Posted on 03/26/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by GOPGuide
snip
In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.
"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.
snip
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.
"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."
Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.
Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.
In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
Being pushed by drug test vendors. We need to stop the drug war insanity.
No, I think they are pushing it because they know many welfare recipients won’t cut the mustard, so to speak.
“Being pushed by drug test vendors. We need to stop the drug war insanity.”
BS! Why should some druggie get welfare (our tax money)?
Make them take the tests ! No pass; No $$
May I suggest a better solution? Get rid of welfare and all other social programs. Problem solved!
I’m for it. I’ve seen plenty of people in grocery store lines using food stamps to buy food but they were obviously strung out on who knows what. For that matter I’ve seen em buy smokes and booze too.
If you can’t afford food you can’t afford drugs, smokes and booze.
I don’t think we should be paying for their habits by paying for their food.
No dope smokin’ hippie is going to lay around getting high and watching H.R. Puffinstuff on my dime.
The man who pays the fiddler calls the tune..............
“Those are the people who need welfare the most” and “paying them welfare is the most effective stimulus, they will spend it right away”
See how the reasoning goes?
It is NOT for the benefit of any recipients. The ONLY purpose of testing is to give the States an excuse to CUT PAYMENTS.
Sure....why not? I had to take a drug test to get my job. Why can’t they take a drug test to get my money from my job?....
Valid point, but on the flip side, many, many jobs require you to pee in a cup before being offered employment. If you are on unemployment, how would you be able to take a job if you were unable to pee “clean”??? And unemployment payments can be looked at as now the “employer” is your fellow taxpayer, and like most employers, don’t want unproductive meth freaks on the payroll.
You make it sound like a bad thing.
It will save the states a lot of money.
But wasn’t welfare designed to get stoners out of the work force?
/sarcasm
“Urine the Money!”
Michael Savage suggested no voting rights if you don’t pay taxes.
I agree with Savage.
The rest of us go to work to support their habit.
If drug testing is appropriate for our military it’s appropriate for welfare recipients.
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that certain public housing, perhaps in certain cities only, instituted random drug testing for applicants/residents, and the courts have upheld. Does anyone else recall this?
That would drop about 90% of them off the rolls.
In New York, at least when I was more up on these things, if one of the main reasons a single person collected welfare was because he/she had an addiction problem. Now they kind of put the alcoholics and addicts into a separate category and one had to be enrolled in some kind of outpatient program. In many of these programs there would be urine tests involved. But for the most part, if the alcoholic or addict was using, they wouldn’t show up anyway, or they’d start missing a lot of days etc.-—in reality, no need for the state to spend money on drug testing because attendence at the program is a fairly reliable method for weeding most of those still using off of welfare.
Quote of the Day.
This is a great idea!
No voting rights if you don’t pay taxes.
Also test them for cigarettes and booze. We shouldn’t have to pay for those either.
My job is such that I am required to periodically take urine drug tests. Why shouldn’t people on public assistance or unemployment be required to do the same? If they test positive, get them all the help they need to get clean and if they fail again, cut off the assistance.
If you listen to the idjit from the ACLU, he’s implying only rich people should be tested.
Good idea. They collect our tax dollars for life (bail outs), and still expect to keep their bonuses? No way. Welfare recipients owe us every penny they get their hands on.
Public Housing in NYC can be all over the place as far as what kind of folks are living there. In Manhattan’s East Village and Lower East Side all along the East River are projects. I would say the majority of folks living in them now are senior citizens who have lived there for many years...mostly Hispanic. These folks I doubt are doing bong hits.
Good idea. It would cut the cost of welfare in half - if not more. they shouldn't be buying drugs with our paychecks!
I think we need to look at this the way the Rats in Congress would look at say AIG bonuses. We pay their unemplyment, therefore we own them (I think that’s what queen Frank said) so in that case sure why not, piss in the cup to get your check. We have a project in the southern part of my town where you can get totally affordable housing, C/O the taxpayer, C/O the residents you can buy crack, heroine and weed from just about anyone there, make those people pee for their checks, because I know they are making enough to pay rent, buy food and still drive that Escalade!
