Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Cuts that Humiliate the Poor Are the Republican Drug of Choice
Cutting government spending is the drug of choice for the Republican Party. They’re already looking for the next hit before the high from the last one wears off. Still high on Sequester, Paul Ryan is looking for the greatest buzz of all – trading Medicare in for coupons. He and the other Ayn Rand worshippers continue to spin the idea that killing Medicare is the best way to save it.
Other Republicans eye cheaper versions of the great buzz that combines the appearance of cost cutting with forcing desperate people to waive their constitutional rights. Steven Fincher’s Welfare Integrity Act revives the age-old Republican myth about substance abuse and social assistance.
The buzz apparently comes from knowing that making people who need public assistance would have to go through the added humiliation of unconstitutional drug tests possibly forcing people to choose between survival and their constitutional rights. It’s a drug originally manufactured by Rick Scott and other Republican governors whereby people who are statistically less likely to abuse illicit substances than their job creator counter parts would be forced to pay an unnecessary test to prove they are innocent of substance abuse. Oh, the buzz of knowing that people who can least afford unnecessary drug tests can be forced to go without food to prove themselves innocent.
The buzz that comes from Fincher’s bill brings side effects of delusion – like the Florida study, released in 2012, that proved how unbuzzworthy the policy is. For one thing, there is little evidence to justify a presumed guilty until proven innocent policy toward people applying for social assistance. The government study found that someone who Republicans call a “job creator” is more likely to create a job for a drug dealer than someone on social assistance is. Of the 4,086 people tested under the Scott version of this law, only 108 people tested positive for substance abuse.
Moreover, the policy proved to be more costly for the state of Florida, which had to reimburse social assistance applicants who passed the test. The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening. The state’s net loss? $45,780. The buzz for Rick Scott came not only with perpetuating the myths about people who need social assistance and humiliating them for needing it, but because he would personally profit from the mandated blood testing – notwithstanding that similar laws were already struck down by the courts because they violated the Fourth Amendment.
Before Michigan’s version of the same law was struck down in 2003 only 10% of social assistance applicants tested positive for illicit drug use. Compare that with the fact that 70% of illicit drug users in Michigan were employed full time.
When Texas tried it, of the 51,000 people tested only 21 tested positive for illicit drug use. Rick Perry wasn’t going to let the history in Texas and other states including Florida get in the way of passing a law that would give a better high than mandatory testing for social assistance. He wanted mandatory drug testing for unemployment insurance too! Notwithstanding what the mandatory drug testing in exchange for public insistence revealed, the same source cut off their drug supply – the pesky courts that ruled the Fourth Amendment does indeed apply to poor people.
Fichner’s law shows there is no low to where the Republicans will stoop to get that buzz that comes from stigmatizing poverty while the same Republicans are doing all they can to create developing world levels of poverty while whining that the rich are too poor.
Image All American Blogger
Florida's mandatory drug testing law was temporary blocked by a Federal Judge Mary Scriven because it ma ...
Georgia lawmakers are out of touch with voters when it come to drug testing people who receive benefits from ...
From health care to education, to civil justice and support for working families, the actions of R ...
Politicians across the country have been ginning up support for the idea of mandatory drug testing for p ...
When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution, besides setting a blueprint for how the young countr ...
keri
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 7:27 pm
I hope they include pharmaceutical drugs in this search. Abusing RX is a crime too, isn’t it?
loading...
Paws
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 7:45 pm
I saw this story elsewhere yesterday and these people are evil. I do not like to throw that word out because I think it is over-used, but there is no other word for it but evil.
They think they’re going to catch all these people on drugs when history shows that won’t be the case. They say they’re doing this for the kids but they’re not. If they cared about the children, they would not be wasting money on unneeded testing – they would be putting that money toward keeping or even increasing benefits to hungry families. If they really cared, they would not balk at raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires at the expense of school lunch programs. Think Progress did a story during the campaign that showed that to prevent 350,000 children from being kicked off the school lunch programs, they could raise taxes just a couple of percentage points on a little over 3,000 billionaires.
But they’d rather let kids go hungry and shame the poor and unemployed than do that.
And the GOP has the gall to call itself the Party of family values? Well I guess that’s true – if it’s the MANSON FAMILY.
Hypocrites.
loading...
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Had a profit motive?Why am I not surprised.No matter how stupid if the GOP can make money “DAMN THE TOPEDOES FULL STEAM AHEAD”
loading...
Edward Milosky
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
I get your point, but the many overlooked and missing words weakens your impact. Proof read!
loading...
