There are ongoing debates in political circles as to just how to fix our economic woes. Democrats are intent on spending, and republicans are intent on criticizing every move to spend without offering any sort of plan for recovery.
Well, not so fast ladies and gentlemen. There is at least one republican with a plan, and his name is Craig Blair, a representative in the West Virginia legislature. You see folks, Mr. Blair wants to help this nation, and lift it from its economic doldrums. And what exactly is it that he proposes? Well, he's pushing for legislation that would require recipients of unemployment benefits, food stamps, and or welfare (aka TANF) to be subject to drug testing. Uh huh, he has even gone as far as to set up his own website to fight the good fight: notwithmytaxdollars.com. Ain't that sweet; so appropriately titled.
"Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing" - source
You see, I never knew that the drug dealers were the reason this economy is in such turmoil. I mean, why in the world should any gov't agency give people money if all they're going to do is hand it over to a drug dealer, right? Makes sense. Hell, the fallout of the economy is all the fault of the drug dealers?! Gimme a freakin break dude! This proposal is pure bullshit. As a matter of fact, I think its racist, and I think by design they seek to target minorities.
Yes I do think so. You see, these right wing conservatives the likes of Mr. Blair are of the opinion that people on welfare and gov't assistance are living it up. Sure they are. Hell, the great communicator Ronald Reagan was the one responsible for creating the hype about "Welfare Queens" remember? Matter of fact, it was because of them that Bill Clinton's welfare reform had to include this concession back in the 90's.
"The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.
But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities." - source
Yup, old Ronnie Boy had everyone believing that people on welfare were all living in the projects, driving Caddy's and smoking dope, and happy. Some say it was dramatic hyperbole, but I say it was racist, and akin to the republican southern strategy of Nixon. So what did Reagan do? He cut back on a bunch of well needed gov't programs, and cut taxes on a few of his rich buddies and the rest is history. It's racist! Ask anybody, do a poll if you have to. I promise you, its common knowledge that Blacks and other minorities are the face of "welfare" in this country, in their eyes. Not only that, Blacks and minorities are the scourge of society with all their crack, malt liquor, and that damn hippety hop. Yup, so the free ride is over.
As per statistics from October, there are 31.7 million people on food stamps in this country. There are people who I'm sure have never received public assistance, but due to the economy, here they are. Instead of advocating spending to create jobs, and extend unemployment benefits, these clowns are worried about drug use? What ticks me off even more than that are the people who would say, "I don't want my tax dollars going to some druggie." These same people who use that tired line never have shit to say when money goes towards a trillion dollar war effort (i.e. Iraq & Afghanistan), or to the fat cats in the financial industry. But yet you're worried about the single mom struggling to make it doing drugs?
"Similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.
Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967." - source
I'm pretty sure some of you reading this would agree to this policy. Some of you are probably thinking, "well if I gotta take a drug test for a job, so should they." Well, testing for a job and testing randomly to continue to receive benefits are two different things. Why should I have to be drug tested to receive a benefit that I have paid into through weekly deductions from my paycheck? What's next, I have to have a drug test before I can receive my tax refund? Mind you, I'm not advocating drug use. I'm merely on the side of practicality and what's right. And I'm sorry, I thought we were in the middle of an economic crisis, and not a drug war the likes of what's happening along the Mexican border right now.
"Programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test" - sourceThere are states that can barely survive right now due to the economic crisis, but yet you want them top pay for drug testing? There are republican governors refusing to take federal state bailout money to extend benefits, but yet they want to spend money on drug testing to determine who gets it and who doesn't? I'm no Albert Einstein, but that doesn't seem to make sense to me. But hey, this is America. A place where the little guy, or the nice guy, unlike the cut throats in big business and gov't always finishes last.
QUESTION: Are you for or against this legislature, and why?