Posted on

Let Me Help You: Pull Down Your Pants and Pee

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed TANF Drug-Screening into Law – May 31, 2011

Welfare. While a beneficent word, one found in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, many Americans shutter at its mention. Why? It is most closely associated with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In other words, it has to do with that unpopular issue of poor people and helping them.

There’s a new law on the books in Florida and two other states that mandate mostly single mothers be tested for drug use in order to receive support through the TANF program.

I can hear the Florida legislature cheer, “Finally! We’re not going to have to help so many poor families! They’ll be dropping from the TANF rolls like flies!”

But wait. Hold your applause. Only about 4% of TANF recipients actually have a drug problem that would negatively affect successful employment (National Poverty Center, 2004; Pollack, Danziger, Jayakody, & Seefeldt, 2001).

“Eh, well this program is going to SAVE taxpayer money!” Not exactly. Under the law, recipients of cash assistance pay upfront for their drug test and when it comes back negative, the state issues a refund. The state ends up spending MORE than it saves (ACLU Utah, 2011; Greenblatt, 2010). For example, TCPalm (2011) reported that piloting this program cost Florida taxpayers $2.7 million back in 1998 because just 4% of people popped positive and actually paid for the test. As the authors ask, if the average assistance per month is $240.00, how many folks would have to be kicked off the program in order to recoup the $2.7 million in losses?

It doesn’t add up. So if drug testing doesn’t actually save money, then it helps the poor stay off drugs, right? Wait, I just implied that most of the poor in our country are drug abusers. Stereotypes are persistent little buggers. I meant to say drug-testing helps those with substance abuse problems get the treatment they need. Because of course, the goal of temporary assistance is to eventually support TANF recipients returning to full-time, competitive employment healthy.

Nah. The community mental health clinics that folks might go to are swamped and lack adequate funding. And the legislators who want to reduce drug use aren’t championing more mental health resources in our communities anytime soon.

In fact, Pollack et al. (2001) confirmed that mental health disorders are far more prevalent than drug dependence among TANF recipients. Yet, a drug test isn’t going to screen for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or the host of other mental health challenges impacting folks’ ability to find and keep a job. We might be looking at the wrong thing here.

If taxpayer money isn’t being saved, if the prospect of helping families find and excel in competitive employment isn’t being enhanced, and if other factors like poor education, lack of transportation, and physical/mental health problems aren’t being addressed, then what is?

Greg Matos is a Clinical Psychology doctoral student in Boston and author of “Shattered Glass: The Story of a Marine Embassy Guard.” You can visit his web site: www.GregMatos.com or Twitter: @GregMatos.

Resources

Posted on

A Progressive Hero Falls: RIP Miguel C. Luna

Yesterday, we at RIFUTURE learned the news of the passing of one of our progressive leaders in our state: Providence Ward 9 Councilman Miguel Luna.

The City of Providence sent out a moving tribute of his life’s work which includes information about his wake and funeral.

A true giant has fallen in Providence.

And the people of Providence are worse off as a result.

Councilman Miguel C. Luna passed away yesterday at Rhode Island Hospital, surrounded by his family.  He is survived by his three children, Dante, 13, Sofie, 11, and Omar 9; his mother Mireya; his four sisters, Ysa, Belkiss, Josefina and Teresa; his brother Antonio; and 17 nieces and nephews.

Councilman Luna was an extraordinary humanitarian and humble public servant who identified with those most in need and dedicated his life to promoting workers’ rights and economic justice.

“I am deeply saddened by the untimely passing of my friend and colleague Miguel Luna,” said Mayor Taveras. “Councilman Luna was a great man who made a difference in many people’s lives. I join with everyone in my administration and the City of Providence in mourning his passing. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family during this very difficult time. We will honor Councilman Luna’s memory by following his example and continuing his lifelong commitment to advocating for justice.”

