The governor of Florida has signed a new law that will require anyone receiving welfare to pass a drug test before he or she can receive benefits.
While I am completely forbidden from saying anything nice about the state of Florida until the Mavericks have disposed of the Heat and won the NBA Championship, I have to make an exception here.
Bravo Florida.
To be honest, I’m surprised this wasn’t a law in the first place. Why don’t all states have the same law?
If You Want Benefits, Get Tested
Now watch this CNN news anchor, T.J. Holmes, suggest over and over again that testing someone for drugs is the same as accusing them of using drugs. If you don’t want to watch the video, here is a quote from the “unbiased” news anchor.
“…You just said that you don’t know… if welfare recipients are using drugs. So if you don’t know, why treat them like you suspect that they are?“
Testing someone for drugs doesn’t mean you suspect they are taking drugs. It means you are making sure they don’t. This isn’t rocket science people.
Some people, such as Florida representative Alcee Hastings, will argue that this law infringes on people’s right to privacy.
Governor Scott’s new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation’s ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional.
Where in the constitution does it say people have a right to a welfare check? The answer is nowhere. And no, “…promote the general welfare…” from the preamble has nothing to do with the welfare system created by the Roosevelt administration in the Great Depression. Sorry.
If you don’t want to pee in a cup, don’t apply for welfare. Easy peasy.
Spend More Taxpayer Dollars on Sober People
If you believe this report, 21 percent of welfare recipients use illegal drugs. Now remember that for every dollar the government gives to one person, that is a dollar they cannot give to another person. Do you think the economy would improve if we stopped funneling 21% of welfare dollars into the pockets of illegal drug dealers, and instead spent that money on food and other necessities?
You bet your patootie it would!
Then Ms. Hastings takes her argument one step further:
If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?
Ms. Hastings was being facetious, but I can only hope those programs are next. Remember that every tax dollar spent on a drug abuser is a dollar that could have been spent on a law abiding, non self-destructive citizen.
I would love to see a fine, upstanding citizen get a hospital bed with Medicaid money instead of some coke-head.
When homes are destroyed by hurricanes or tornadoes, it would make me giddy to see law abiding citizens get back in their homes before the doped up losers.
Would you rather your tax dollars pay for Tommy Tokesalot to go to college and show up to class high as a kite, or would you prefer to fund Steven Studieshard, who will be studying and/or having perfectly legal fun on nights and weekends?
An Easy Way to Decrease Drug Abuse
Now imagine if people who want government assistance knew that they had to be sober to get it. Do you think that would result in some people getting off drugs? You’re damn right it would!
If we made drug testing mandatory for all government aid, we would certainly see a decrease in drug abuse and an increase in taxpayer dollars being used on deserving citizens. And all the drug testing can be paid for out of the money saved from denying benefits to druggies.
More efficient use of tax dollars and less drug abuse. What more could you want? Feel free to write your congressman and tell him or her to stop spending tax dollars on druggies.
Kevin McKee is an entrepreneur, IT guru, and personal finance leader. In addition to his writing, Kevin is the head of IT at Buildingstars, Co-Founder of Padmission, and organizer of Laravel STL. He is also the creator of www.contributetoopensource.com. When he’s not working, Kevin enjoys podcasting about movies and spending time with his wife and four children.
Another part of this law requires that all state employees under go mandatory drug testing. There are budget deficits and no funding available to test thousands of people – the gov forgot to figure out that part of the deal.
They can get the money from not giving it to the druggies. Problem solved.
If 1 in 5 welfare recipients is on drugs, then the program will pay for itself by kicking druggies off of welfare.
I don’t see a problem with this. I can see why it appears that it’s a rights violation, but it’s not your right to receive a check from the government without meeting certain minimum requirements.
Frankly… I don’t mind requiring anyone receiving government aid to take a drug test. What’s wrong with that? It’s my money you’re giving away. These people don’t pay taxes. I want to make sure my money is being used “properly”.
