Mississippi Has The Right Idea With New Welfare Requirement

Though there is plenty of debate regarding the optimal size and scope of the various programs, millions of Americans concede that some level of welfare should be available for the neediest among us. Unfortunately, leftist politicians have increasingly used the promise of such benefits to attract new voters.

This has not only created a class of citizens dependent on the federal government for its survival; countless recipients have successfully defrauded the welfare system in a variety of ways. One state is now implementing a system meant to combat those abuses, even if some critics might contend it doesn’t go far enough.

According to recent reports, Mississippi will force welfare recipients to complete a questionnaire regarding potential drug abuse. State authorities will require certain applicants, based on their responses, to undergo drug testing before receiving assistance.

Positive results will lead to responses ranging from drug abuse treatment to a one year suspension from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

There have been numerous welfare reform proposals that would require all welfare recipients to be tested for the use of illicit substances. Proponents of such policies suggest that, since many employers require potential hires to prove they do not abuse drugs, those receiving government funds should be held to the same standard.

While Mississippi’s new welfare model does not go quite that far, Gov. Phil Bryant contends it is a fair system for both taxpayers and the state’s needy families.

“The TANF program is a safety net for families in need,” he said, “and adding this screening process will aid adults who are trapped in a dependency lifestyle so they can better provide for their children.”

State estimates put the cost of this testing at a very modest $36,000 per year.

Mississippi is the 10th state to approve some level of drug testing for those receiving welfare. More than half of the remaining states, however, are currently considering such bills.

Even as a leftist federal government continues to mire the U.S. in corruption and debt, individual states acknowledge the need to address this exceedingly wasteful program. Accountability will benefit both the taxpayers being forced to fund the welfare system and those who legitimately need assistance being squandered by frauds.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Photo Credit: Cbalentine (Creative Commons)

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >


  1. MuslimLuvChrist says:

    All welfare recipients will move to Colorado

  2. Edwardkoziol says:

    It amazes me that our government when handing out money to these w3elfare bums don't check oput what they are spending the money on.They buy weed drugs and booze and we give them raises.Yet retirees who worked all their lives are told the well is running dry for them.what a country thanks to politicians and goody goody two shoe groups.

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      They don't care what the money is spent on. This 'administration' wants the public dependent on government 'benefits'. End of story.
      While I feel there should be no rules regarding the purchase and use of any drugs, you should not be allowed public assistance if you are on drugs. There should be drug testing to receive welfare. I also believe there should be drug testing at work to make sure you are not working impaired.
      If you use on your off time, no matter the drug, that is your business and no one else's.
      No doubt we're getting close to the end of the welfare system. Once we have 51% reliant on a government handout, things will change. They'll have to. Not enough working to pay for the lazy.

      Personally, I'm looking for an attorney that will handle a lawsuit against the government concerning Social Security and fiduciary liability. The government took my money and was to invest properly. They embezzled my money and failed in their fiduciary duty. Of course it would be a class action suit.
      It's time to take back our government. They have way too much control over our lives.

      • Florida did conduct drug testing on welfare recipients, and they found that 2.6% of recipients tested positive for drugs. When you also realize that 4% of the entire country uses drugs, it might put those claims of people who receive welfare into a proper perspective. And when you determine the money spent on drug tests is greater than the actual money saved by refusing drug users welfare, then it doesn't really make any fiscal sense.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          2.6% of what percent of the welfare recipient population? Not all were tested.
          The money spent on drug testing is greater than actual money saved refusing drug users welfare?
          I'm curious of the math you, and those denying the facts, use because the actual math says otherwise.

          We'll use Florida:
          Spending for welfare = $175,700,000,000.00 per year.
          Welfare payment to 2.9% testing positive for drug use = $5,095,300,000.00 per year. (2.9% of spending)
          People collecting welfare in Florida = 5,837,333
          Drug testing cost = $583,733,300.00 @ $100/test x all receiving welfare
          Savings = $4,511,566,700.00 (payment to 2.9% – testing cost)

          The savings would be substantially more if ALL welfare recipients were tested for drug use. As it was, ONLY those who answered 'yes' when asked if they used illegal drugs were tested.
          You can even pick up a 12 panel drug test at any pharmacy for $50 or less. Welfare recipients collect $60,000 +/- per year.

          The lie that it costs more for drug testing than would be saved with refusing welfare to drug users does not make mathematical sense, nor fiscal sense. Also, FAR more than 4% of the total population use drugs. Colorado, California and Washington State alone show this truth.

          Those that can do basic math have the proper perspective. Those who like the welfare state ignore the facts.
          I'm confident that you'll agree then that there should be no drug testing allowed at work. If cost doesn't outweigh benefit for welfare then it can't for a business that deals with much lesser numbers.

      • Edwardkoziol says:

        Seeks inMyrtle Beasch we have a Mercedez Dealership and they have drug testing and just this past week an employee was fired for drugs in his system.I woked for the NYS Thruway Authority and we were subjected to random drug testing plus after I retired and went to work for a recreational vehicle sales we needed to take a drug test.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          I have yet to know one business that doesn't drug test. So if the taxpayer is drug tested, why not welfare bums? If people are getting welfare legitimately, they should be happy to be drug tested.
          I worked for the railroad and we were subjected to random drug testing. I knew my name would never come up in the lottery. That's because I was a union official. Our names are 'conveniently' omitted from the draw.

  3. Whats wrong with ppl who are on welfare, having too show proof that there not physically able too get a job, instead of just handing them taxpayer money!!

Speak Your Mind