Here's a concept: Force welfare recipients to take drug tests and limit their lottery winnings.

.
I'm sure that liberal haters would disagree. After all, it's NEVER a welfare recipient's fault that they're actually ON welfare, and we should be grateful for the opportunity to shovel billions of dollars down that particular rat hole.

As something of a fiscal conservative, I take the opposite view: since the vast majority of these recipients of our largess are in their situation because of decisions THEY made, THEY should actually be grateful they were born into a society that gives a damn enough to keep them from starving.

As a society, we've made the decision that there are certain items welfare recipients cannot buy with our money: alcohol comes to mind.

That is, they can't buy it at a store with their welfare card, or food stamps.

Well guess what?

If they've got money from ANYWHERE to buy booze, beer or drugs, then they shouldn't get a DIME in welfare.

If they've got the money to buy lottery tickets, then they shouldn't get a DIME in welfare.

Ideally, welfare is a temporary state (Aside from the empty suit's efforts to make it permanent)

It even USED to be call TANF, or "Temporary Aid for Needy Families.") (It still may be, but given The One's PC bent lately, it's liable to be called "Permanent Gifting for Misunderstood Cash Recipients" or some such nonsense.) so, the ideas here are, allegedly, two-fold:

First, that this aid is temporary, until such time as the recipient gets:

Second, a job.

How likely is it that someone doing drugs will get, or keep, a job?

And why would any welfare recipient believe they have enough money to buy lottery tickets?

A West Virginia Delegate to their House of Delegates, Craig Blair, has opened up his own website, the aptly named http://www.notwithmytaxdollars.com/ that HE'S paying for out of his own pocket, explains it all on the drug issue.

Question: Is this bill constitutional and does it violate my Fourth Amendment Rights?

Answer: In examining the Constitutionality of random drug testing for public assistant recipients, it is important to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed this issue directly. The Supreme Court has heard matters regarding suspicionless drug tests in other settings, but the test for determining the Constitutionality of such tests all falls on the reasons behind the testing, or more specifically, the “compelling state interest.” It would be premature and improper to extrapolate all previous rulings to the random drug testing system established in this bill.

Any time the government, or any agent thereof, conducts a search, such as a drug test, the search must be examined in the context of our Fourth Amendment privacy protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Considering there are no criminal implications in this bill, the Supreme Court would most likely question the search’s reasonableness. A search is “reasonable” when supported by “special needs” beyond the normal need for law enforcement. In the most recent cases before the Supreme Court regarding suspicionless searches (i.e. random drug tests) the Court has held that public schools have the right to test athletes and participants of extracurricular activities because the public school’s custodial and educational duties, a finding of individual suspicion was not necessary. Arguably, the State has a compelling interest in curbing the drug use of citizens in general, maximizing the benefit of every dollar expended, and specifically, deterring drug use of persons receiving public assistance, because (a) the State cannot rationally justify the incompatible policies of criminally policing drug use while simultaneously providing money for persons to purchase drugs, and (b) the preeminent interest of protecting low-income families from the ravages of addiction and abuse.

Second comes the question of an “expectation of privacy.” The average citizen has the greatest expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Various activities or conditions affect this expectation; for example, prisoners, students and military personnel all have a diminished expectation of privacy. In the recent Supreme Court cases mentioned above, the Court held that students involved in athletics and extra-curricular activities have a diminished expectation of privacy because of the rules, procedures and activities inherent in participation. Similarly, a person accepting public assistance may have a diminished expectation of privacy due to the fact that as a condition precedent to receiving assistance a person must submit to the government private information such as name, address, social security number, income, number of dependents, etc., and this information is checked and rechecked to ensure the eligibility for public assistance. This bill provides no criminal recourse for anyone testing positive for illicit use of controlled substances and ensures the confidentiality of all test results. One could argue that it treads on the Fourth Amendment in the lightest way possible.

Lastly, the Supreme Court will probably require that a drug testing program be “tailored” (possibly narrowly) to fit the State’s “compelling interest.” This bill provides for random testing, and prohibits the use of any other criteria, including but not limited to, suspicion of drug use, previous drug use or criminal conviction for drug use or possession. Again, the results are completely confidential and cannot be distributed to a public or private person or entity. Additionally, following a positive test, the recipient will not lose any benefits until failing a second drug test 30-60 days later. If a person twice fails a drug test and is determined ineligible, the person can reapply in two years. Both of these provisions are aimed at deterring drug use while allowing self-help and providing a remedy, and are less stringent than alternative policies the State could implement in dealing with the dilemma.

Again, the Supreme Court has yet to directly address the issue of drug testing of public assistance recipients which was actually provided for in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and the unique nature of the issue would require a specific analysis. The bill has been drafted in a way to navigate the constitutional waters and provide a limited solution to a definitive problem.

More:

There's a bill out there in Tennessee that addresses the lottery ticket issue:


Bill Summary

*HB 0818 by *Campfield. (SB 1240 by *Bunch.)

Lottery, Corporation - As introduced, prohibits certain persons who receive state or federal assistance from being awarded lottery prizes over $600; prohibits persons incarcerated from being awarded lottery prizes. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 51, Part 1.

Fiscal Summary

Decrease State Revenue - $54,000/Human Services Other Fiscal Impact - Decreases net lottery proceeds earmarked for scholarships and grants by an amount estimated to exceed $6,472,500 per year. An increase of after-school funding estimated to be no more than $1,318,500 per year.

Bill Summary

Present law requires that unclaimed lottery prize money be deposited in the after school programs special account; provided, however, that, if the unclaimed prizes in any fiscal year total more than $18,000,000, then the excess accrues to the fund balance of the lottery for education account.

This bill prohibits issuance of lottery prizes in the amount of $600 or more to any person who receives state or federal economic or medical assistance due to indigency and any such prizes otherwise payable to any such persons would be declared unclaimed prizes. The prohibition would not apply to recipients of lottery scholarships or higher education tuition assistance, recipients of benefits from programs administered by the Tennessee housing development agency, and persons receiving other state and federal financial assistance that is not based upon the recipient's indigency.

This bill prohibits convicted criminals who are incarcerated from redeeming winning lottery tickets and any winnings otherwise payable to any such persons would be declared unclaimed prizes.

.