Yeah, I think it’s very hard to argue that taxpayer dollars should be going to someone who does coke or meth. Really??? Save the money for people who won’t waste it.
Almost every job I’ve ever been hired for has required me to take a drug test. If a company or the government is giving you money, they have the right to know that you’re not using it directly or indirectly to pay for an illegal habit. I agree with this 100%
Yes! If I need a drug test to WORK for my money, why is it so invasive to need to take a drug test when I am being GIVEN money.
I have to agree that it is not a constitutional right to receive governmental assistance. It is purely voluntary to go in and ask for help so there is no reason why some stipulations on that assistance be made. I would be in favor of a work program in exchange for assistance. Things like picking up trash in parks and other jobs could easily be performed in exchange for help. Why not use tax dollars more efficiently?
I’m with you there. There should be a whole list of things the government wants to do, and people who get welfare should have to do them. The only thing is that requires oversight, which is expensive.
This story has triggered a lot of discussion in the nutrition world. Please note, I am NOT stating my opinion! Sometimes I have to choose to be quiet on these things for career reasons. These are the opinions that I’ve heard though: The main concern seems to be that government funds will be used to pay for each passed drug test and that people who do not pass their drug tests may not pay for them anyway. Others have said that even if it’s not the best response to the problem, at least it is a response. I look forward to seeing how this all pans out long term.
They have to pay for the tests up front. If they pass, they get reimbursed.
I agree that there should be drug testing for welfare, but I would also add that if a person tests positive, the government should pay for them to enter a rehab program (in lieu of welfare). Upon successful competition and further drug testing (randomishly) they would then be aloud to get welfare.
“the government should pay for them to enter a rehab program ”
Oh man…
I want so bad to flat out say NO… but this would make sense. Upon completion, and 6 months of sobriety… they can reapply.
This whole idea/program would require a lot of oversight = funding.
Paying for rehab is a lot of money. How much money are we going to throw at these people before we cut our losses? I’d be find with the govt paying the rehab bill for someone who truly wants to get a job and make his own money. If you want rehab just so you can go on government assistance, I say no way.
It would be hard to determine their intentions though…
Yeah, the amount of money (and fraud) would probably end up being overwhelming, but I’m a sucker for giving someone a second chance.
But you both raise very good points and I’m pretty sure the government would find a way to muck this up.
There also have been a lot of studies indicating that the “war on drugs” cannot be solved from the supply side and instead we need to address demand. Perhaps that could be a funding source for the rehab instead of welfare money. Agreed though that government finds a way of screwing up most things.
The government already offers rehab to those on aid; the only change would be an increased number of people utilizing these services available to them. It will be too easy to tell the ones who want help apart from those who are just in it for the money. Being in rehab is work, trying to remain clean. No druggy will be able to complete the program if they really don’t want to help themselves. For those who do take it seriously, great they will be better parents and role models for their own children. This will help prevent future generations from using drugs and ending up on aid. They will also be able to get and keep jobs and contribute to society. If they fail to complete the program they will not be eligible for aid. My only concern is an increase in crimes. A lot of these druggies will turn to theft to get their next fix.
I love you to death, Kevin, but I STRONGLY disagree with you on this one.
Okay, so we’re going to kick people off welfare if they are using drugs. Guess who we hurt by doing so? Their children.
Is it a child’s fault that his mom/dad smokes pot? No. But we’re proposing taking away food stamps that allow that child to eat, Medicaid that allows that child to go to the doctor, and cash benefits that provide housing, electricity, and running water for that chlid.
Once we’ve accomplished that, that child will be removed from the home because they are (1) using drugs and (2) failing to provide for the child’s basic needs. Tons of kids are going to be taken from their parents, and in case you aren’t aware, there aren’t enough foster homes to go around as it is, much less if we flood the system.
