Two seemingly unrelated recent news developments are very closely related in raising political questions and objections.

In one corner, we have the much-despised Michigan presidential vote recount engineered by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, quickly becoming the third most hated woman in politics, eclipsed only by Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

In the other corner we have news that Michigan’s year-long series of tests of welfare recipients for drug use yielded not one bust, which was greeted by silence and yawns.

In both cases, the complaints were the same — They were a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ money. But these complaints came from two very different points of view in the modern political arena.

Conservatives and supporters of Donald Trump have wailed and gnashed their teeth over the recounts. They maintain tabulating votes again in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania will not change the outcome of the presidential election. They believe Stein took the necessary steps to seek the recounts as a publicity stunt, a chance to get her 15 minutes of fame, as Andy Warhol said half a century ago.

And they have been appalled that taxpayers are picking up the tab.

One court ruling even said Stein has no standing to seek a recount because she only got less than 1% of the vote. Stein has countered that she is seeking reassurance that the American electoral system is not rigged or hacked in the wake of rumors of such calamities.

Now comes the news of the failure of the state over the last year insisting welfare recipients pee into a cup to determine whether they have tried to game the system by living off the public dole and using some of this good fortune to use illegal drugs. Authorities failed to catch even one such scoundrel. And taxpayers had to pick up the tab.

So what we have here is the possibility a recount won’t change anything and costs taxpayers money pitted against welfare drug testing, which already has been proven to be a waste of time and taxpayers’ money as well. They are both guilty of the same charges.

Some assert they are pleased the welfare drug testing brought no problems, ensuring the system isn’t being scammed. Yet others insist that if the recount proves the vote totals were accurate, then the integrity of the system was verified, not scammed.

I assert that we all need to do some critical thinking about both processes that cost us money. We can’t say one is wrong and the other right when they both produced the same result — No problems were detected and it cost money and public officials’ time.

If we really want to save money, we should do more critical thinking about these procedures in which we pay. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.