Walker punishes poorest

There’s a fascinating divide between left and right over the government’s role in offering assistance to those in need. The stark difference comes clearly into focus when we talk about whether it is moral or effective to require drug tests of those receiving public assistance.

Wisconsin last week became the first state in the country to submit a request for a waiver to allow for the drug testing of applicants for Medicaid. Gov. Scott Walker’s plan would require able-bodied, childless adults to undergo drug screening when applying for benefits. If they fail the test, they would get treatment paid for by taxpayers through the Medicaid program, though no details have yet been released about the type of treatment, where it would be offered or what amount or what kinds of drugs would trigger a failed result.

The plan likely is to be approved by the Trump administration, and Democrats don’t have the votes to block its approval in the state Legislature. It is likely to be challenged in court as being unconstitutional.

The requirement would affect about 148,000 of the 1.2 million people in BadgerCare, the state’s main Medicaid program. According to the Washington Post, it provides benefits to single adults who earn less than $12,060 a year and couples who make $16,240 a year. Those who refuse a drug test would be ineligible for coverage.

In other words, some of the poorest people in the state are being targeted by this new plan and would be punished should they decide that the government has no business forcing them to reveal private medical data or undergo treatment that could be offered by religious-based or unproven providers. I find this especially strange coming from the political party most often crowing about the horrors of government overreach.

Columnist Christian Schneider took on this very issue last week, claiming that requiring drug testing was simply the best way to reach out to those in need of treatment. He touted the plan as a way to get people help at no cost, to help them break the cycle of addiction and poverty. Schneider and I agree very much that the end goal is to help as many people as possible rise above that vicious cycle. As usual, we differ very much on the means by which to achieve it.

First, drug addiction is not limited to the poor. Many people who occupy the highest tax brackets also abuse substances while enjoying considerable public subsidies for their work and lives, but we don’t require them to be tested under threat of losing tax breaks, deductions or access to services.

Second, this approach to the drug epidemic and stagnant income mobility ignores the day-today realities. The disease of addiction is something deserving of free treatment, but it also must come with a support system that allows a person to continue treatment to a point where they are in actual recovery. That means free health care, reliable and affordable transportation to services and employment, good-paying jobs, affordable housing, affordable child care and other essentials that the privileged take for granted.

Breaking free of the grinding cycle of poverty is all the more difficult in a society that views you and your problems as moral failings or the result of you not trying hard enough — while it actively works against you. We can’t hope to turn that around by turning to strong-arm tactics that are liable to turn more people away from life-saving services.

Like treating the drug epidemic as a “war” and throwing harsher prison sentences at low-level offenders (something national leaders are returning to in response to the opioid epidemic), forcing people to undergo testing in order to receive help is not likely to achieve good results. Emily Mills is a free-lance writer based in Madison.