Some people will say, “But if a parent cares about their kids, they’ll just stop using drugs then!” Yeah, not so much. Addiction isn’t that easy to kick – I know because I worked with substance users who were involved in the court system. None of them wanted their children taken away or to go to prison, but those were the things that happened much of the time. Then the kids came to me for therapy, and guess who they were mad at? Not their parents, whose drug use resulted in the removal from the home. They were mad at the social workers, police, and governement officials who took them away.
New expenses of testing welfare recipients: more government employees to administer the tests and process the denials/reapplications, more social workers to take kids away, more foster parents to take care of said kids, more therapists to help the parents and the kids, and more taxpayer dollars to subsidize the cost of court-ordered rehab.
So there are people out there who use drugs and receive welfare benefits. Meh. I’m more concerned about the people out there in positions of power who use drugs, yet aren’t required to humiliate themselves to take a drug test because they are the ones making the rules.
If someone fails the drug test, they can designate someone else to receive the benefits for their kids. They could designate a clean family member, or a pastor or community leader/volunteer. This way the welfare money actually buys food for the kids instead of crack for the parents.
You can take care of the kids without feeding the drug habit.
I do agree that elected officials should also have to take drug tests, but that’s a different story.
That’s a nice thought, but unfortunately the system doesn’t work that way. Benefits are determined by the number of people in the household and their incomes – they can’t be transferred to anyone else. And the person receiving benefits has to have legal guardianship of the kids.
Another overhaul of the system to include those provisions would erase any potential savings from taking welfare away from drug users.
Agreed. This is why food stamps are much more popular – you know where the money is usually going. Programs like WIC also address this concern.
I came here to say something similar to Andrea: the parents who are drug users aren’t going to care to quit, even if it means their children go hungry, homeless, whatever.
I’d venture to guess that alcoholism is far more of a problem with those receiving government aid than any other drug, but yet it won’t be tested for. It’s also the source of most domestic violence issues, and a major contributor to broken families. Alcohol is a sad story, really, one that gets overlooked just because it’s legal.
This kind of discussion is the kind that politicians love. They’ve created a false argument; one that turns regular, hardworking people against one another for fears that are simply overstated.
That said, I’m tired of the general welfare clause being used as justification for any program, big or small. I’m also equally tired of the interstate commerce clause being used to regulate everything from top to bottom. This is, I believe, one of the many reasons why the Articles of Confederation ratified in 1781 were far superior to the US constitution. But that’s another story for another day.
Drug use and abuse is a health issue, one that cannot be solved with direct fiscal measures. These people need help. They don’t need jailtime, nor do they need be left to starve. They need a treatment program, a job with purpose, and belief that tomorrow will be better than today.
In the 1850’s China had 10 million people (a large portion of China’s population at the time) addicted to opium. The Chinese government recognizing this problem created the policy that you would get 1 free trip to rehab. If you were caught using opium again after your one free trip you were hanged. This, while painful in a lot of ways, solved the problem rapidly.
Death penalty to multiple offense users or narcotics in the USA??? It will never happen as it would be very painful to do, but it would be effective? Likely it would be more effective than taking money away from drug users. That being said I am a big fan of drug testing welfare applicants. I’d rather waste money on drug testing than buying drugs with my tax dollars through welfare checks.
You can’t kill people for making a bad decision in a free society. I’m mortified that there are people like you who would support that position.
We could cut 10% of the defense budget and probably pay for the whole of the drug-using welfare recipient population in one fell swoop. Unfortunately, the American voter is far too dense to realize that it isn’t the small money welfare recipients that are breaking the bank, but the scummy politicians in DC that award massive, multi-billion dollar, no-bid contracts to companies that couldn’t give a flying you-know-what about the average citizen.
I’m no bleeding heart liberal–far from it, actually–but we have a responsibility, in public or private, to take care of the people around us. I would support completely getting rid of most social programs with the firm belief that the American people would donate their own money to the cause without being forced with taxes. Until that time comes, I’m not willing to make the children of drug users a pawn in the game of political theater. This issue is nothing but theater–it has very little to do with saving money.