Councilman Luna broke down racial and economic barriers when he earned a seat on the City Council in 2003 by beating an incumbent with nearly two thirds of the vote. He was the second Latino Councilman in Providence’s history and the first Dominican American ever elected to the Council.

“The entire Council is deeply saddened by the loss of our colleague and dear friend Councilman Miguel Luna,” said Council President Michael Solomon. “Throughout his life, Miguel displayed an unyielding commitment to community service. He was involved with many organizations dedicated to improving the lives of the less fortunate. Councilman Luna’s accomplishments – legislative, professional and otherwise – are truly without end, and it was his devotion to such causes that we will most recall and miss. At this time, our thoughts and sincerest condolences are with his family.”

Born and raised in the Dominican Republic, he worked minimum wage jobs and advocated for others seeking to improve the quality of their lives. Upon arrival in Rhode Island, he worked in factories and as a laborer during the construction of the Comfort Inn near T.F. Green Airport. He subsequently worked at the International Institute, at the Amos House, at AIDS Care Ocean State and in the full service of the residents of Ward 9 since January, 2003.

A longtime Elmwood resident, Councilman Luna was a constant presence at neighborhood organizations. He was a founding member of the community organization Direct Action for Rights and Equality and was heavily involved with the International Institute, Jobs with Justice and the Olneyville Neighborhood Association. He served on the board and volunteered for numerous other organizations in Providence, including Amos House, the San Miguel School, and the Center for Minority Advancement in the Building Trades.

“He was like a brother to me,” said Councilman Luis Aponte. “Miguel’s been on the front-lines of every important struggle in our great city and I am saddened beyond belief by his passing. He was a hero in the true sense of the word – unafraid of taking on the powerful and relentless in his commitment to winning justice and fairness for all.”

Councilman Luna was a passionate advocate for safe and affordable housing, police accountability and good jobs. Through his involvement with La Comunidad en Acción at St. Michael’s Church, he joined with public housing tenants in their fight for improved conditions. He helped to establish the Providence External Review Authority, the city’s first civilian review board.

As a Councilman representing the Ninth Ward, he sought to ensure that good, living-wage jobs were the foundation of the City’s economy through city tax stabilization polices and the First Source Ordinance. He pursued a progressive legislative agenda on the Council – championing efforts to protect affordable housing and create new jobs for Providence residents, and to make government more accessible to all residents, especially those who speak other languages. He was a strong proponent of renewable energy, encouraging homeowners to utilize solar panels and other energy efficient methods in their homes.

As Chairman of the Rhode Island Workers’ Rights Board, Councilman Luna stood up for janitors at Providence College, hotel workers at the Westin and the Biltmore and home-based child care providers across the state. Councilman Luna did not limit his fight for justice to the City of Providence. He advocated fiercely for fair international trade policies and fought for peace in every corner of the world. He advocated for the rights of farm workers in Ohio, tenants in San Francisco and community activists fighting for neighborhood investment in Los Angeles. He was a member of the U.S. Delegation of Election Observers in Venezuela during the 2006 election.

Councilman Luna was a voice for the voiceless. Wherever there was injustice, he was there. Our City mourns his passing.

A wake for Providence City Councilman Miguel C. Luna will be held on Sunday, August 21, from 6PM to 9PM at Bell Funeral Home, 571 Broad Street, Providence, RI, 02907.Councilman Luna’s funeral service will be held on Monday, August 22 at 10AM at Saint Michael the Archangel Church, 239 Oxford Street, Providence, RI, 02905. Interment will be held following the funeral mass at North Burial Ground on Branch Avenue in Providence. There will be a reception immediately following, at the Roger Williams Park Casino.

The public is invited to attend all services.

