2010 Unemployment Extension Bill: Drug Test Amendment Orrin Hatch's Payback?

It was bad enough for those on unemployment benefits, due to run out soon, to be in their particular financial predicaments, but to have Republicans and Democrats get tied up in debate via a Republican filibuster Thursday over the 2010 Unemployment Benefits Extension Bill (the "Extenders Bill") was anything but good news. And, when it looked as if the Democrats might swing the vote, shaving enough off the overall measure to make the projected deficit burden nearly $25 million less, Republicans still voted -- to the senator -- to continue debate.

And, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) attempted a standalone vote (where a provision is brought to the floor for a vote by itself), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected, according to MLive.com. When he brought up using unused stimulus money to finance the Unemployment Benefits extension (a move that had been attempted -- and failed -- before), Reid objected. And, as bad as all that news was to the unemployed whose benefits were suspended and who were hoping for a reprieve (300,000 in June), it got a little worse when news surfaced that Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was offering an amendment to institute mandatory drug and alcohol testing for individuals applying for unemployment benefits.

Many were apt to ponder why Senator Orrin Hatch would want to push such an amendment, considering the plight of many during the economic slowdown, which has been dubbed the "Great Recession," has run to losses of not just jobs, but homes, vehicles, secondary and tertiary loan defaults, mounting medical bills, and various other financial burdens. Senator Hatch maintained that such an amendment would guarantee that taxpayer money wasn't being wasted on drugs and alcohol, that it would identify people who might have abuse problems, and it could potentially save the government money (and, by extension, cut down on the national debt).

But, all Senator Hatch's social and fiscal conservatism seems to be nothing more than a smokescreen when one considers that the senior Senator from Utah has had ties with the pharmaceutical and health care industries for decades. The Washington Times exposed one nonprofit organization, the Utah Families Foundation, that was founded by Hatch -- which he has been careful to remain legally unaffiliated with -- that has been the recipient of substantial donations (hundreds of thousands of dollars) from pharmaceutical companies over the years (nearly $175,000 in 2007), the same pharmaceutical companies that were major contributors to his re-election campaigns. Nonprofits, under current federal guidelines, do not have to disclose who their charitable donors are.

In 2000, the Senator flew around in a Gulfstream jet during his bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency that was loaned to him by Schering-Plough, a drugmaker for whom the Senator subsequently sponsored legislation. In 2003, the Utah Senator was criticized for sponsoring a Medicare bill while holding an estimated $18,000 worth of Pfizer stock. That same year, he was the only senator to vote against revising regulations that would allow more generic medications in the marketplace, protecting the larger pharmaceutical companies' investments. But, two years later, Hatch spoke at a Generic Pharmaceutical Convention in 2005 and promised, "I will do everything I can to help you."

Hatch's connections to the pharmaceutical industry do not end there. His son, Scott, is a lobbyist for a firm that pushes the cause of Big Pharma. His firm, Walker, Martin & Hatch, had been paid over $1.5 million since 2001 to lobby for pharmaceutical companies, when the Washington Times published their expose (March 2009).

Of course, Senator Orrin Hatch denies being lobbied by his son. His son mirrors the stance.

And, Senator Hatch's job on Capitol Hill includes sitting on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which oversees the Food and Drug Administration. Since 1998, Hatch also has been a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees patent disputes, and the Senate Committee on Finance, whose jurisdiction includes Social Security Act mandated health programs and programs financed by a specific tax or trust fund.

A drug testing amendment to the 2010 Unemployment Benefits Extension Bill would not only be great news for the major pharmaceutical and health care industries (providing and supplying facilities, doctors, drug test kits, treatment kits for those who fail, etc.) as a whole, but it stands to help the local health care industry in his state (and other states) as well. Utah has an estimated 200 drug testing facilities. It is also home to several medical supplies manufacturing centers.

Although it seems that Senator Orrin Hatch's amendment would certainly help those employed by and affiliated with the aforementioned industries, it specializes and in no way benefits the common worker and those that would stand to lose the most by its passage. Even in his home state of Utah, where unemployment stands at 7.3%, according to the Bureau of Labor's May statistics (nearly 100,000 people), drug and alcohol testing could affect a number of those that were qualified to have the benefits accrue in their name but would be denied via a test administered when they might need the money most -- during a period of unemployment. Drug and alcohol testing would seem to defeat the purpose of the system, which is to help sustain the unemployed until gainful employment is found once more.

Requiring drug and alcohol testing for recipients would not, as Senator Orrin Hatch suggests, save the government money. Even if the recipient were to pay for the drug test in order to receive their benefits, the government will save little because most of those receiving benefits are not part of the drug culture and would most likely be responsible enough not submit to testing while inebriated. Drug and alcohol testing in this regard would only hurt the unemployed, taking even more money away from what for many has already become trying economic times. Considering that many of the unemployed are on some form of government medical assistance as well, much of the drug and alcohol testing will be paid for by government funds (which, by extension, is taxpayer money).

In the end, it would seem that Senator Orrin Hatch has managed to insult America's unemployed, especially the 9.7 million that are currently receiving unemployment benefits, 1.2 million of which will be in a state of suspension if the 2010 Unemployment Benefits Extension Bill isn't passed. In addition, his sponsorship of what can only be described as a quid pro quo amendment also seems to insult the intelligence of the American taxpayer, who will ultimately pay the largest portion of the drug and alcohol testing bill. By attempting to disguise the amendment as something socially and fiscally responsible, he has been disingenuous. By even suggesting the amendment, Orrin Hatch has revealed to his constituents and the American public a judgmental elitism and moralistic intrusiveness that belies his supposed conservative leanings.

Besides, what the unemployed taxpayer does with the money once received, many believe, is none of the government's concern.

Although doubtful that such an amendment would ever pass, given its unpopularity, it should be remembered that many measures are passed through Congress that are unpopular. And even if the amendment were added to the 2010 Unemployment Benefits Extension Bill, there is no guarantee that the bill would still not be filibustered, adding further injury to the insult.

******

Sources:

BLS.gov

WashingtonTimes.com

MLive.com