I take many exceptions to your defense example.
Massive multi-billion dollar, no-bid contracts for whom, what and when?
You realize that most defense contracts are now “fixed price” and most are competitive?
The no-bid contracts are generally for very, very complex assemblies that only one company has the capability to develop.
There have been/are major cost overruns, but we are talking about developing and integrating major weapons platforms, it’s not like building a house or car.
You also realize that “scummy politicians” have 0 impact on who wins a defense contract? The Pentagon has the only say on defense procurements.
I understand you’re trying to make a point, but your example is lacking. You would be better off saying that raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 would cover all of this and more.
I don’t know enough about defense contract bidding to have a solid opinion here, but I do know that you can’t reduce the entire economic struggle of the American government to defense contracts. Excessive social programs are a big part of the issue.
Okay, my example is lacking, thank you for the correction.
Defense is an easy target to cut, and it will always be my favorite target to cut for as long as we continue to spend 7x more than any other country on the planet.
You can’t reduce the entire economic struggle of the American government to defense contracts, but you can reduce a lot of it to defense in general. We subsidize the wars in the rest of the world. If we didn’t spend $700B a year on defense (half of the total spent in the whole world), maybe other countries might step up to the plate and start picking up the tab.
But no…we’ll refrain from cutting off what is effectively a transfer of wealth from the US to the rest of the world for as long as we can find people to ways to cut off Americans to pay for the nonsense overseas.
Getting away from defense spending, there are plenty of direct transfers from Americans to foreign nations, too:
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
Or how about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/usa-germany-idUSN0712394720110608
We’re on the hook for 20% of anything that the IMF does. And soon enough they’ll be bailing out Greece with your money. Why is Greece broke? They spent too much on social programs.
So we’re going to bail out Greece’s social program disaster while here in the United States we’re going to save ourselves money by cutting our own social programs? WTF is up with that. Okay, fine, these are billions, and we need trillions. Still, we should be able to cut these in a heartbeat. Less than that, even.
Yes, I think we spend too much on social programs. And yes, I do think we could afford to hike the age of Social Security. I don’t think the United States should even have Social programs, they’re 100% unconstitutional, immoral, and effectively theft.
But even though I can recognize that, I realize how plainly the politicians and pundits have conned us all into believing that we have to cut first here at home. There’s plenty of money being spent that provides us with zero return–and you won’t find a single person complaining about it. It’s a shame.
I absolutely disagree. Having analyzed government spending for work you can clearly see the impact politicians have on crafting contracting regulations that do not add to our government’s productivity. A huge (>50% in some areas and 90% in areas like office supplies, furniture etc) portion of government defense spending is done in the final month of the fiscal year. That should be a great indicator that there is plenty of waste going on due to use or lose budget rules.
Also, though firm fixed price contracts are becoming more common there is nothing stopping the government from authorizing a follow on contract for more money and there is also nothing guaranteeing that the fixed price is the right or best price. Many companies will significantly underbid and then just apply for follow on contracts when the money runs out. The government complies because they are mid-project.
Also, even when a contract is bid out there is only minimal justification needed for which bid is selected so lobbying, political influence and prior relationships play a huge role here. Scummy politicians can have a HUGE role here in placing pressure on contractor selection to ensure their campaign contributors, friends and constituents are served and paid well. While the appeals process can easily delay the award of a contract it has little true power in who the contract is awarded to.
So YES there absolutely is an enormous amount of waste in the government, especially in the area of defense. This is an area where it is absolutely commonplace that contractors are expected to move to Federal employment and back to make needed connections to get contracts and to get paid more. Contract awards are not about who can do the work for the best quality and price but the connections between the contractor and the government.
Sorry, that was a tangent (and a soap box speech) but this is a really important area for improvements that no one is addressing because people in power and very much incentivized to maintain the status quo.
