Macro Blog 11 - Drug Testing for Welfare

With a weakening economy, more and more people are resorting to government programs as a way to make ends meet. It is understandable for citizens to support one another in times of financial crisis; however there has been much concern with how the money from tax payers is used. As stereotypical as it is, many hard working tax payers feel the economy can re-flourish if the unemployed simply abandoned their drugs and stop being lazy. Though these characteristics do not apply to all members of poverty, it is not reassuring to tax payers if their money is going to the members of poverty that are addicted to drugs and lazy. Therefore, the controversial idea of drug testing welfare recipients has been suggested. This plan helps reassure tax payers that their money is going to people who need it; not to those who will spend it all on drugs. What makes this idea controversial, however, is that some argue that it is an unreasonable search and seizure and therefore a violation to the rights of the American citizen. When deciding if drug testing should be administered for welfare recipients, several components should be considered, including financing, the outcome of a tax payer's money, and the violation of constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

While the country is already in debt, there doesn't appear to be any sense in spending money to drug test the unemployed. Although it does increase government spending, what must also be considered is the amount of money saved due to unpaid benefits. According to the article States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare, "Only 16 out of 64,000 answered yes; 931 did not submit the form. The state estimated the savings on benefits had totaled $116,000" (Sulzberger). This amount of saving is caused by a mere thousand unpaid benefits and has much potential to benefit the country. According to Sulzberger, drug tests "cost up to $40." This means that the price for a drug test can be found for a reasonable price the unemployed can pay themselves. Florida has thought of this, and Sulzberger writes, "people receiving cash assistance through welfare have had to pay for their own drug tests since July, and enrollment has shrunk to its lowest levels since the start of the recession." With people paying for their own drug testing and money spent on unemployment benefits decreasing, drug testing welfare recipients appears to be beneficial.

The hard working American citizen only hopes that their hard-earned money is spent to support the country and not gone to waste. A common reason for unwise spending is the drugs purchased with unemployment benefits. How can the government know whether or not the money they provide people in need goes to drugs? Drug testing is a way of reassurance to prevent spending on drugs. And although not all impoverished people are drug users, according to the article Unemployment Drug Tests: Republicans' Unprecedented Pursuit Of Drug Testing The Jobless, "unemployed people were more than twice as likely to use drugs than people with full-time jobs" (Delaney). This supports the fear of tax money likely being spent on drugs. Many working citizens have a similar fear of how their money is spent, and as Sulzberger says, "'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.'" Therefore, if drug testing for welfare recipients was enforced, the money spent would more likely support families in need of financial aid rather than drug addicts.

Macro Blog 10 - Offshore Drilling

In an age of technological advancements, people rely on some sort of energy resource to carry out their daily activities and among the most common energy resources are oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas have been obtained through drilling into the earth and coastlines in areas available for leasing. However, with the demand for more oil results in the demand for expanding offshore drilling. This has been a controversial debate for years but despite what environmentalists and oil industry leaders have to argue, the factors that are most important when considering expansion of offshore drilling in the United States are the increase in production of jobs, the risks it has on the environment, and the lasting effect it will have on the United States.

During economic struggle, jobs can be scarce. Expanding offshore drilling may very well increase job production and replenish the economy. According to a USA Today article, "at least 18 billion barrels of oil can be produced from areas that are off-limits" (Jervis, Welch and Wolf). With this much potential work, people can be expecting plenty of jobs. However, it is still unknown whether or not expanding offshore drilling and creating more oil rigs will be beneficial in creating jobs because "oil production in 2010 was at its highest level since 2003" (Broder). Since oil production was at its highest in 2010 since 2003, there was already a lot of labor involved and there is no guarantee that expanding offshore drilling will create enough jobs to make a difference. Although there will be work available, there is no telling whether there will be enough to prove expanding offshore drilling as beneficial, and so it is up to the individual to decide. The individual must also consider the harmful effects new oil rigs may have on the environment.

Environmentalists are constantly concerned with the dangers offshore drilling has with the environment. There have been spills and incidents since the first oil rig, including the recent BP explosion that Broder from the New York Times explains, "which killed 11 workers and poured nearly five million barrels of crude into the gulf." This spillage contaminates the water and could possibly affect several animal food chains. This has a negative effect on the environment as it pollutes the water and may harm its inhabitants as well. However, there is a chance the expansion of offshore drilling eventually won't harm the environment. According Jervis, Welch and Wolf, "Today's technology...has greatly reduced the risk of oil spills." With improving technology, the effects of oil may be reduced so much to the environment that it eventually may not even harm it at all, due to safety precautions. This is, however, once again up to the individual to decide whether or not taking the risk to expand offshore drilling will be worth it. This will then affect our future.

Before acting upon anything, we as a nation must consider what will be best for the country overall. Drilling offshore may have some benefits and risks now, but how will it affect our future? There are several risks that may prove disastrous if the benefits do not outweigh them. For example, it would not be worth expanding if the, "new drilling would produce only 7% more oil in 2030, and the impact on oil prices would be 'insignificant'" (Jervis, Welch and Wolf). The risks can prove disastrous and oil spills may cause a disruption in food chains. Factors such as these must be taken into consideration before deciding whether or not expanding offshore drilling is beneficial.