Trump Administration Requires Drug Testing for Food Stamp Recipients

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
be727e1ffa804e435fe842c4134cf948.png

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is considering a plan that would allow states to require certain food stamp recipients to undergo drug testing, handing a win to conservatives who’ve long sought ways to curb the safety net program.

The proposal under review would be narrowly targeted, applying mostly to people who are able-bodied, without dependents and applying for some specialized jobs, according to an administration official briefed on the plan. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said roughly 5 percent of participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program could be affected.

The drug testing proposal is another step in the Trump administration’s push to allow states more flexibility in how they implement federal programs that serve the poor, unemployed or uninsured. It also wants to allow states to tighten work requirements for food stamp recipients and has found support among GOP governors who argue greater state control saves money and reduces dependency.

Internal emails obtained by The Associated Press indicated that Agriculture Department officials in February were awaiting word from the White House about the timing of a possible drug testing announcement.

“I think we just have to be ready because my guess is we may get an hour’s notice instead of a day’s notice,” wrote Jessica Shahin, associate administrator of SNAP.

Conservative policymakers have pushed for years to tie food assistance programs to drug testing.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, sued the USDA in 2015 for blocking the state from drug testing adults applying for food stamps.

800.jpeg

Chart shows federal SNAP/food stamp participation and spending since 1969.

A federal judge tossed the suit in 2016, but Walker renewed his request for permission later that year, after Donald Trump had won the presidency but before he took office.

“We turned that down,” said former USDA Food and Nutrition Service Undersecretary Kevin Concannon, who served in the position under the Obama administration from 2009 until January of last year. “It’s costly and cumbersome.”

The proposal is not expected to be included in a GOP-written farm bill expected to be released as soon as early this week, a GOP aide said.

Federal law bars states from imposing their own conditions on food stamp eligibility.

Still, some states have tried to implement some form of drug testing for the food assistance program, so far with little success.

Judges have blocked similar efforts in other states. In Florida in 2014, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling that drug testing SNAP recipients is unconstitutional.

But at least 20 states have introduced legislation to screen safety net program participants in some capacity, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In December, Walker began moving ahead with a workaround, drug testing participants in the state’s Employment and Training Program who also received food stamps.

USDA under Trump has not taken a public position on drug testing. But Secretary Sonny Perdue has promised to provide states with “greater control over SNAP.”

“As a former governor, I know first-hand how important it is for states to be given flexibility to achieve the desired goal of self-sufficiency for people,” he said. “We want to provide the nutrition people need, but we also want to help them transition from government programs, back to work, and into lives of independence.”

The emails obtained by the AP suggest that a plan could be forthcoming.

The plan would apply to able-bodied people who do not have dependents and are applying for certain jobs, such as operating heavy machinery, the official said.

In a February 15 email to USDA officials, Maggie Lyons, chief of staff to an acting official at the Food and Nutrition Service, said, “We need to have a conversation about timing given budget and when the (White House) wants us to release drug testing.”

If the administration moves forward, it would not be the first time drug testing was used in a safety net program.

At least 15 states have passed laws allowing them to drug-test recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, also known as welfare.

The discussion of the future of SNAP and potential changes to the program are set against the backdrop of the 2018 farm bill, slated for release as soon as this week. The bulk of the bill’s spending goes toward funding SNAP, which often proves the most contentious part of negotiations; late last month, House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., issued a statement on behalf of Democrats denouncing “extreme, partisan policies being advocated by the majority.”

Ed Bolen, senior policy analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities think tank, said requiring drug testing for food benefits will have consequences for already vulnerable populations. What’s more, he said, implementing drug testing for SNAP recipients is legally murky.

“Are people losing their food assistance if they don’t take the test, and in that case, is that a condition of eligibility, which the states aren’t allowed to impose?” he said. “And does drug testing fall into what’s allowable under a state training and employment program, which typically lists things like job search or education or on-the-job experience? This is kind of a different bucket.”

