Skip to main content

Conservative politicians, including Mitt Romney during his presidential campaign, supported legislation mandating drug testing for recipients of federal aid, such as: the unemployed, families in assistance programs -- in general, citizens down on their luck or in trouble. Interestingly, none of these politicians has suggested drug tests for executives whose banks benefit from billions in federal aid and bailouts.

Conservative politicians, including Mitt Romney during his presidential campaign, supported legislation mandating drug testing for recipients of federal aid, such as: the unemployed, families in assistance programs -- in general, citizens down on their luck or in trouble. Interestingly, none of these politicians has suggested drug tests for executives whose banks benefit from billions in federal aid and bailouts.

Since 2011 (generally, at Republican insistence):

"Seven states have passed laws mandating drug tests for [welfare] recipients, and in 2012 at least twenty-five other states considered proposals to tie welfare cash assistance, and in some cases also food stamps, to drug tests." (Source: The Nation.)
For example, in 2011, GOP Governor Scott of Florida signed a law requiring all applicants for that state's welfare program to take a drug test. And in 2012:
"Congress passed a law paving the way for states to urine-test the recipients of unemployment benefits ... Since then, sixteen states have considered laws tying unemployment insurance benefits to drug tests." (Source: The Nation.)
And, in 2013, in response to various court decisions concerned that mandatory drug testing violated welfare recipients' constitutional rights:
"Rep. Fincher (R-TN) introduced a bill ... that would require states that want to receive full funding for welfare assistance to force its citizens to waive their Fourth Amendment rights and submit to random drug testing." (Source: ThinkProgress.)
One touted justification for drug-testing assistance applicants is that people who've fallen on hard times because of drug problems shouldn't get a taxpayer bailout. In short, if people can't run their lives, or businesses, because of drug use, they shouldn't be subsidized with government money. And, speaking of people who can't run their businesses without a government subsidy, that does brings us back to our largest banks.

Bloomberg News recently reported that America's largest banks receive a federal subsidy of about $80 billion per year, and that, without this subsidy, they would not be able stay in business. To put the bank subsidy in perspective, federal payments under the welfare programs and food stamps combined are about $70 billion per year.

Looking at the actions of our financial services sector, at least one plausible explanation may be that some bank executives were stoned out of their minds. Consider a few examples:

- The 2008 financial crisis, when, in addition to their annual $80 billion subsidy, our banks needed a $400 billion bailout.

- The collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and AIG.

- Five banks (Ally Bank, Bank of America, Citi, J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo) paid $25 billion to settle claims that they "routinely signed foreclosure related documents ... without actually knowing whether the facts contained in those documents were correct." Seriously, you'd have to be high as a kite, incredibly arrogant, or amazingly incompetent to think you could get away with this behavior.

- Money Laundering -- "Credit Suisse, Lloyds Bank, ABN Amro, ING Bank and now HSBC -- have reached settlements in the past couple of years with the U.S. government for billions of dollars in tainted transactions." For example, "between 2006 and 2010, the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico, the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia and other drug traffickers laundered at least $881 million in illegal narcotics trafficking proceeds through HSBC". Since these banks were doing business, on a large-scale, with drug traffickers, did some bank executives perhaps try samples?

The actions of the financial services industry can only be explained by some combination of bad luck, innocent incompetence, criminal intent, or significant drug use. Unless we ask our bank CEOs (and other senior executives) to "pee in the cup," how will we know whether they "deserve" taxpayer assistance? If this seems far-fetched, it's been widely reported that James Cayne, the CEO of Bear Stearns as it lurched into insolvency:

"Sometimes smoked marijuana at the end of the day ... He also has used pot in more private settings, according to people who say they witnessed him doing so or participated with him." (Source: WSJ, Bear CEO's Handling Of Crisis Raises Issues.)
The banking industry has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of law-breaking behavior, wouldn't be profitable without a massive government subsidy, and is filled with credible rumors that senior bank personnel use illegal drugs. Further, a senior bank executive with a drug problem is in a position to do real damage to our economy, unlike the average person on unemployment insurance. If bank executives don't want to submit to drug testing in exchange for federal aid for their bank, they could always resign.

So why aren't our political leaders demanding that these corporate welfare recipients join other welfare recipients in mandatory drug testing programs? Let me offer a few thoughts:

- Political Donations: No one on food stamps makes substantial political contributions. However, America's financial services industry (broadly defined) donated $650 million to political campaigns in 2012.