The family requests donations in lieu of flowers to:

Luna Children Educational Trust
167 Roger Williams Avenue
Providence, RI 02907

Posted on

Penny-wise, (Rand) Paul foolish — or, why government often matters

It appears, at times, that American conservatives seem to even deny the possibility that government spending or regulation might actually save money — either save the government money (a secondary consideration) or save the country money (presumably, the primary goal).  As I noted yesterday, there is now ample empirical evidence that environmental regulation (along with Medicaid) has decreased infant mortality; for decades now, scholars have argued that the 1944 G.I. Bill more than paid for itself as well.  Spending large sums of public money on high quality universal pre-school would reduce all sorts of other economic and social costs, both for the government and for the nation as a whole.  There are, of course, far too many other examples to recount here.

It should be said that cost-benefit analysis should not be the only rubric for measuring whether a government program, tax or regulation is worthwhile.  Take the estate tax, for example:  as Andrew Carnegie and Theodore Roosevelt argued early in the 20th century, the goal was in large part to break up concentrated wealth.  “The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government,” Roosevelt told Congress in 1906.  “The prime object should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate.”  The revenue it generated was a side benefit.  It is important for liberals to continue to stress that in most cases, most of the time, government works.  Post-New Deal liberalism was founded on 2 core ideas, both of which made sense to many Americans who came of age in the 30s, 40s and 50s:

1)  that disaster (economic, natural, medical) can strike any of us at any time, so we should be willing to share or pool risks; and

2) that we can and should collectively build and maintain common institutions and goods through the instrument of government.  Like American liberalism more generally, these two assumptions are as conservative as they are liberal — this explains much of their appeal, in fact.While one can translate those two core ideas into a purely economic calculus, I think this misunderstands them.  More to the point, it ignores the fact that there are other justifications for government action that are valid as well:  justice, for example.  Public or common goods must be created, protected and enhanced, since private action is unlikely to do so.  And this must be done even if we cannot sufficiently calculate or determine a monetary benefit.  There is a danger, a slippery slope for liberals (and the country) in arguing that only a ‘return on investment’ constitutes a valid rationale for state action.  For one, if a healthy return cannot be demonstrated, it feeds public resentment of taxation (see my taxaphobia post of a few days ago).

One result has been a surprisingly bi-partisan denigration (and de-funding) of the IRS over the past decade or so.  Little money has been or can be saved by trimming the IRS budget.  Indeed, one can convincingly argue that a big chunk of the present deficit could be erased simply by beefing up IRS capacity, so it can go after individuals and corporations that aren’t paying their fair share.   The Government Accounting Office (GAO)recently estimated that approximately $330 billion in federal taxes had never been paid as of the end of fiscal year 2010.  A good chunk of the tax evaders are individuals with “substantial personal assets” including multi-million-dollar homes and luxury cars, the GAO reported.   For every dollar the IRS spends on audits, liens, and property seizures, the government brings in more than $10.  If we spend less on IRS enforcement, as Republicans demand (and to which Democrats too often acquiesce), it costs us.  Obviously it costs our government revenue, but there is another cost, too:  it slowly undermines public faith in the rule of law.  Surely this is an odd position for conservatives to take.  A society that cannot tax itself, and that undermines popular belief in the effectiveness of government, will generate a politics that slowly devours itself — like an autoimmune disease.  We have certainly reached this point now, haven’t we?

The common assumption that any dollar spent by government is inherently wasteful simply flies in the face of evidence, historical and contemporary.

In keeping with this theme, Steven Benen of Washington Monthly usefully points us toward an exchange between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) earlier this week, during a subcommittee hearing on funding the existing Older Americans Act.  Sanders made the point that spending $2 billion to prevent hunger among the elderly should be considered an investment, because it would ultimately save money (for the feds, and overall) on health care and nursing home costs.

Paul was incredulous that any federal program or regulation could be considered an investment.  “It’s curious that only in Washington can you spend $2 billion and claim that you’re saving money.  The idea or notion that spending money in Washington is somehow saving money really flies past most of the taxpayers.”

The brief exchange between Senators Sanders and Paul is worth watching.

By Mark Santow, June 29th 2011
For more posts, please visit my blog Chants Democratic — thanks!

 

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387