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 ...
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.
I’d pass a different law: No drug testing of anybody for any reason unless the Legislature is tested too.
You can't buy smokes and booze on food stamps. It is not physically possible in PA.
Are you for it or against it?
Against. War on Drugs is a complete joke. This measure is unconstitutional ... along with the scheduling laws currently on the books.
When we talk about welfare, exactly what are we referring to? If you are referring to people on disability, or unemployment, or single mothers on WIC, or the few cases of individuals needing food assistance, ... “welfare” is acceptable ...
If you mean “welfare” as in the check they give to people who have no problems or issues with health, or family, live in cities and hang out on street corners, and watch TV all day long without paying attention to their children, then welfare should be eliminated.
Johnson, said it was none of our business what these poor people did with their (notice not our) money.
Excellent!
How old are they if I may ask? I’m considering doing the same thanks to your suggestion.
Don’t forget The Banana Splits and the School House Rock collection.
I despise so called "conservatives" who support unconstitutional restrictions of freedom and liberty such as the War on Drugs.
I am not to happy with the 60 - 70, 80's crowd of individuals who we can thank for such unconstitutional and restrictive laws involving drugs ...
It is hard to stop such insanity while half of our side supports the government fed propaganda ... and more and more generations of people fall victim to more lies about the WOD.
I bought the silver anniversary edition of SHR,
and my little ones LOVE it.
The two year old is singing “Reginald was home with the flu, ah uh uh!”
Really? A "number" of them?
I don't anyone on welfare. Guess I need to get out more.
hmmmm - Sort of like getting a “gift card”...maybe it was.
I don’t know what Texas does.
It just looked funny to both of us.
No alcoholic beverages either ... Or tobacco.
They are both drugs which cause harm ... alcohol immediately, tobacco over many plus years ... Both are legal and sell in stores, making them available for all ...
Many people on welfare smoke tobacco and drink alcohol ...
This should be stopped as well if they are targeting illegal drug users ...
People on welfare should not be allowed to purchase those items as they could not afford them without the cash assistance ...
Why should only street drugs be targeted? Alcohol And tobacco are two of the top widely abused drugs in the world ... many people on welfare spend lots of money on them ...
Not to many people mention these facts ...
Many Freepers smoke tobacco and drink alcohol ... I wonder if that would influence their opinion on the matter ...
Nahh ... They wouldn't do that /s
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.