This is less of a policy thing and more of a fundamental reaction thing: Generally, conservatives have a reflexive response to issues of fairness, free-ridery, etc. The idea that somewhere, someone might game public benefits or services or money, or whatever, is unbearable (I also think their targets for this ire are usually wrong, too, but that’s for another thread). This is primary. It’s often presented in anecdotes (e.g., the power and persistence of the Welfare Queen). On the surface at least, it makes sense.
I get it. It’s an understandable response. (I even hated group projects in school because of this: there’d always be some deadbeat.)
But how we take the second step, contextualize it, understand it in the aggregate, and try to view it dispassionately as a matter of rational, efficient, suitable policy—that’s where the difference is.
It reminds me of that “Dukakis” moment in the '88 debates: the old chestnut where you ask an anti-death penalty person how they would feel if their (insert sympathetic female family member) were raped and murdered. Well, duh. It would be horrific and devastating. We’d probably be inconsolable and furious with grief and anger and a desire for vengeance.
But getting from those understandable feelings to general support for the death penalty is problematic. I don’t think our laws and justice system should be grounded in amygdalas flooded with neurochemicals and incapable of judgement and discernment. In fact, it’s because of that response that I am against the death penalty (not the only reason).
What the left fails to understand is conservatives are all for helping the needy, all they ask is that it only goes to actually needy people and not able bodied people who prefer not to work. They refuse simple things like drug testing for those on assistance while tax payers undergo it at work. They oppose means testing, so you end up with people with million dollar homes or a million in the bank on welfare. Yes I know that amount is rare but it’s not much better if the number in 100k instead of a million.
I would support free food and housing for anyone in need tomorrow if that assistance came with the appropriate strings to weed out moochers and put the people receiving it on the path to independence if at all possible. So here’s your free lodging, barracks style or base housing style if a family and here is your free mess hall and here are your obligations to remain eligible. No drugs, no booze, no smoking, attend classes, accept work if offered and you are capable of it.
Do you have any hard evidence of all these able bodied people gaming the system,
I do not disagree it happens, but at what scale? What amount is “acceptable” since we know it will never be zero,
There is Medicare, fraud, should we just disband the program?
If it costs less to accept a small % of people gaming or defrauding the system, but the overall success rate is high and helps millions of people…is that OK?
If a corporation like Enron can game the system while getting Federal subsidies, why can’t we just end all Federal subsidies using the same logic? I mean that makes sense, right?
“Enron received about $3.7 billion in financing through federal government agencies.”
The right opposition to helping the needy is always about people gaming the system. If one person is taking advantage of the assistance, the whole system must be stopped. I wish they would instead work to improve the system instead of be roadblock all the time.
Except that isn’t the case. How is ending means testing a case of one person gaming the system and not the system giving carte blanche to those who would?
How is not enforcing the public charge immigration rule a case of one person gaming the system?
I don’t agree with attaching strings like no drugs/booze/smoking to anyone who receives assistance for the simple reason that many people may use these to self-medicate to deal with anxiety and other issues. Smoking (tobacco), particularly, can be a life-long habit for some that’s very difficult to kick.
It’s obviously not good for anyone to use substances as a crutch to deal with issues but IMO, it’s unreasonable to flat out deny assistance to those who still do.
The above link is a list of costs for lab drug tests. Recipients, much like a security deposit on a rental, paid the out of pocket cost, IIRC for urine drug testing—to get it back if they tested negative, which they generally did.
Is this a burden bearable by those applying strictly for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families? Is this what states wish to pay in welfare costs?
Probably not, which is why generally states that mandate drug testing for welfare recipients generally only do so for cause & not every single potential recipient.
