Dear Kind Readers,
Any who follow my posts have likely have noticed a recurring theme concerning the criminalization and marginalization of the poor. And while I do not mean to repeat myself, I cannot but raise attention to a development I find quite disconcerting. The American economy is a mess – unemployment is at 9% and 1 in 6 Americans are living below the poverty line. Millions of our brothers and sisters are suffering and many who currently have their head above water live in perpetual fear of economic catastrophe. In the midst of this painful reality, once again those who are marginalized by poverty or unemployment face the further indignity of being treated like criminals. Today’s NY Times “States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare” reports on proposed policies in 30 states to mandate drug testing when applying for welfare (more accurately Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and even unemployment benefits.
The flood of proposals across the country, enabled by the strength of Republicans in many statehouses and driven by a desire to cut government spending, recall the politics of the ’80s and ’90s, when higher rates of drug abuse and references to “welfare queens” led to policies aimed at ensuring that public benefits were not spent to support addiction.
Supporters of the policies note that public assistance is meant to be transitional and that drug tests are increasingly common requirements for getting jobs.
“Working people today work very hard to make ends meet, and it just doesn’t seem fair to them that their tax dollars go to support illegal things,” said Ellen Brandom, a Republican state representative in Missouri.
The last three years, she sponsored legislation requiring testing of welfare recipients, and her bill was signed by Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, in July.
Advocates for the poor say the testing policies single out and vilify victims of the recession, disputing the idea that people on public assistance are more likely to use drugs. They also warn that to the extent that testing programs were successful in blocking some people from receiving benefits, the inability to get money for basic needs would aggravate drug addictions and increase demand for treatment.
At Operation Breakthrough, which provides day care services to low-income women here in Kansas City, Nicole, 22, who asked to be identified only by her first name, began to cry as she described trying to provide for her three children on a monthly welfare check of $342, plus $642 in food stamps.
Her electricity was cut off that morning, she said, which meant she could be evicted from her subsidized housing. The struggle to make ends meet while pursuing a health care degree was so consuming that the idea of taking drugs seemed ridiculous, she added.
Kimberley Davis, the director of social services for Operation Breakthrough, said the legislation sent a bad message. “All this does is perpetuate the stereotype that low-income people are lazy, shiftless drug addicts and if all they did was pick themselves up from the bootstraps then the country wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in,” Ms. Davis said.
Why is it acceptable to demand that someone prove that they have not used drugs, without any probable cause to suspect drug use other than one’s poverty or joblessness? As the ACLU and others are questioning the constitutionality of such proposals – I would emphatically argue that such regulations are deeply anti-Christian. The prevalence of statement mandating concern for the poor and cautioning against self-righteous judgments throughout the New Testament is clear. Luke 4:18 announces Jesus’ mission
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”
Later in Luke 6, Jesus clearly states that we will be judged based upon how we judge and forgiven as we forgive. In particular, looking for failings in our neighbor receives the following admonition from Jesus:
42How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.
Until we are honest about the inequality and structural problems we face, until we examine the very structure of our economy and banking system – we should be very wary of imposing judgments on our unemployed brothers and sisters. In The Overwhelming Desire to Connect Wealth and Holiness: Primordial Social Sin? I examined the dark side of the American Dream that leads to the problematic and perennial desire to connect wealth and holiness – thus taking credit for our successes and ignoring or blaming the poor for their poverty. While I do not intend to rehash these same points here – I would simply point to the remarks by Candidate Herman Cain suggesting that the Occupy Wall Street were “anti-American” and “just jealous” without legitimate gripes, trying to incite class warfare – and by extension therefore cannot be legitimate protests. Creating jobs is an appropriate and acceptable political topic – but connect employment to the distribution of wealth, inequality or the poor….and suddenly the conversation is not so popular (on either side of the political isle)
At a time when we need to be one community supporting our brothers and sisters in solidarity, 30 states are looking at proposals to further ostracize and criminalize poverty. Joblessness and poverty are not conditions in which we surrender our humanity, our full human dignity and human rights. Focusing on the failures of a negligible minority of those seeking public assistance programs in an effort to further marginalize and cut down on the rolls of these programs is inhuman. As the NY times article quotes Arthenia Joyner of Florida,
“There are millions of people seeking aid from the state for the first time because they have lost their jobs and they still have children to feed and bills to pay,” she said. “These people now are having to suffer the indignity of having to undergo a drug test.”
Thank you for your efforts here – your determination to bring this into the light are both necessary and admirable. I personally thank you, but also thank you at large for bringing the Gospel into a clearer focus through your posts.
As a parish office manager I am typically the first person to speak to callers and to greet visitors to the rectory door. I can only tell you that in 3 years, the influx of those in need has grown tremendously… and heartbreakingly.
Are there drug abusers out there? You bet. I can think of at least two – out of hundreds – that were clearly people with drug issues. I often remind people that two obvious ones out of hundreds and hundreds speaks for itself.
Now clearly the obvious is just that – obvious. I can’t say with any authority who really is a drug abuser or not. I can say that most people who tumble in the door have need.
Need. What is this need? It can be many things, anything from food, shelter, a huge unpaid utility bill (I-was-afraid-to-ask-for-help-before syndrome – shame), gas cards and more. And I try (often fail) to never forget the rare privilege to be the connector between this person and our outreach ministry.
If the dignity of human life is as important as we in Church say that it is, there should be much more uproar about all of this.
Dear Fran,
Thank you for your kind words and for the great work you are doing! And I agree, there should be much more of an uproar.
Meghan – I’m so glad you keep writing these posts. People need to be particularly wary of employing the fairly standard stereotype that those “on the dole” are looking to game the system so that they can take drugs or lay around all day. To add that kind of blame, especially to the unemployed being overlooked by employers in a very arbitrary way these days (in favor of hiring people who already have jobs, or who at least didn’t lose their jobs), is to heap on insults while still not helping real people find ways out of the mess. And I wish those in power would recognize that the mess is caused by all of us, or at the least – recognize that because no one factor contributed to it, no one person can be blamed for not “pulling themselves up by the bootstraps.” Some people didn’t get hurt to quite the same degree – in fact, some people made money off of others who are very much hurting – and that’s the pain that Occupy Wall Street is vividly expressing.
I am a counselor and serve the population you are describing. Many of them do not want to be on unemployment; however, it often pays better than any job they could get. In this way, unemployment, the way it is currently set up, does nothing to empower individuals — I would even suggest that it enslaves them. I have had clients state that they feel bad about receiving unemployment, or welfare, etc., and those clients whom I have seen gain a job throughout the counseling process, feel they have a sense of purpose, feel they have the dignity that comes with work. This does not mean that their very dignity is defined by their work, but rather that it enhances it because they feel they are “giving back to society” as one client once told me. Star Parker wrote a great book on this — “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.” As an African American single teen mother, she has been through this system, and has experienced the pros and cons throughout her journey. I would highly recommend it.
Unfortunately, our economy is in the situation it is in right now, our deficit is increasing, and as sad as it sounds, we can no longer provide income for all those who are not working –which regardless of how we feel about it, is a fact. Many would say thanks to the war we’re in, which is more than likely true. And so there isn’t enough money in our government to keep providing for all those who are asking for it. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to provide monies for those persons who are truly trying to sacrifice for their children, do what they can to get by day to day, and provide for their families. Since so few people in this population are drug users, I guess I’m not sure why it is a bad thing to confirm this — since the end result will be the same and will receive unemployment. It seems like we are forgetting that no matter what our circumstances in life, we always have a choice. No matter how awful those options may be. When we take that away, we take away the dignity of the person, as God did not make us love him, but allows us to choose Him, because he loves us. He wants us to choose goodness, no matter how difficult it may be at a given time in our lives, and He hopes and prays that we will, but in the end, it is our choice. Sometimes that choice may leave us very physically broken, just as our Lord was broken on the cross. And I truly believe that God is with those who seek His will in a very profound way.
On a more personal level, if I was ever in a position where I had to go on unemployment and was told that I needed to take a drug test, I would comply without hesitation, grateful that my sacrifices would finally be rewarded. I don’t think we can forget about the other half of this population, as they have had similar bad luck, made bad choices, whatever may have gotten them there…and have not chosen a similar path. I feel unsettled about not doing drug testing when awarding unemployment. If there is even a .00001% chance my money could go to support drugs, this does not seem to uphold my own dignity or morality or the kinds of things we as Catholic should be supporting with our money either. There is charity, and then there is foolishness. Furthermore, it does nothing to uphold the dignity of the human body or person I am providing those things for. What this person needs is love and encouragement, a renewal of their spirit so that they can be set free. The Mass, Jesus in the Eucharist, and counseling would benefit them greatly.
am061210
Thank you for your comments and for the book recommendation. I appreciate your personal experiences as a counselor; however, I would perhaps suggest a different way of thinking about the situation – I would argue that it is wrong to think about it in terms of “my money” being used for drugs.
Yes, we are in a time of great economic hardship and this is a very complicated situation (and I have posted a bit on specifically economic justice issues). But it demonstrates the exact cultural problem I am trying to highlight by framing the question that it would be better to guarantee not 1cent of “my money” be used for drugs – so it would be better to use of more of that “limited economic resources” to catch the fraction with drug problems ? You spend more money “seeking out abuses” than you are likely to save or “catch” It starts from a position of “prove to me” which is highly problematic in Catholic theology.
It is a violation of their human dignity to start with a presumption of “guilt” for those in need of social services – the very idea that you should prove that you didn’t “deserve your state” before being eligible for services is a violation of Catholic social teaching. Jesus does not allow us to make these distinctions in Matthew 25 – it isn’t what would Jesus do, the radicality of the Gospel is that JESUS IS THE LEAST.
Catholic social teaching – particularly John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens is a beautiful treatment on the dignity of work, our role as co-creators – and what all the modern popes have recognized and emphasized is the social aspect of employment/unemployment. It is not primarily a matter of charity, it is a matter of justice. Unemployment and inequality is not primarily about indiivdaul choices or individual jobs – it is built into the very structure of our society. As Pope Benedict points out in Caritas in Veritate – we cannot love our neighbor with charity unless we first fulfill the requirements of justice. The current situation of gross inequality is fundamentally unjust.
It’s not clear to me why drug testing is tantamount to criminalization or stigmatization of the poor. Drug tests are not all that unusual; many employers regularly require them. Professional athletes- who are far from “the least of these- are regularly required to take them. A police officer can stop me on the road at his discretion and require I take one (alcohol is a drug, after all). Almost every entity offering material assistance to the poor requires at least some minimal conditions for their services. Especially with respect to housing and communal life, almost every organization requires sobriety and regular drug testing. And in light of all the other red tape involved with receiving public assistance, is it really unreasonable to add one more simple urine test? Can they really be that expensive? And does the refusal of direct monetary assistance on the basis of drug use necessarily mean that the state can and will offer no other avenues of support or assistance to drug users? Why is it inconceivable to think that prudence might dictate that money with no strings attached might not be the best way to serve “the least of these”?
It is not that it must be money with no strings attached – if you were talking about any reasonable cause to suspect drug use it would be a different discussion. But poverty and unemployment is not in itself reasonable cause.
The difference between this and professional athletes is precisely one of power, privilege, and marginalization. In a culture where the stigma and demonization of the poor is so strong, the strong and continuing history of separating the “deserving” from the “undeserving” poor – yes it is a violation of their human dignity in my opinion.
As someone who grew up in a middle class background, it would be easy for me to say “so what’s a little urine test” – I’ve not spent years of my life having to defend myself against persistent discrimination and marginalization. And, for those on the brink $40 or $50 for a drug test is a significant burden. (And you can refuse the alcohol test on the side of the road, you just then forfeit your license because it is a matter of public safety; however, I would not place testing those signing up for unemployment in that category of public safety concerns…and the police officer either has to have cause or be engaged in a randomized approved spot checks it isn’t really just at their discretion).
I highly recommend reading some of the recent articles on the systematic and creeping attempts at criminalizing poverty going on (I posted on a couple a few weeks ago) and for a different perspective – the Unnaturalcauses.org (a website to a documentary on the effects of discrimination, unemployment and inequality on our health which offers a different perspective on how these subtle indignities have greater effect).
First, you start off by talking about unemployment insurance, that workers pay for. You deftly move to welfare while ignoring why the programs are different. This interchanging of programs without mentioning the different issues these programs were designed to address. I think we all understand the difference.
However, both are meant to bring you to, or back to self sufficiency. The use of drugs are a hindrance to your attaining that goal. I doubt any reasonable person would dispute that drug use and alcohol abuse hamper one’s ability to support themselves.
As a Catholic Christian I believe I have a responsibility to help others. I understand that to be a direct order from Jesus. I also must temper that with Saint Paul’s edict that a man that will not work should not eat. I can easily see the difference between a man that that will not work and a man that can not work. ( I use man in the sense of humanity, not gender.) I strive to help those who can not help themselves over those that will not help themselves.
While Jesus commands us to help others, I in no sense understand that to mean I should have to do it at the point of a Roman spear. ( The government, by force, will enforce my compliance as the threat of taking away my property and my liberty, hence the Roman spear reference)
Nicole from Kansas city, whom you reference above is a student mother of three apparently young children. If Nicole is using drugs, which I doubt, she is a danger to her children. She also also wasting the money for her education and wasting her time. Nicole probably does not use drugs or abuse alcohol. If the drug abusers/ addicts are removed from the welfare rolls it would benefit Nicole. There would be more money available to provide for Nicole and her family.
Drug testing would also spur many to give up the horrors of drug use.
As a Police Officer much of my adult life, I worked in one of the poorest Congressional districts in the United States. I have seen the horrors of low expectations effect the poor, mostly minority, recipients of Taxpayer money. So many are taught to rely on Daddy, aka the government, for their entire life. A common site was 4 generations of welfare recipients living in an apartment and teaching their children to work the system. I arrested drug dealers with expensive cars, thousands in cash and drugs, and a Social Services card. These were common occurrences not extreme ones. Drug dealers in this area, supported by money given to recipients committed barbaric violence against innocent bystanders.
I see many support the unfettered payments to welfare recipients, without understanding the downside of the equation. Many, not all, does this so they can feel better about themselves, but that is another discussion. It is a soft necked yolk of another form of slavery.
For those who really really want to follow Jesus, it is easily accomplished. Simply sell all your goods ( that is ALL YOUR worldly Material possessions) give them to the poor ( or maybe the government, since you think they spend it wisely). Then work to support your physical needs and share the rest with the community. Then you can truly follow Jesus and attain the kingdom of heaven. That is what the Bible says.
I agree with Dan that an important distinction needs to be drawn between TANF and Unemployment Insurance benefits. The way the two are conflated in this article makes me think that underlying it are a lot of common misunderstandings about what Unemployment Insurance is, why it exists, and how it operates. I’m an Unemployment Insurance Claims Adjudicator (“Claims Deputy”) for the State of Indiana, and my full-time job is to make decisions about who is and is not eligible for UI benefits under state and federal law.
Unlike TANF, UI has absolutely nothing to do with an individual’s financial situation. I have seen people who were qualified for benefits whose income had been $75,000 per QUARTER and people who were not qualified whose income had been $7,500 per YEAR. A person’s financial situation has absolutely nothing to do with his/her eligibility for unemployment insurance. You could have a savings account with $5 million in it or a nickel in your pocket and it wouldn’t make any difference at all.
