The issue of drug testing welfare recipients has once again come to the forefront. Rep. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee has reintroduced legislation that would randomly test recipients of TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) to ensure that poor parents aren’t sniffing, smoking, or shooting up in-between diaper changes. Never mind that a similar law in Florida was a money-wasting bust, and later struck down by the Court of Appeals — which viewed it as a violation of the Fourth Amendment — Republicans like Fincher continue to beat the “poor people are ripping us off” drum. Never mind, too, the trillions of tax dollars spent or guaranteed by the government (last estimated at $12.8T in 2010 by Bloomberg News) rescuing an economy that was thrown into turmoil by bad banking practices. No politician who depends on corporate contributions is going to suggest drug testing the CEO’s of corporations receiving even the most massive bailouts.
However, the US government does test many employees, from prison guards to postal workers. Many government occupations, including those that are low-level, also require a personality assessment or psychological testing. Military recruits undergo a battery of tests, covering not only drug use, but basic intelligence, logic skills, and mental fitness.
Why then aren’t congressional candidates — those who wield power in the highest offices of the land and who are responsible for making decisions that affect millions of people — put under the same scrutiny?
This isn’t purely a reactionary question, and I don’t mean it to be taken as a snarky retort to policies like those Fincher has proposed. I am genuinely curious why we don’t test political leaders.
If we consider it vital to weed out prison guards with anger issues, or Navy cadets who can’t make logical connections, then why would we not apply even more stringent criteria and testing to those who are deciding America’s most important issues? A potentially incompetent mail carrier may affect the sanctity of mail in their neighborhood, but an incompetent, illogical, or otherwise unfit member of Congress can damage an entire nation. These leaders have a direct and lasting affect on the economy, social policies, global relations, and the national defense — yet they are not even subject to the same basic tests given to the greenest of military recruits.
The argument that no one Congress person could affect the government on his or her own is fallacious. The list of federal politicians indicted for their crimes is long, and in many cases, point to a corruptive effect (e.g. Abramoff, Delay, Libby) that has rippled through the political system. And these are only the leaders who’ve pled guilty and/or been convicted — and too often it’s been political spite rather than a genuine attachment to justice that has fueled the investigations.
During the last Presidential election, I attempted to keep track of some of the craziness of elected leaders. The task proved overwhelming for someone with limited time to spare. If you read the news at all, you know we’ve got representatives who are seemingly incapable of logic — who believe that climate change is a left-wing invention, women can’t get pregnant from rape, and that affordable health care is a socialist plot. We’ve got a crumbling economy and record number of people living in poverty, and politicians who would rather attack the largely mythical “Welfare Queen” than the obvious and far more costly problems of jobs, unemployment, wages, and the cost of living. We’ve got mass shootings, struggling Veterans, and a flailing education system — and too many representatives who are more interested in transvaginal ultrasounds and birth control.
It’s maddening because it is crazy. There’s nothing normal about discussing the consistency of scrambled eggs while standing in the path of an imminent storm. There’s no logic or proven benefit (other than to medical companies) in drug-testing TANF recipients — whose benefits are already worth less than they were in 1996 – especially when such tests aren’t considered for those who wield so much more influence and who receive a much larger slice of the taxpayer pie. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 14 states, monthly benefit levels are less than $300 for a family of three. Nationally, the median payment is $428. The 2013 salary of rank-and-file members of Congress is $174,000 along with full health and retirements benefits, and many might reasonably argue that some Senators and House members view their offices as part-time jobs.
As CNN pointed out last June, even before our present state of stagnation, the current Congress has also been incredibly unproductive. Who’s taking advantage of whom? Who’s the bigger threat to the national economy — the unemployed parent of two receiving $300 a month, or the well-paid Senators who would rather imperil our nation than agree to a bipartisan budget plan?
America is in dire need of a clear-headed Congress that’s intelligent, logical, and able to be productive. For that reason, I think every member should undergo at least the same drug and psych tests we demand of our military recruits.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
