No worries, I know what you, huck, and liberalace are all about. I try not to be reactive, it deminishes the debate.<quoted text>
Ok, sorry; I'll lay off the insulting silliness in your case - it's just me flaming for a response.
But let's break down the diminishing returns concept by using some estimated costs and savings. Let's use 1,000 welfare recipients as our test baseline.
Cost of test:$300 (very high, can be much cheaper)
Annual cost of $12/hour equivalent, and using a 40-hour work week (equivalent amount of total benefits, according to Cato Institute) in Virginia per person:$25,000.
Total cost of testing 1,000 persons:$300,000
Total award, 1,000 persons:$25,000,000.
Assume 5% positive results (low) and assume positive results stops all payments (one can dream): annual savings is $25m - 5% or $1,250,000 based on our 1,000 person test.
If your positive results stay the same, your outcome will stay the same per 1,000. If the test scares people away (i.e. they no longer apply) and we have fewer positive results then we save in total outlay of benefits. Concomitantly, if the test scares people straight, literally; we stand to save billions in drug program costs over the long run.
So explain, please anyone; how each additional test would at some theoretical point reach the point of diminishing returns.
Did you read the links that I provided? Only 2.5-3% came up positive. It's actually costing FLA more than it is saving.
This isn't the first time that FLA tried this program. They dumped it 10 years ago, citing fiscal concerns.
Here is a quote from a local station, and in one of the links that I provided:
Just six weeks after Florida began drug testing welfare applicants, WFTV uncovered numbers which show that the program is already costing Central Florida taxpayers more than it saves. 9 Investigates reporter George Spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs. The Department of Central Floridas (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed.
Governor Rick Scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle.We have a diminishing amount of returns for our tax dollars. Do we want out governor throwing our precious tax dollars into a program that has already been proven not to work? Derek Brett of the ACLU said.
DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test and the state reimburses [the applicant] if they test negative. Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140. Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.
Take from that what you will.
On the surface, to those who aren't concerned about a Constitutional slippary slope, it seems like a good idea. If you take into account lessons learned from other states, not so much.
I don't think this is the answer for other reasons as well. I'm not saying that I don't think we are in desperate need of welfare reform, but I don't believe this is the way to go about it...
If you've followed my posts, you'll know what's coming next:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. "~Benjamin Franklin