Someone fix me. Or am I already seeing it correctly?
Admittedly this is something I hadn’t really thought of before that often. On the surface it makes a lot of sense to me. I realize that my views are sort of on the fringe of a lot of mainstream views when it comes to fiscal things. I also like to think I’m somewhat pragmatic and can discuss things I disagree with or realize things that aren’t going to change overnight.
We give out too much money, but that system probably isn’t going to change drastically anytime soon.
If we are going to distribute tax payer dollars to people for welfare, it would be great if that money was actually going to good use and not drugs.
Knowing 1 and 2, drug testing makes a lot of sense and I was happy to see Kansas was going to start drug testing welfare recipients. Until I started reading about how much is spent to catch such a little amount of abusers. We all know if we are honest that abuse is going to happen in any system.
Is it a waste of taxpayer resources to go after people who may be abusing taxpayer systems? Is catching the few bad guys these programs seem to catch worth the big cost? I’m having a very difficult time with my thought process here.
I would like for the most part the discussion to be centered around the testing and it’s worthiness in terms of money. We can do the “this is why we shouldn’t have welfare in the first place” in another thread and we have done that over and over anyways.