- Future High-Paying Jobs: Many of our current political leaders, and their staffs, are tomorrow's highly-paid lobbyists for banks. They might not want to annoy potential future employers.

- Class Bias: Our Congress knows and socializes with bank executives. But how many congressional leaders have shared a meal with a family on food stamps? Or lunched with someone who worked hard for 20 years, lost his/her job in the financial crisis, and now must "pee in a cup" to satisfy the whims of hypocritical politicians?

For a variety of reasons, I believe drug testing of aid recipients is bad policy; the tests are often inaccurate, several courts believe these laws violate our constitutional rights, and so on. But if we're going to require it, let's test our corporate welfare recipients as well as ordinary Americans.

Steven Strauss is an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Immediately prior to Harvard, he was founding Managing Director of the Center for Economic Transformation at the New York City Economic Development Corporation. Steven was one of the NYC leads for Applied Sciences NYC (Mayor Bloomberg's plan to build a new engineering and innovation center in NYC), NYC BigApps and many other initiatives to foster job growth, innovation and entrepreneurship. In 2010, Steven was selected as a member of the Silicon Alley 100 in NYC. He has a Ph.D. in Management from Yale University, and over 20 years' private sector work experience. Geographically, Steven has worked in the US, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. You can follow him on Twitter at: @Steven_Strauss 

Follow Steven Strauss on Twitter:

This is cross posted from my blog, and originally published on April 7th, 2013 as Shouldn't We Drug Test CEOs of Banks Receiving Federal Aid?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And all the politicians who love to kick (8+ / 0-)

    the poor, the disabled, the ill and the unemployed should all step up and volunteer to be drug tested as long as they are in public office and/or receiving pay, benefits and retirement. Come on, be the example setters, Paragons of Virtue Who Have Nothing To Hide!

    Citizens can play this game as well as politicians. Great diary!

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 07:36:57 AM PST

  •  Not if you want to get rid of all drug testing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    By drug testing CEO's, you give legitimacy to the practice, at the expense of civil liberties.

    I don't give a fuck who uses drugs, it's none of the government's business.  So no, I don't favor drug testing CEOs.  That's the quickest way to cement drug testing food stamp recipients as standard practice.

  •  Drug test equivalent for a bank would be an audit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justanothernyer, Creosote
  •  The subsidy here is actually a bet by (0+ / 0-)

    bondholders that the US government would bail out the banks if necessary.

    the subsidy, IOW, is coming from the bondholders. the Bloomberg piece comes from an IMF or World Bank piece that looks at what bond rates would be if bondholders didn't think the govt would bail the banks out.

  •  I dunno, if Arod is a member of this site (0+ / 0-)

    I'll wait for him to weigh in with his opinion before making up my mind.

  •  No, We Shouldn't Drug Test Hardly Anybody (0+ / 0-)

    Unless their day-to-day work is holding the lives of others in their hands (i.e. bus drivers, airline pilots, anybody whose job it is to carry a gun).

  •  Wall St CEOs: "Things Go Better With Coke!" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q

    It's the pause that refreshes them.
    (And I'm not talking about the carbonated soft drink.)

    Congresspeople, Wall Street CEOs, corporate executives and board members, "judges", prosecutors, cops, and anyone else using judgment in their work should be drug tested.

    The cocaine producers in South America might notice a huge drop in demand for their product if this became reality.

  •  No to Drug Tests, Yes to Means Test (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not in favor of drug tests because it assumes that drugs inherently cause bad decisions.  I am in favor of means tests and a personal responsibility because I think that high-ranking business executives and officers should be tied to not just the success of their company, but the failure.  In the same way as they get special benefits when their company succeeds, they need to personally suffer when it does not.  Now there is a special buffer where executives only receive benefits, and never suffer personal punishments.  They must sign waivers that put them personally responsible for the use of government funds and become liable for their repayment if it is determined that they made poor decisions regarding it's use.  In short, they need some skin in the game, perhaps to lose some most painfully and not just gain.  It's too impersonal now, to just claim bad luck, incompetent management or poor economic conditions.  If they lose court cases, it's jail or loss of personal wealth, nothing less.  No more charging the company, charge individuals.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site