Yet Another Mandate on Localities

Del. Ben Cline’s proposal to drug test welfare recipients raises two significant problems. First, where does the state stop in drug-testing those who receive state benefits? It’s fine, it seems, to draw the line on those who qualify for welfare benefits. But what about students who receive tuition assistance grants to the state’s colleges and universities?

It would be tempting to ask about those Virginians who would like to work but can’t find jobs and are receiving unemployment benefits. Would they be subject to drug tests? As a matter of fact, they would under a measure submitted by one of Cline’s Republican colleagues in the House.

The second problem is clearly more important for the 2012 General Assembly that is wrestling mightily with the issue of local mandates and balancing a state budget without raising taxes.

With revenues drying up for basic core programs such as law enforcement and public education, localities have rightly demanded that the state stop imposing requirements to help pay for new state programs. And that’s exactly what the bill submitted by the Rockbridge Republican, whose district includes most of Amherst County, would do.

Cline said last week that the bill would actually save tax dollars in the long run, but he seems to be using some funny new math to reach that conclusion. The expenditure impact accompanying the proposal to require local social services departments to screen each welfare recipient to see if the individual is using illegal substances shows a different picture.

The general fund expenditure, a new expense for the state, would amount to nearly $1.3 million for fiscal 2013, the first year of operation. Added to that would be another $110,295 in federal money. And then the cruncher for localities — another local match of $100,369 for the first year and $93,166 for each subsequent year.

The idea at this legislative session is to reduce mandates, not increase them. Cline’s bill would amount to another mandate on localities that adds up to more financial stress for Virginia’s counties, cities and towns.

Cline introduced a similar bill last year, but it was left in a subcommittee after the state’s Department of Planning and Budget estimated it would cost $1.8 million per year.

The bottom line for this year’s proposal, according to the Department of Planning and Budget that wrote the fiscal impact statement is this: “It is estimated that the proposed legislation would introduce additional costs associated with providing substance abuse screenings, assessments, drug testing and drug treatment of (state welfare) applicants and participants. The administrative effort required to process and screen applications will increase the local staff workload.”

Localities are not looking for any new programs that will “increase the local staff workload.”

A subcommittee of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions, which is where the bill has been assigned, should understand that and take the only appropriate vote for Cline’s bill — a recommendation to the full committee that the bill be killed.