The end of the semester is quickly approaching, and for some that means graduation. It’s finally time to get out of here, get a job and start making some money.   

There are a number of things that come with having a job. Most likely you will first have to pass a drug test. Without a doubt you will have to pay taxes.  These taxes will go toward a variety of different causes, one of which is welfare. In 2007, the federal government alone spent 252 billion taxpayer dollars on welfare payments and government assistance.

This includes things like retirement and disability insurance, unemployment compensation, housing assistance, food stamps and other food and nutrition assistance, direct monetary payments, and tax credit programs for the poor. This is in addition to the welfare programs enacted by each state.  

You have probably heard a variety of things about the types of people this assistance is going toward.

Many people claim that every person on welfare is a lazy, good-for-nothing moocher who is just looking for a handout with which to buy his next bottle of vodka.

On the other hand, others claim that nobody would ever do something like that and the welfare rolls are filled only with good, honest people who are just down on their luck because of circumstances completely out of their control.  

Though it would be idiotic to believe that everyone on welfare is taking advantage of the system, it would be even dumber to believe that nobody is.

The problem is, our government is not capable of distinguishing between the deserving and the undeserving.  

One solution would be to eliminate welfare entirely.

This would place the burden of assisting the poor completely on churches and private charities. There would be serious advantages to this.

For example, smaller organizations don’t typically hand out money to just anyone.

They are far more diligent in the use of their limited resources. The government, on the other hand, feels it has unlimited resources because of its ability to steal from the taxpayer.  

Churches and private charities also tend to be much more efficient in their spending. The bureaucratic costs of the government typically make it less than 50 percent efficient in redistributing wealth. In fact, economist Thomas Sowell estimates welfare efficiency to be around 30 percent. This means that when you pay a dollar toward the welfare rolls, well over half of that dollar is used to physically take the money from you, find someone to give it to, and distribute it to them. So instead of an employer paying people to produce various goods and services, the government pays these people to move your money around.  

However, the complete elimination of welfare programs is an unlikely scenario for the near future.

In the meantime, it would be useful if we could distinguish who we should be giving our money to. One way to do this would be a drug test.

After all, if you have to pass a drug test to give up your money for welfare, why shouldn’t someone have to pass a drug test to receive it?  

The average food stamp recipient costs us about $1,360 per year. The average EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) payment costs us about $1,700 per year. The average household living in public housing costs us about $5,500 per year (statistics from IRS, USDA and Department of Housing and Urban Development, respectively).

These three programs make up about a third of the $252 billion the federal government spends on welfare and public assistance each year. There are also statewide welfare programs that further add to the amount of spending.  

A basic urine-based drug test, on the other hand, costs somewhere around $28, according to Drug and Alcohol Testing Compliance Services. Though there would undoubtedly be bureaucratic costs added to that price under a drug testing program for welfare recipients, it still would not come close to measuring up to the thousands that are spent every year on welfare recipients.   

For example, the program could require a drug test to begin receiving welfare payments or government assistance of any sort. If a person failed, he would be ineligible for somewhere between three and six months, at which point he could apply for assistance again.

In the meantime, some current welfare recipients could be chosen to take a randomly selected test, similar to the way many employers do it.  

Though this wouldn’t solve the welfare problem, it would at least help to ensure that your hard-earned tax dollars weren’t going toward someone else’s drug habits.