The emails also show that USDA is weighing the possibility of scaling back a policy currently enacted in 42 states that automatically grants food stamp eligibility to households that qualify for non-cash assistance, like job training and childcare. The proposed change, which would impose income limits, could potentially affect millions.

Republicans tried to make similar changes when Congress passed the 2014 farm bill, but the cuts were rejected by Democrats and did not end up in the final bill.

Concannon, the former USDA undersecretary, said the Trump administration “is keen on weakening the programs developed to strengthen the health or fairness or access to programs and imposing populist requirements that aren’t evidence based, but often stigmatize people.”

The USDA in recent months has been under fire for its controversial plan to replace a portion of millions of food stamp recipients’ benefits with a pre-assembled package of shelf-stable goods dubbed “America’s Harvest Box.” The food box plan was tucked into the Trump administration’s proposed 2019 budget, which included cutting the SNAP program by $213 billion over the next 10 years. SNAP provides food assistance to roughly 42 million Americans
Full Article | Archive

I can hear Detroit and California and Florida screaming from here, already. How long have we been waiting for a policy like this to get thrown into the mix now, two decades? Three? I honestly can't remember but it's about goddamn time that it's starting to be seriously floated around.

This ties in fantastically to the Executive Order he signed yesterday, too. There's an all-out war headed towards the NEETs and the illegal immigrants and drug addicts saddled up on welfare, so you'd best buckle your seatbelts because that's going to affect a lot of the people we follow on this forum.
 
If you have money for drugs you have money for food. I wonder if they'll make an exception for people who use medicinal marijuana. I don't want to be discriminated because of my emotional support cocaine stuffed dog.
 
Great way to ensure that tax payers pay even more to help people that need assistance.

Edit: please someone feel free to explain how this will not cost taxpayers money (you can’t, because it will)
 
Última edición:
If you have money for drugs you have money for food. I wonder if they'll make an exception for people who use medicinal marijuana. I don't want to be discriminated because of my emotional support cocaine stuffed dog.
As much as this sounds great, medical pot if ok will sky rocket, or much much worse opiates.

Really I agree with this in ways but in more so, it's just gonna fail because much like foodstamps themselves the gov fucks ANYTHING it touches up.
 
If you have money for drugs you have money for food. I wonder if they'll make an exception for people who use medicinal marijuana. I don't want to be discriminated because of my emotional support cocaine stuffed dog.

Plenty of people with legitimate prescriptions for opiates/opioids and amphetamines are going to test dirty on screening tests and more complicated tests to ensure that people aren't abusing their prescriptions are too expensive to be viable on a large scale.
 
Plenty of people with legitimate prescriptions for opiates/opioids and amphetamines are going to test dirty on screening tests and more complicated tests to ensure that people aren't abusing their prescriptions are too expensive to be viable on a large scale.
That's my fear, just get a script and esp on medicare/caid it's easy as heck to find shady docs who will write something then you either need to add to the costs to those people or forgo testing. So either they get pills to sell or use to skip screenings or they all jump on board this to push costs up and add to reasons to remove this program.

It's a lose lose, but we won't do the good ole fashioned smart thing of just drop this shit program.

The old saying Thomas Sowell had comes to mind, "what would you replace it with? you don't replace a fire after you put it out" Social Services are a dumpster fire at best in this nation and that's before I touch on my own personal/political thoughts.
 
This has never been effective in any state that has tried it. Innocent people get flagged by false positives, the drugs they test for hardly stay in your system for more than a few days (save for pot, which is hardly anything pricewise compared to other drugs). They usually only end up catching a handful of people, and the cost of testing (very expensive) is barely offset.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/should-we-drug-test-welfare-recipients/ <<---- more info
 
This has never been effective in any state that has tried it. Innocent people get flagged by false positives, the drugs they test for hardly stay in your system for more than a few days (save for pot, which is hardly anything pricewise compared to other drugs). They usually only end up catching a handful of people, and the cost of testing (very expensive) is barely offset.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/should-we-drug-test-welfare-recipients/ <<---- more info
Lol, gay website; therefore, ergo, a tranny is revealed.
 
