Public to N.C. politicians: You pee first

It's a little indelicate but the folks at Action NC want to make a point. They want you to send a pee cup to your legislator. The, ah, urine receptacle aims to "send a strong message to lawmakers" about a bill the N.C. Senate passed to require all welfare recipients to take a drug test before they can get benefits.

The proposal, which passed the Senate Monday on a party line vote - only one Democrat voted for it and no Republicans voted against it,would require that those applying for Work First benefits pay first for a drug test. If they pass the drug test, the $100 costs would be reimbursed. If they fail, they wouldn't get the money back nor get benefits for at least a year when they can reapply.

Action NC, a grassroots community organization focused on helping low and moderate income residents, called the idea a "political stunt." They noted that by the state's own estimates, the plan is not likely to save a dime on catching welfare recipients doing drugs - studies show they are no more likely than people not on welfare to engage in that activity - and it will cost at least $2 million to implement.

"One good political stunt deserves another," the group noted - thus, the pee cup.
"You can send a pee cup to your State Senator with a small $8 donation to Action NC. We will tell the N.C. General Assembly that if they are going to require drug tests for North Carolina residents, then they should pee first."

On Monday, Democratic state Sen. Gladys Robinson tried to do that when she introduced an amendment that would require drug tests for lawmakers, the governor and cabinet secretaries. Makes sense. They're on the public dole too. But GOP state Sen. Tom Apodaca nixed that using a substitute amendment as a parliamentary maneuver to kill the proposal.

Democratic Sen. Martin Nesbitt made sure lawmakers and the public listening in knew what was happening: "The substitute amendment is offered to have the effect of killing the other amendment. You need to know that before you vote because you'll be killing the one that requires a drug test of the leaders of this state since we want to require it for the followers of this state. And we seem to be getting into a situation where we're kind of above the people."

Do tell.

This unwise idea came up a couple of years ago when House Speaker Thom Tillis was overheard suggesting it. We said then that the plan was costly, wasteful and probably illegal. The only people likely to benefit from such an idea are drug-testing companies.

The real losers could be children of people who need public assistance, many of them children of middle-income parents, who in this depressed economy, have had to ask for state aid. Many of these families might not be able to come up with the $100 cost to do the test, or might struggle mightilty to get it while their families go without other necessities. And even if their parents do test positive for drug use, is it really humane for their children to be penalized for it? Isn't it better to get the parents into treatment than to cut off benefits to needy kids?

Lawmakers should rethink this idea.