New York State Assemblyman John Ceretto’s bill to institute random drug testing among those receiving public assistance has come under fire from Robert Restaino, his opponent in the upcoming Assembly race and the former Medicaid Inspector General for Niagara County’s social services office.

Under the current system, welfare recipients suspected of drug or alcohol abuse are referred by case workers and others in the system they come into contact with.

“This is already being done,” Restaino said of Ceretto’s bill. “In fact, of the roughly 5,000 people in Niagara County who are receiving cash payments, approximately 2,000 have already been referred for drug and alcohol treatment programs.”

But Ceretto defended the legislation, which he said would address multiple public policy objectives.

“By helping to combat substance abuse, my legislation will strengthen our communities and better protect the most vulnerable in our society, our children, while cracking down on wasteful government spending,” said Ceretto. “...Those receiving taxpayer funding need to play by the rules, too. Hard-working taxpayers should not be forced to fund other people’s drug and alcohol addictions.”

Ceretto said the measure isn’t meant to kick drug abusers and alcoholics off of welfare, but rather to provide them with treatment so they might become productive members of society.

“In the long run, we believe that the bill will save the taxpayers money,” he said. “If we can get these people off of drugs through treatment, they can find employment and get off the welfare rolls.

But Restaino said the measure will end up costing the county millions. Unlike people who work for a living, welfare recipients on Medicaid have no limit on the amount of treatment they receive.

“A person on a private, employer sponsored insurance plan might get 40 visits to a drug and alcohol counselor under that plan,” he said. “The way it’s set up now, the welfare recipient can get 1,000 visits.”

And to make matters worse, he added, Albany recently lowered its contribution to the so-called “Safety Net” program that subsidizes long-term welfare recipients.

During the administration of former president Bill Clinton, a welfare to work program was instituted that limited individuals to five years on the welfare rolls. Currently, the federal government stops contributing to a welfare recipient after that time.

But the state of New York decided that five years wasn’t long enough and a law was passed extending the cutoff deadline. Now, once the federal government drops out, New York’s “Safety Net” provision kicks in, courtesy the taxpayers of the state and its counties.

“Until last year, the county and the state each contributed 50 percent,” Restaino said. “But going forward, the state will be contributing only 30 percent, leaving 70 percent to be paid by the counties.

But should the state be contributing to the care and feeding of drug and alcohol abusers at all? Isn’t having the taxpayer subsidize addicts and alcoholics merely enabling such deviant behavior on the part of the least productive members of society?
Ceretto said that many of these people have children, and the bill carries no provision for expelling anyone from the welfare program so long as they continue in treatment, even despite continued drug and alcohol abuse.

“We’re not trying to hurt anybody,” he said. “We don’t believe children should be punished for the poor decisions of the parents.”

Perhaps. But in the real world of private employment, repeated failure to stop drug and alcohol abuse results in termination, a pre-employment drug test is mandatory and workers may be subject to drug testing at any time.
Restaino said the county’s hands are largely tied by state law.

“Right now, the Social Service agencies are prohibited from having access to the criminal records of those on welfare,” he said. “I mean, if you could see whether a person had a DWI or a drug bust in their recent past, you could identify them as a problem.”

The costs of providing even more treatment through Ceretto’s bill will be enormous, he added.

“If you’re taking about putting a person into a residential facility, you’re talking $1,200 a month, plus whatever their welfare amounts to,” he said. “Lesser levels of treatment cost less, but you’re still talking $400 a month minimum.”

Nowhere in the proposed legislation – or anywhere else, it seems – is the core problem -- that of taking care of adult alcoholics and drug addicts on welfare as though they were children, addressed.

Until it is addressed, the likelihood that such behavior will continue at epidemic levels remains high.