This has never been effective in any state that has tried it. Innocent people get flagged by false positives, the drugs they test for hardly stay in your system for more than a few days (save for pot, which is hardly anything pricewise compared to other drugs). They usually only end up catching a handful of people, and the cost of testing (very expensive) is barely offset.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/should-we-drug-test-welfare-recipients/ <<---- more info
You're right. Trying to make anything better is hard. We should just do nothing.

Even this Snopes article admits their "research" results are inconclusive, not that they don't work, and they aren't even telling you which pieces of information are cited from which parts of which articles, or if they're even cited at all. For all you know, unless you go rummaging through every single article they're referencing, there's no way of telling whether or not they just made up these statements wholesale. If this was a high school research paper this would immediately get a big, fat F stamped on the cover page for its complete disregard for proper source citation.

It's also attempting to misrepresent the information. One test would cost $1,000 for example, and then it makes the assumption that that is more expensive than funding their EBT for the month. What about six months, or a year? What about two years? They're being intentionally deceptive by not taking into account the length of time this recipient might be gaming the EBT system.

Snopes is a horrible mess of a website run by two gross Baby Boomers and a cat, and they're one of the "fact-checking gurus" that Facebook consults with to determine what's "Fake news." They're not exactly a terrific source of unbiased, well-researched information.
 
Última edición:
This has never been effective in any state that has tried it. Innocent people get flagged by false positives, the drugs they test for hardly stay in your system for more than a few days (save for pot, which is hardly anything pricewise compared to other drugs). They usually only end up catching a handful of people, and the cost of testing (very expensive) is barely offset.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/should-we-drug-test-welfare-recipients/ <<---- more info
If there were a dollar amount you could slap on the satisfaction of knowing your tax dollars aren't going to free food for some lowlife I'm sure the cost/benefit would look a lot better.
 
If you have money for drugs you have money for food. I wonder if they'll make an exception for people who use medicinal marijuana. I don't want to be discriminated because of my emotional support cocaine stuffed dog.

Exchanging the food stamps for money to get drugs is an unfortunate reality. Back when the food stamps were a literal book of notes with values on them this happened all the time. Now it's a bit different. People utilize crooked bodegas to get money somehow. Not sure how it works but I've known people who did it. I believe it involves some kind of fraudulent exchange. They'll also exchange the stamps on the card for a lower value of cash by letting the person buy groceries with their card then get cash back from them. There was a guy going around asking people to do this in Walmart a few months ago and they threw him out.

However, the majority of food stamp recipients aren't doing this and in the end it will only cost a bundle and be a waste of time.

Druggies can go fuck themselves. But this is like saying everybody on food stamps is trash and may be subject to testing. Sure they say 5% now. But what's to stop them from eventually doing it to everyone?

The proposal under review would be narrowly targeted, applying mostly to people who are able-bodied, without dependents and applying for some specialized jobs, according to an administration official briefed on the plan. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said roughly 5 percent of participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program could be affected

This could snowball. Plus it's assuming you may be on drugs just because you are single/without dependents and able bodied. I don't agree with it at all actually. But I have to wonder if there's any provisions for people seeking treatment or people with the potential to. Are they going to immediately cut you off or try to help you first? Because spiraling further into poverty is only going to make your problems worse. What's in place to keep already vulnerable people from dying in the streets? My guess: Nothing.

The emails also show that USDA is weighing the possibility of scaling back a policy currently enacted in 42 states that automatically grants food stamp eligibility to households that qualify for non-cash assistance, like job training and childcare. The proposed change, which would impose income limits, could potentially affect millions.