Michael
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
I work in an industry that regularly test myself and every other person that gains access to the facility. In addition to the initial every person is subject to random screens that are computer generated lists. So if I do this to stay employed why isn’t everyone else in the nation. I have no issues with testing people that are applying for government assistance. But I would like to see it expanded to all industries as well. So can anyone tell me that you would not want this done to Airline, Trucking, Nuclear and other industries where the consequences could be disastrous?
loading...
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
So in the interest of financial interest,to live in a home,safety etc we forfeit our 4th amendment rights.I guess bush was right when he said the constitution was nothing more than a piece of paper.Good Night and Good Luck America it was nice while it lasted.
loading...
Paws
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 9:13 pm
I think the industries you mention have rigorous drug screening procedures in place given the nature of that work. A lot of companies require drug screening as a condition of employment.
Having said that, testing people who are receiving aid will not have the impact one tends to think. You need only look at the data provided in the article above, as well as data published elsewhere. Those who have/had drug screening as a condition for aid have seen relatively few people come up positive. Moreover, a lot of people who get aid are actually working and may already participate in drug screening with their employer. They make so little money that they must get aid in order to feed their families. Those who are unemployed and actively seeking work know that many employers require drug screening and it is unlikely they would do drugs while actively looking for work. They don’t want to do anything to jeopardize their prospects.
We are left with people who are poor or unemployed being shamed for that is what this is. They are being punished. The results will likely repeat what we’ve already seen in other states that have tried this kind of testing for aid recipients. In other words, it is a waste of time and money. In a time when states are pleading poverty, they are going to spend money testing people, looking for illegal drugs, and they will see – as other states have seen – very little for their trouble. Moreover, for people who espouse such devotion to the Constitution, they seem to have no problem disregarding it when it comes to a person’s 4th Amendment rights.
That money would be best spent in increasing aid to poor families and child hunger programs. Or it could be used for job training efforts so people can find good jobs and get off unemployment and/or assistance.
Either way, in their quest to shame the poor and unemployed, the states will ensure one thing and one thing only: people will go hungry, including children, they won’t be able to pay their rent or utilities, etc. I don’t know about anyone else but that doesn’t sound like a good thing to me.
loading...
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
And those janitors too. We must test janitors.
ANd while we are at it, lets give up a little more freedom every day.
loading...
Jo Hargis
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 2:20 am
@Michael: Please tell me you’re joking. Ok, look. If someone must be drug tested because they use machinery and they could be dangerous if operating said machines while high, that’s one thing. Exactly what dangerous machinery is someone on food stamps using? none. And don’t even throw me the bull crap about “caring for the kids” or they wouldn’t consider denying food stamps and other assistance to CHILDREN.
But the real point here is it’s already proven to be fiscally irresponsible to continue this drug testing. Wasting taxpayer money. How many times must the GOP be shown that it’s a loss of money? That the average of folks on social welfare and using drugs is far far lower than the national average of people using drugs? When will people stop ignoring the fact that the only motive the GOP has for doing any of this is to demonize the poor, humiliate them, degrade them? Remember Romney’s nefarious 47% comment? That IS the GOP mantra, clear through, despite the fact that of the 10 poorest states, 9 are red as a baby’s butt and take in more federal dollars than they pay back. So, the GOP demonizes and vilifies their own voters, who are apparently just too ignorant to realize they’re being used by the GOP.
Drug testing as a condition of employment is a voluntary thing. You do not have to take that job or apply there. People on food stamps, etc., have no option and they are given no choice. Hence, it’s a 4th amendment violation. Drug testing is already applied broadly across the industrial sector; still, that drug test is voluntary. Any worker can walk away and refuse it and go find a job elsewhere.
loading...
charlie
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
I think Michael is making a valid point. By some estimates, one-third of American corporations now require their employees to be tested for drug use. But it all seems a bit arbitrary if you ask me. We seem to be allowing for an environment that has different sets of rules for different sets of people. That never strikes me as a good thing. Now we can argue that one circumstance is a voluntary submission for drug testing (for employment), while the other is forced compliance (due to financial need), but is it really that different? Most people (especially these days),have limited job opportunities. Aren’t they…to a large degree, being forced to “accept” these employment requirements, no matter how objectionable, as a result of financial need as well?
I think this law in Fla. had a worthwhile goal of trying to ensure that any benefit received would not be used to enable a drug habit, but it doesn’t seem like they found the best way to achieve that. Mandatory drug testing was not required to receive food stamps or help with housing, etc., only for the CASH assistance program. Also, if an applicant failed the test they could have still designated someone else as the recipient of the benefit that would use the allowance (hopefully) for the children in the home.
I don’t have a strong opinion about this either way yet, but having the debate about it doesn’t seem like a terrible idea and I think everyone is only trying to do what they believe is best for all involved. Malice towards the poor? No, just differing opinions on which is the more effective way to help.
loading...
charlie
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 11:33 pm
the policy proved to be more costly for the state of Florida
_______________________________________________
According to Florida state officials, less than one percent of the 7,028 welfare applicants who underwent screening tested positive for drugs….however, almost 1,600 people who applied for welfare benefits in Florida declined to undergo drug testing.
