disabilities are either physical or mental disabilities severe enough to keep them from working full-time or working at all. The qualifications for receiving SSI range from being diagnosed with schizophrenia to being diagnosed with cancer, although most of the SSI recipients do not have illnesses quite as serious as cancer. Further research into the matter shows that 6% of Americans over the age of twelve admit to using illegal drugs (“America’s Drug Abuse Profile”). Another 2% of Americans admit to using legal drugs (such as prescribes medications) illegally (“America’s Drug Abuse Profile”). The proposition is to administer drug screening to the 6.4 million people receiving SSI by claiming to be disabled because this is the group most likely to be receiving the benefits illegally. The numbers in this matter speak louder than any words one could write. 6.4 million people receive SSI benefits by claiming disabilities (“Supplemental Security Income”). The average benefit amount is $516 a month (“Supplemental Security Income”). Just this small group of people receive $3.3 billion a month. The cost of drug screening these people by blood is $45 per test (“Common Profiles”). This means it would cost $288 million to administer the tests. There are 5,795 registered hospitals in the United States (“Fast Facts on U.S. Hospitals”). Unregistered hospitals not in this group include: surgery centers, specialists’ clinics, etc. (“Fast Facts on U.S. Hospitals”) Therefore, 1,104 people would go to every registered hospital to receive the drug screening. If the hospitals do not have enough staff to administer these screening in one day, the screenings could be split up into two days. The $288 million to administer the tests is 8.6% of the $3.3 billion given out every month to SSI recipients; so 8% of the people who took the test would need to fail for the test to pay for itself. Ironically enough, 8% of people admitted to using drugs illegally (“America’s Drug Abuse Profile”). At worst, the drug screening would pay for itself in one month. If only 8% of the recipients of SSI failed the drug screening and lost their benefits, we, the tax payers, and the government would save $3.4 billion a year. These numbers speak for themselves. The proposition is not to deny disabled persons for life. If SSI recipients fail the initial drug screen, deny their benefits for one year. Then randomly administer another drug screening between twelve and eighteen months after the initial drug screening. If they fail again, then deny them for life. If they pass, give them their benefits back. In order to keep profiting from this procedure, we would have to keep administering the drug screening forever. The question is: how long are we going to keep supporting people that are throwing away our money? What will happen to our Social Security benefits if we keep doing so?