I don’t think any government has a responsibility to help any adult who doesn’t take a serious responsibility for helping themselves.
To think you can rid the world of drug abuse and poverty is idealistic and ridiculous. Some people are going to end up there no matter how much you try to help them.
It’s unrealistic idealism that creates unsustainable social programs.
You can kill people for making bad decisions today. If somebody makes the bad decision to kill 20 people we give them the death penalty. Given the decision to use drugs is slightly lower of an offense, it’s still illegal.
Also, if the numbers above are correct (20% recipients use drugs) and the numbers on http://www.wheredidmytaxdollarsgo.com are correct. Then this drug-addict population as a whole represents over 5% of the total federal budget (compared to 17% for the total federal defense budget). That means you would have to cut over 30% of costs from the armed forces to break even. Cutting the every single military contract would only get you half way there. WELFARE RECIPIENTS ARE NOT SMALL MONEY!
I do have to agree with you however that we have a responsibility to take care of the people around us. But writing these people (and then their kids) a blank check for the rest of their lives is not the best way to take care of them. The best way to take care of them is to get them off drugs and help their children break the cycle. Drug testing could be step 1. What’s step 2? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_NYC
What should we do with jaywalkers? Kids with unlicensed lemonade stands? How about people who drive without wearing their seatbelts? How far are you willing to take that position?
“But writing these people (and then their kids) a blank check for the rest of their lives is not the best way to take care of them.”
I agree.
Start drug testing people for welfare, and pretty soon the government will want to drug test you for doing plenty of other things, even if they don’t cost the Federal government money. It’s the way government works.
Cut welfare for everyone, drug user or not, and I’d agree with it. But I’m not going to support cutting social programs until we cut everything else, too.
What these people need is a desire to get better. If they don’t have that, then all the tax dollars and aid you can throw at them won’t change a thing. The sad truth is that lots of people use drugs because they want the drugs more than anything else in the world.
Sorry, but the amount of help those people need is way beyond what any government should be able to or required to pay.
There are plenty of law abiding citizens that need a “job with a purpose” that deserve it a lot more than drug abusers.
Amen!!!
@Andrea Many of these same drug addicts are glad to have the kids at home so the can get more free money. At the same time, what do you think these kids will do when they grow up? Be addicts/drug dealers/ thugs. There are expections, but not that many. As for the foster homes, there are people who would like to have these foster children, but the system is screwing that up too, like perfering the child to be in home that’s same race as the child.
There definitely needs to be some foster care reform. The best thing you can do for those children is to get them away from their biological parents and into a stable household.
If someone can figure out a good system for doing this, they will do the country an incredible service and probably make a lot of money.
I also agree with Andrea. I definitely see what you’re saying, Kevin, and a small part of me wants to agree, but I just can’t really get on board with this program. First of all, I definitely disagree with your assertion that addicts would give up their fix cold turkey if it meant they’d lose their welfare. A few would, maybe, but more than likely the majority of them would simply go off welfare, end up on the street and turn to whatever kind of panhandling or prostitution they could to continue using. Your post reads like you think giving up heroin or crack is similar to, say, cutting junky food out of your diet. There are so many physically, mental and societal factors that need to be considered. Maybe if the aim of the program was to force addicts into some sort of rehab clinic, but even so, who’s to say they’d succeed, or even go, and not just take off and become homeless. And having these people out on the street benefits no one. You can take a “woe is them/american dream/get off your butt and work” attitude all you like, but the reality is that the more people that are forced out onto the street, the more burden will be placed on healthcare, social programs, community initiative, etc. And you know who pays for that? The tax payer.
America spends more money trying to AVOID spending money to help its citizens than I have ever heard of. It’s mind boggling. (From your friend, Canada.)
I’m not saying all addicts will give it up, but some will. The ones who are serious about getting better will.
Like I said above, I don’t want my government spending any money to help people who don’t want to help themselves.