Since so many applicants refused to take a drug test, it is difficult to draw conclusions from these findings, according to the Associated Press.
Now, here is my understanding of the problem with the Florida law.
The drug test can reveal a host of private medical facts about the individual. These drug tests are not kept confidential like medical records and the results can also be shared with law enforcement officers and a drug abuse hotline.
The potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a `far more substantial’ invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases.
The recent ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta affirmed the injunction of the Florida law.
If Gov. Scott is true to his word, he’s taking it to the Supremes.
loading...
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 11:40 pm
Just one more reason why republicans can never be allowed to be in office again
loading...
charlie
Mar. 6th, 2013 at 11:47 pm
I don’t like the sound of the Fla. law myself… and I wouldn’t be surprised if Scott backed off in the end.
Interesting case though.
loading...
Evermore Jones
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 2:33 am
Compulsory drug testing for state aid? What happens to me and my medical marijuana? I can’t really walk without it ya know. What happens to the mentally ill that have mood disorders like cyclothymia and bipolar disorder? Some of those mentally ill people abuse drugs as as a side effect of their illness. In fact it cloud be argued that drug abusers are clinically depressed and are indeed mentally ill. The mentally ill need more help not less.
loading...
SinghX
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 6:51 am
The GOP have a collective health problem; it’s called “Tongue Bifurcation”…that along with garden variety of personality disorders of which THEY should be tested.
Their ultimate goal is to kill off the minorities/the poor as a way to “satisfy” themselves; they like to feel what’s in their pocket (money). The only way to get them to understand is to hit them below the belt where it hurts the most; this they understand.
loading...
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 9:19 am
there is really only one response for this and that is to test everyone who takes any type of money from the state. That includes the governor, his loyal minions and every single state employee.
If people qualify for welfare or for unemployment it is their right to obtain those programs. Where is it written that we can tell them how to spend the money that they qualify for? If we can do it for them then we can do it for every state employee no matter who they are
loading...
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 9:43 am
If they test everyone that recieves any money from the goverment I am buying stock because bizness will be booming.After a while this would be me
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6855/scroogemcduckswimsinmon.gif
loading...
Reynardine
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 10:02 am
Don’t put it past them to screen women for birth control medication and disqualify all who are found to be taking it.
loading...
Sherlock
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 11:00 am
Is it true that ALL political office holders will be subject to RANDOM drug and alcohol
tests? Is it true that Congressional pay and BENEFITS will be eliminated indefinitely under the sequester?
No.
loading...
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 11:07 am
Is it true that only the people pay for the sequester? Yes.
loading...
Sherlock
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 11:12 am
Does Mitt own a chain of drug screening outfits?
loading...
akbright
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
A member of our State House is proposing similar legislation here in Alaska:
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?bill=HB%20%2016&session=28
BTW, this House member is also the Alaska state chairman for ALEC.
loading...
Maranon
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
The one glaring issue of all this testing is the financial gains to the company doing the testing.
It is a cash cow!
The store does not take credit card nor check, they take cash. Does it get reported? partial reporting?
The people being tested, some have to come weekly, others monthly. The store I drive by daily, has long lines waiting, most days. The store is manned by armed security guard, a lab tech, a sample collections tech and a cashier. The facility is small and not so clean, but used by the courts.
So business is good!
Somebody with lots of pull is lobbying for this drug testing measure to be enabled.
loading...
imabrummie
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
So, the ReTHUGliCLOWNS believe in a policy of drug testing for all who receive the benefit of public funding. Perhaps by the same token we should require such testing of them. After all, are not their salaries paid courtesy of the overburdened U.S. taxpayer?
loading...
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 8:15 pm
If you are a North Carolina republican I need you to explain something to me.I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you vote repub because they are the party of lower taxes
With the Senate’s final approval Wednesday, a measure to let a modest state tax credit for low- and moderate-income taxpayers expire in 2013 is headed to Gov. Pat McCrory.
Legislation would repeal N.C. tax credit for low- and moderate-income taxpayers
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/14/2681428/legislation-would-repeal-nc-tax.html
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/14/2681428/legislation-would-repeal-nc-tax.html#storylink=cpy
Now I know reading is fundamental but doesnt that sound like they are raising your taxes?
Democrats didnt do this,republicans did it to you.
What is your reasoning now?I would love to hear it.Anyway I would like to thank you.Your own party is raising your taxes but they are lowering corporate taxes.No democrat could ever make it more clearer to YOU.How does it feel to be cannon fodder
loading...