I am sick and tired of my tax dollars going to people who live in subsidized housing, receive food stamps, welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc. who do not work.
You will not get a job in either the private or public sector without a drug test. Why then should those on public assistance not be held to the same standard?
Exactly
I agree. The tax payers pay for EVERY piece of legislation passed. The others just vote themselves other peoples money.
LOL!
Back when the foodstamps were paper, users could trade them - 2 for a dollar - to the dealers. (Don't ask me how I know that.) Now that they are in credit card form, it may be a little more difficult - but I'm sure it can be done.
My daughter and I were behind a lady in the grocery line yesterday who paid with a foodstamp card. She was loading groceries in a Jaguar when we walked out. I kid you not. If we must keep "welfare" - then I'm all for the drug testing.
What I was getting at is that there is precedent for this requirement and it may be legally/constitutionally sound. I realize that public housing shelters folks from one end of the spectrum to the other. If they are not taking drugs, they wouldn't have much to lose now, would they?
It would be my guess that there is no drug testing for public housing in my state, as a drive my the projects reveals a bunch of people who all look like they are drunk, high or stoned, or a combination thereof.
I can top that. Robert A. Heinlein suggested no voting rights unless you're an honorably discharged veteran.
this is a good idea, so it will probably only get enacted in Texas.
no representation without taxation. but those people currently elect the people who make the decisions, and they’re not going to elect people who would do that. and the people that benefit do everything they can to increase their numbers.
won’t happen this side of The Great Turmoil.
Thanks, you just compelled me to put HR Puffinstuff and Lacelot Link: Secret Chimp into my Netflix queue so my kids can experience what I had to watch when I was a kid.
As much as I hate to say it.. There are kids that depend on those welfare checks to sustain life, regardless if mom uses or not. If only adults getting money was at stake, I'd be for it even tho I'm against being asked to submit my urine, without cause, for employment.
Funny thing; legally would it stand up. ACLU would fight it tooth and nail, but in NY (the most liberal state after Massachusetts) they will kick grannies out of the projects because grand baby is selling dope on the grounds of the project. See a lot of these teenage or 20 somethings are living with their grannies—and this has stood in the NY courts. I personally think it’s harsh, the law should be amended for granny to have an opportunity to remedy the situation (kicking the bum out)instead of her being on the street.
That being said; it's a GREAT idea! That money they're getting is supposed to be used to feed, clothe and house their families, not be wasted on crack, heroin, or weed.
For it!
Against it for unemployment insurance.
For welfare? Leaving aside the legitimacy of Welfare, I’d have to think about it. There are unknowns and unintended consequences. Increased crime, increased homelessness, perhaps increased illness and death. All of that, plus the unknowns, will have to be dealt with—or not. “Or not” may be the correct course, but is the public willing to do that?ha will they propose instead? W
How many chances will we give the welfare recipients when they fail? How many times can they fail?
When they do fail and we cut off funding, how much funding will we allocate for security for the workers at welfare offices?
This was not necessarily a food stamp benefit. In certain states, the "EBT" card is used to distribute various kinds of payments for services, such as foster care and guardianship.
They get my money too.....
Against
Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.
uh ... Exsqueeze me but if they hit the jackpot wouldn't you want the OFF of WELFARE?
But hey, if you're going to take all their winnings over $600.00 why not just pass a law saying they can't play the lottery at all. Brand a big 'W' on their foreheads so all the merchants know no Lotto tickets for them.
Or better yet just have a gubmint worker stationed in ALL welfare recipients homes and they can order what these folks can spend their money on. Naturally the main concern would be food, so no cookies, cakes, or popcorn. Just gubmint cheese and crackers and for Sunday they get gubmint gruel to feast on.
Or the ultimate control for the gubmint -- just put all people on public assistance into big camps and they can pick cotton from dawn to dusk to 'earn' their keep. Ooops, wait a sec.... that was already tried, it was called Slavery and ..... Communism.
I'm NOT defending the Welfare Queens in Cadillacs whose kids have $300.00 sneakers but come on, they are people with some rights left. And if they want to buy $5.00 worth of Lotto tickets instead of gubmint approved stale bread, so be it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.