I strongly disagree. There are many reasons. If we want to apply tests for worth of getting benefits that are lots and lots of better ones. How about no benefits to people convicted of a violent crime in the past, stealing in the past, drunk driving, driving while using a cell phone, failure to volunteer, requiring that we see your web browsing activity and if you go to racy sites, watching movies that are not uplifting… I assume you feel the same way about them using alcohol or cigarettes right? If not, why not? And why should they be allowed to buy sugar water or…
But I feel any such tests are likely dumb. Welfare is a safety net not a bribe for following certain rules.
I am perfectly fine with charities deciding what conditions they want to put on helping people. If they don’t want to help people that don’t speak a second language or that are not reading at least 2 books a month or whatever they conditions they want to put on. But welfare is not to reward certain behavior it is a safety net.
Those reasons are enough. But there also would be a huge bureaucracy needed to support drug testing. The more tests you do the more false positives you get, and then some system to deal with that and…
Basically the huge government expenditures now and the result of those – like the huge number of killings in Mexico should be reduced not added to. Drug use is a tricky public policy issue. In practice it seems pretty obvious that the best solution is to decriminalize drug use and offer support and thus greatly reduce crime and violence perpetrated on the rest of society by those fighting against the war on drugs. I understand why people don’t like this solution. But other than being unreasonable ideologes I don’t know what evidence they provide for a better public policy option.
It’s easy.
Welfare and government assistance shouldn’t go to criminals. If you fail a test for illegal drugs, you have obviously broken the law and are a criminal.
If I can prove that you’ve robbed a bank or murdered someone or sexually assaulted someone or had a DUI or anything else illegal in the past 60 days, I’d say you are ineligible as well. The problem is, your hair won’t tell me any of that.
I realize there is a new feeling that what matters is what sounds good in a 5 second sound bite. I don’t find that the focus on good sound bites makes good policy. I see no reason to believe that restrict the safety net for non-safety net reasons of any sort are effective at solving the problem a safety net is meant to solve.
We can easily check people’s electronic devices to see if they have illegal content. Should we be required to make all are electronic devices open to get welfare, fly in the public airspace, go to a national park, use a interstate highway… I would say no. There isn’t a good reason to prevent criminals (like those using drugs that are federally illegal – even if not illegal in some states, owning pirated electronic content, speeding, kicking underage drinkers out of school [because after all why should we provide free school to criminals]…) from using public goods and receiving public benefits.
I understand it makes a nice 5 second sound bite. I think making decisions based on what sound bite is good is a bad thing and what has created many problems for us. Public policy solutions that work require people that are willing to find solutions that helps society and that is hard work. You often have to find what really works. Not just simplistic ideas that seem really nice if you never actually look at the results in the real world. Simple solutions sometimes are wonderful. But often they are overly simplistic and fail to provide society a benefit.
This type of testing would be a big huge mess that made society worse off, in my opinion.
Those wanting to increase the drug war seem to fail to provide compelling evidence for why all their claims for the last 40 years on why we need to increase the war spending and regulation just seems to make things worse and worse. I am not a huge fan of increasing policies that seem to have caused much more harm than benefit over decades. I would want to see evidence for why this additional war on drugs would be any more effective than all the other failed attempts to adopted simplistic solutions.
This isn’t a war on drugs. It’s simply taking money out of the hands of someone who is going to use it to buy drugs, and putting it into the hands of someone who is going to use it to buy groceries and pay rent.
While I see your points about the war on drugs, I don’t see how what I just suggested could possibly be a bad thing for America.
“Tommie Tokesalot” and “Stephen Studieshard” — LOL.
Many people who are against this law believe that they’re somehow “on the side” of welfare recipients by protesting the law … but as you point out, this law could inspire wannabe welfare recipients to stop using drugs in order to get their money.
And maybe once they’re off drugs, they’ll have an easier time finding a job.
I still don’t see how some people here are even trying to defend, “Yes, give cash to people who are going to use it to buy drugs.” Boggles the mind.
HALLELUJAH!!!
I am in full support of laws such as this. I need to prove I am drug free in order to be allowed to privilege of continued employment, which, produces tax dollars that pay for social programs. Drug use is illegal and, frankly, I don’t want my tax dollars going towards those who break the law. Plus, I feel it is beneficial as laws like these will encourage more people to finally get the help and treatment they need… people are more willing to seek help if their funding is about to vanish.
Fascinating and smart move by the governor!
He might as well restrict welfare money for people who don’t smoke either. But, I guess this is where people wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Sam
I personally don’t care about the pot smokers as much as all of the people who use the system when they don’t have to. I wish there was a bigger fraud department that could successfully kick the users and abusers out permanently…
“I still don’t see how some people here are even trying to defend, ‘Yes, give cash to people who are going to use it to buy drugs.’ Boggles the mind.”
I assume the reason you wrote about this in your blog is because you encourage debate and differing opinions. A statement like the one above does not make me want to share my own opinions since it’s obvious anything that goes against what you believe will just “boggle your mind.”
Love this post! I am subjected to random drug tests to maintain employment, anyone receiving government benefits should be as well. I would take it even further and include pre-retirement aged social security recipients.
I’m not judging anyone – I just don’t think drugs should be allowed when you are receiving welfare benefits. Period.
Kudos to you!
ILLINOIS:decreased FOOD STAMPS $2 a month. How much of a TAX INCREASE did the RICH and big BUSINESS get. That’s what I thought ZERO!!!
Then Drug test DEADBEAT’S. If missing a payment on COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT were taken as seriously as a missed CAR PAYMENT the Single Mother’s on Public Aid would decrease.
Why not put up some type of COLLATERAL that would be WORTH a big CASH VALUE if they miss a month’s worth of CHILD SUPPORT.
DRUG TEST is based more on DISCRIMINATION. This is a STATE with a WHITE,REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR and a HIGH population of AFRICAN AMERICAN’S. I’m a Nurse and I really don’t think your going to REHABILITATE a true DRUG ADDICT by taking away their Public Aid and STARVING their children. Drug Addict only care about their next HIGH and FAMILY and FOOD would be at the very bottom of their “Who Gives a ….list.”
Same old ISSUE’S: go after MINORITIES,WOMEN and CHILDREN.
Most the people I know who collect Public Aid are white Single mother’s who are not DRUG ADDICTS but they can not seem to get their COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT. Go figure. That $2 cut in FOOD STAMPS is a lot if you depend on it.
Maybe you should think twice before you place Judgement on people who are not as Fortunate as you are. DISCRIMINATION is DISCRIMINATION is DISCRIMINATION!!!! No matter how you WORD it.
I agree 100%..I believe that if you need assistance from the government, then go and apply..If there is no shame in asking there should be no shame in taking a drug test…Everytime I have to take a drug test for my job, I feel violated and I am working for my money , don’t have nothing handed to me. I know that there are people out there trying to do better for themselves but there are more that are not. If I could get a couple hundred dollars from TANF and 4 or 5 hundred dollars in foodstamps, I wouldn’t work neither. But what ticks me off is there are people that apply for foodstamps and they are turned down because they make too much money because they are working 2 and 3 jobs to just make ends meet and they get turned down…And then you have these lazy bums that want work and wait on everything to be given to them. They keep building these public housings and they tear them up and what does the government do build them another…HELLO people stop asking why we are broke….So the working citizens are paying their bills and then some are still breaking in and stealing everything we work hard for. Because while they are not working living off of the government , while we are working 2 and 3 jobs, they are breaking and entering your house to see what else they can take…
STOP having babies that you cannot afford. Under the age of 16 should not even be thinking about sex to begin it off with….and we have a large number of teens having babies…USE PROTECTION!!!! This is a topic that burns my rump….can you tell…