This would negatively affect a lot of people. If you have a job but also qualify for food stamps and are now cut off because your income level is too high then what are you supposed to do? Don't they realise how much is going out in bills just to keep the lights on and the rent/mortgage up to date? Everything is so crazy expensive now. Lower income Trumptards don't realise that many of them will be affected by this.
 
If they forced the poor to complete a government run physical prior to obtaining benefits, libertareaganites would still tell you about this guy they totally know who hangs outside the local liquor store selling food stamps the first of every month and how insanely jealous he is of the poor because he has to buy his wife's bull a bottle Hennesey with his hard earned dollars.
 
The welfare problem is ridiculous in Florida. EBT and drugs go hand and hand. Go to the major cities (Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville) which has the worst roads in the states, and you’ll see there are more brand new Cadillacs than potholes on the roads. Go to any of the beaches, Cocoa and Daytona in particular (Miami actually doesn’t really have a welfare problem, more Mafia shit than anything), and you won’t smell the sweet, sticky salt in the air. You’ll smell weed; and burning rubber from more Cadillacs. Everything in those cities take EBT, even small-businesses. Coincidentally, they also have a huge drug trade problem. Go to the ghettos and they’ll be doing draws of coke on their front porch, they don’t care. It’s awful. Nothing like seeing a man in front of me wreaking of weed buying a $5 pizza from 7-11 with an EBT card. I get that EBT is good in cases - I’ve had dirt poor friends on it in the past, and I myself nearly had to go on it during my college days - but abusers are gay. And should be dealt with. For shits sake I was living off ramen and bologna sandwiches but he got shit for pizza AND weed? Nah. Just...nah.

I guess welfare recepiants were feeling some heat from higher ups or something, because they found another way to get money. They’d sign up to a state college or something, file a FAFSA, and take the student loan without showing up to a single class. It got out of control and pretty much everyone was doing it. So the State passed a bill that requires the student that took a loan to be present in class for the first week in order to get the money, while also not getting any of it if you drop during add/drop (when you’d miss two days, it was considered you’re dropping). Missed a day, and you gotta jump through hoops to get your cash in time. This was a few years back. But it fucked everyone else up. Who the fuck wants to sit through the first week when all you do is read the syllabus? Oh and the students who did show? Coincidentally all wore the same cologne of Mary Jane. While bringing it some dank Chic Fil-A to taunt me whilst I gourged on cheese crackers.

So fuck you welfare people for making me sit through the first week of classes. Goddamn that shits boring.
 
I've told this story before, but yea when I was in grad school.. I bought EBT that 3-4 dollars a WEEK made a difference to me.

I couldn't get benefits because scholarship and I worked full time, I was going to school as well. I went to super market a bunch of really healthy looking heavy smoking young black men often offered to exchange. I'd go buy things on their card and chat it up. He'd swipe for me I'd hand him 75-80 cents on the dollar.

At time I felt a bit bad about it but when someone has to scrimp for 3 more dollars to feed themselves for a week working and going to school... and someone else can afford to trade their free food for smokes and still manage to live?

Anyone who says it's not a rampant problem, is wealthy enough not to shop in a welfare area.
 
Snopes is a horrible mess of a website run by two gross Baby Boomers and a cat, and they're one of the "fact-checking gurus" that Facebook consults with to determine what's "Fake news." They're not exactly a terrific source of unbiased, well-researched information.
Snopes is actually an excellent source of unbaised, well-researched information. That's not really disputed by anyone.

The best argument people have against snopes is that their ultimate judgement, the "rating" they issue, is biased as fuck. It's used as an excuse to ree against Snopes, but it doesn't really say anything about the quality of their research itself.
 
I agree with ya for the most part the issue is that drug testing isn't exactly a cheap endeavor and there are plenty of ways around most the tests.

Not to mention that if people are cut off food assistance there'll be both increased pressure on private charities which give food aid and a likely increase in petty crime.

Not going to lie, I find the US food stamps system bizarre in the modern world but if you're going to change it then overhaul the whole programme so it's no longer a carry over from a bygone era.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo