the issue it claims to represent. While I don't think that everyone needs to be treated the same to be treated fairly, to me, this legislation certainly seems to be less than equitable to all parties involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment