Frank Antenori’s war on the poor – the sequel

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last session, SB1380, a bill to require random drug testing for recipients of food stamps and welfare programs was sponsored by Sen. "Don't make me angry" Frank Antenori, R-Tucson. It passed the Senate with unanimous Republican support but died in the House.

Antenori is promising to scare the villagers again in January by bringing back his bill to stigmatize and to scapegoat the poor. Proposal to drug-test welfare recipients faces financial, constitutional hurdles – Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

[The bill] is expected to be revived next year, but opponents argue that based on similar laws in other states, it would likely be ruled unconstitutional and not be cost-effective.

* * *

Antenori said that the bill is “absolutely” coming back because of the demand for such a law. He said the current policy of weeding out drug users relies on the honor system and is ineffective.

“Hundreds of angry people are wondering why their tax dollars are being used to supplement someone’s dope habit,” he said.

Tell me, Frank, would this also include recipients of corporate welfare from the state of Arizona? How about those receiving government subsidies like tuition tax credits for private and parochial schools? If you want to be consistent and even-handed (equal protection), let's drug test them all.

And just how does this square with the "less government intrusion in our lives" mantra that Tea-Publicans profess to believe in? Yes, I know they don't really mean it. Tea Party Hypocrisy on Limited Government.

Personally, i think we need to drug test our state legislators. They have got to be high to come up with crazy ideas like this.

[Antenori] acknowledged that he didn’t know of any specific cases, he said that constituents had approached him with anecdotal evidence of people they knew were using drugs and collecting public assistance.

Sort of like the way the Minnesota Loon, Rep. Michele Bachmann relied on anecdotal "evidence" from a woman allegedly at the last GOP debate (the woman has yet to come forward) who told her that the HPV vaccine caused mental retardation in her daughter. Geez, Frank, why don't you just rely on every silly-ass conspiracy theory that makes it to the pages of World Net Dailyfor your bills? (These Birchers are still opposed to fluoride in drinking water). Do you believe everything some nut who comes up to you tells you, Frank? How about verifying facts before shooting off your big mouth?

Under Antenori's bill, recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or welfare, benefits would be required to submit to random drug testing. The administrators of the programs would select those to be tested based on the last two digits of their Social Security numbers, which would be chosen randomly every two weeks.

The purpose, Antenori said, is to weed out the fraud and abuse in the program in order to make sure that recipients who have greater needs get the benefits they deserve.

Sure it is, Frank. The real purpose is to stigmatize and to demonize the poor. Tea-Publicans need a scapegoat to blame for public spending. This is just the latest iteration of Ronald Reagan's Welfare Queen from Chicago's South side driving a Cadillac. This is a well-worn GOP tactic to scapegoat the poor.

[I]n those states [Michigan and Florida] the programs have largely proven to be ineffective.

In 2003, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a similar drug testing law violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure. The Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union recently filed suit against the state for passing a similar law.

“The provisions of the Constitution limit when the government can submit a person to search and seizure, including drug tests,” said Anjali Abraham, public policy director for the Arizona chapter of the ACLU.  “It’s true that private employers also do drug testing, but the private sector isn’t necessarily subject to the same rules.”

Both the ACLU and the William E. Morris Institute for Justice have pushed back against proposals like Antenori’s in Arizona.

* * *

In contrast, other states have found that a policy to conduct random drug tests has cost the state more money than it saves.

An investigative report from WFTV, a Florida news channel, determined that in the first six weeks of the policy taking effect, the state has spent $1,140, compared to the less than $240 it is saving per month by denying benefits to those who tested positive.

Though the DES policy is to not take positions on legislation, Meissner did acknowledge that putting a program in place like the one Antenori has envisioned would mean additional administrative costs.

But Antenori maintains that a program like the one he envisions can be carried out in a way that is cost-effective and lawful.

“It depends on the method they’re using, and what kinds of controls they have,” he said. “If it’s a test where they’re giving three days notice, they can cheat on the test.”

By making it more difficult for the recipients to cheat on the drug tests — giving little notice and having them submit to either a witnessed urinalysis or a hair test — he argued that there would be more positive results and therefore greater savings.

And as for the question of constitutionality, he said that opponents have no basis.

“The way you get around that is you make it a condition on the form. You fill the paperwork out, you sign that you’ll submit to random drug testing,” he said. “You want the government cheese? Take the test.”

There he goes again, practicing law without a license — and without a clue. These Tea-Publicans seem to think the law is whatever they say it is — the Constitution and the rule of law be damned. They are wrong.

In Florida, Gov. Lex Luthor Rick Scott pushed a similar drug testing law that directly benefit ted his former company, Solantic Corp., that — surprise! — does drug testing. Sweet. Initial testing in Florida showed only two percent (2%) of those tested failed a drug test, well below the drug use of average Americans as estimated by health officials. Florida's small annual net savings could be wiped out entirely by the cost of implementing the program and issuing the reimbursements. Rick Scott’s Drug Law Isn’t Saving Florida Much Money | ThinkProgress.

So Arizona's political reporters need to be asking two questions. First, if the financial savings are negligible at best, and possibly could cost the state more money than it saves, what is the point of this bill? (Other than to stigmatize and to scapegoat the poor). Second, what drug testing companies stand to financially benefit from this bill, and which of these companies (or their employees and lobbyists) have contributed campaign money to Frank Antenori? As Woodward and Bernstein learned, "follow the money." Somebody stands to benefit.