Drug Testing Welfare Applicants

The other day I got involved in a little bit of a discussion on facebook on the issue of drug testing welfare applicants.  I tried, as always, to be respectful of everyone involved but the friend of mine who originally started the thread ended up un-friending me (which is too bad, but I didn't really know him anyway, and I didn't ever ask to be his friend in the first place, he was just some random guy from high school who had decided to send me a friend request) so my input got cut short.  I figured I might as well follow up on this blog.  Here's how the exchange went:

The Cost-Benefit Case
As you can see, the reason I don't think drug testing welfare applicants is a good idea is because it's a waste of money.  Florida pioneered this strategy and ended up losing $45,780 (not including attorneys fees, court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy).  On top of that, there is a strong suspicion at Gov. Rick Scott just pushed this measure because he has ties to the drug testing company "Solantic."  So, really, this whole thing reeks of corruption and graft.  Sure, it sounds plausible.  Who would defend giving money to drug addicts?  But the fact is it cost an extra $118,140 over and above what Floridians were paying for welfare already, drug addicts and all, to screen the applicant pool and knock the cost down by $72,360.  Clearly the cost exceeds the benefit, and from a consequentialist standpoint the policy should be rejected.

The Constitutional Case
The ACLU has argued that drug testing welfare applicants is unconstitutional because it violates the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches.  As I stated in the facebook thread, I don't buy that line of argument.  The 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches, as I see it, applies to situations where a citizen is just minding his own business and the government decides to come in and search him or his property without cause.  In this case, it seems to me that the citizen is going to the government to apply for welfare, and the government is just making sure the applicant passes the criteria it has set up for the program.

I am willing to admit it's a bit of a gray area, and I'm not comfortable making that constitutional case too forcefully.  For example, based on my line of reasoning you could say, "Kyle, when you use government roads voluntarily, does that mean the government has a right to search your car as a condition of driving on them?"  I would be very uncomfortable answering yes to that question.  I think that a program could be setup that would search every car on the road and be constitutional, but the government would need to have checkpoints at every driveway, or the exit of every neighborhood, or the entrance of every freeway, so that there was no "reasonable expectation of privacy" (the legal test established in Katz v. United States to determine whether an unwarranted search is constitutional or not) when driving on government roads.  I think a program that actually passed that constitutional test would cost trillions in enforcement costs and lost productivity for absolutely no benefit whatsoever, but it would be constitutional.

Rather than comparing drug testing of welfare applicants to random searches on the highway, I would compare it to admissions at a public university.  To be admitted to a public university you need to meet certain requirements:  GPA, SAT scores, and perhaps extracurricular activities.  You provide this information when you apply for government colleges, just as you would for private colleges, so that the government can screen the applicant pool.  That's more what I see going on here.

Of course, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Just look at the post office, which is specifically authorized in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Should The Applicants Pay?
In Joe's parting shot, he said that he thought the applicants should pay for the drug tests instead of the government.  That's a fair enough sentiment, I suppose, but it wouldn't make a lot of difference.  It's just an accounting gimmick that doesn't change how resources are actually used.  If applicants end up passing the drug test and getting welfare, as 98% of them will, they will end up recouping their losses from the welfare benefits.  So really what you're doing when you make the applicants pay for drug testing is reducing welfare benefits. 

You might think I'd be in favor of reducing welfare benefits.  Well, I am, but this isn't reducing welfare benefits, it's just shifting the welfare benefits around.  What do I mean?  You do cut benefits to the welfare beneficiaries, but the money saved is now going to drug testing companies for make-work jobs that we've already determined are useless.  It's now just corporate welfare instead of social welfare.

In the final analysis, if welfare applicants don't have to pay for the drug tests it's just a pointless increase in government spending.  If welfare applicants are made to pay for the drug tests social welfare spending is transformed into corporate welfare for some lucky drug testing companies.  It makes no difference.  It's a shell game.