T
he recently and unfortunately re-elected Governor of my state yesterday signed into law a policy that would require drug testing on welfare recipients. You might assume that I live in some southern enclave, or Arizona. No, my friends. I live in the Northern, civilized blue-state of Michigan. Rick Snyder, our CEO-in-chief, is indeed a Republican, but isn't what would be considered by the Tea-Party as being small-government enough for their taste. He actually believes government should exist, for example. However, it still shouldn't come as a surprise that the man who passed Right-to-Work would support a bill that essentially makes not working subject to infringement.
Now I'm sure there are many non-Conservatives who view this issue as a matter of pragmatism. Why shouldn't welfare recipients be drug tested? If a person can't afford to eat, then they should not be wasting money on something to help them forget that they can't afford to eat! These good, judgmental Christian folk are only concerned for their own expense in the process. Paying taxes for roads and schools is insulting enough, but to pay for some single-mother and her four "I forgot the condoms in my apartment" children requires some level of scrutiny.
These hard-working Americans want to make sure their contribution towards a charitable cause isn't without limitation. They put in long hours at their minimum wage jobs and expect the small percentage taken out of their paycheck to not be abused by coke-snorting unemployment hogs, living off the public teet for survival. One can at least admit a semblance of rationality in the argument, even if it is devoid of compassion or those other pesky liberal emotions. Should children starve because their lazy parents spent a little extra cash on something that's now perfectly legal in Colorado?
This actually sets a dangerous standard going forward. If we're going to test people for drugs, why not alcohol? Why not cigarettes? Clearly these are legal, but no less wasteful of taxpayer dollars. What about junk food? Is the government really going to pay for Shanequa and her rugrats to splurge the public treasury on Cheetos and Faygo grape soda? If you thought being poor made you miserable enough already, just wait until you have to live like a puritan to maintain even the most basic standard of living.
It's a shame Mitt Romney is Mormon, otherwise he could enjoy the fruits of his hard-earned labor (read: inheriting everything from his daddy) and indulge in all the illicit substances he could fit in his magic underwear. If you're poor, however, you have to maintain a sense of dignity. Most importantly, proving to your superiors that you're not a filthy, free-loading meth addict. Though I do imagine that this testing will occur before the application is complete, in which case these moochers can just do what the rest of us have been doing for decades: Waiting a few months between lighting up and showing up for an interview. If the testing is something that takes place intermittently during the period of being a blood-sucking leech on society, treated like a felon on probation, then they're veritably screwed.
This policy is built on the assumption that poor people deserve to be where they are, and need to be checked up on if they receive the least bit of help from society. It's like Jesus said: “Before I multiply all these fishes and loaves of bread to feed everyone, I'm going to need a urine sample.” That passage is found in Matthew, in the RRV (Ronald Reagan Version) Bible, for those interested.
Meanwhile, Rick Snyder can receive an annual salary from the citizens of this fine state and use it however he likes without any actual tests. It's not like anyone here is paying attention, or voting. That would be a waste of time. And time, after all, is money. It's far more useful to spend it drinking and smoking pot.