The only factor that matters is whether an individual became and remains unemployed through no fault of his/her own. If an employer can prove a claimant was “discharged for just cause”, which may include, among many other things, having violated a policy, breached a duty, pointed out of an attendance policy, or been grossly insubordinate, the claimant is disqualified. If a claimant voluntarily quit “without just cause”, which may include, again among many other things, having left for personal reasons or without having made a reasonable effort to resolve the dissatisfaction, the claimant is disqualified. In all those cases, the claimant became unemployed through his/her own fault. Likewise, if a claimant is not able, available, and actively seeking full-time work, or refuses an offer of full-time work, the claimant is disqualified because the claimant is remaining unemployed through his/her own fault..
All employers, even the ones who do not have pre-employment drug screens, have policies against being at work under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Therefore, any claimant who is using drugs or alcohol is making him/herself unavailable for full-time work. The claimant is removing him/herself from the employable workforce. Unemployment insurance benefits are for those with a history of being employed who lost that employment and remain unemployed through no fault of their own, so a person who makes him/herself unemployable by his/her own fault is not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
It really isn’t fair to conflate unemployment insurance benefits with TANF benefits. They just aren’t the same thing. Unemployment insurance benefits exist to help active members of the workforce maintain some level of income if they have lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking and able to accept another job.
I suppose one could dislike that that’s the purpose of UI benefits, but it’s not at all fair to accuse the UI system of “criminalizing being poor”. As I said, a person’s economic status is not considered at all at any point because it has absolutely nothing to do with their eligibility for benefits. The COO who was making $75,000/quarter (actual case) is subject to exactly the same rules as the burger-flipper making $7,500/year.
Though Indiana does not currently require a drug screen to establish eligibility for benefits, it is completely consistent with the other laws about individuals who are remaining unemployed by their own fault. People of any economic status who are not able, available, and actively seeking full-time work are not eligible for unemployment benefits, period. That’s the nature and purpose of the program.
I can see how your point might apply in the case of TANF, but I wanted to clear up the UI side of it.
(One other common misconception I want to address while I have the chance: EmployeEs do not pay into unemployment insurance. EmployeRs are charged a tax rate based on their chargeable accounts. You would not believe how many people I talk to who insist they’ve “paid into it all these years and deserve their money back”. That just isn’t how it works.)
I am glad this post has caused such a wide and large discussion.
Yes there is a distinction between Unemployment Insurance and TANF – but as the NY Times article that was the prompt for this post indicates – 36 states are considering such proposals about drug testing for TANF, 12 states have proposed it for unemployment insurance – and some are/have considered it for other programs.
Thus, it is not misleading nor inaccurate to examine the connections. As a moral theologian, I find the attempts to criminalize and further stigmatize poverty -whether it is in the form of drug testing for unemployment insurance, TANF, or food stamps – worrisome, inappropriate and morally problematic from the perspective of Catholic social ethics.
A recent op-ed in STLtoday – worth a read:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/guest-commentary-morality-testing-for-benefits/article_35ef4cbf-8ba5-5f9a-b728-6adca8b52015.html
Hi Meghan,
Like I said, I agree with you that it can easily contribute to the criminalization and stigmatization of poverty to require drug tests for TANF. I still disagree that it does so in the case of unemployment insurance, though, for the following brief restatement of the same reasons:
1) Eligibility for unemployment insurance has nothing whatsoever to do with a person’s financial status.
2) Unemployment benefits are specifically for those who became and remain unemployed through no fault of their own. One who uses drugs, regardless of his/her financial status, remains unemployed through his/her own fault.
I would welcome a discussion that “examines the connections”, as you say, but conflating the two doesn’t do that. Unemployment insurance eligibility is not connected to an individual’s financial status. TANF eligibility is entirely dictated by an individual’s financial status. If we’re talking about how the two programs contribute to criminalization or stigmatization of being poor, it is only fair to treat them separately.
In fact, continuing to conflate them aggravates the problem by stigmatizing unemployment insurance for reasons that don’t apply to it.