By Matthew DeLuca, NBC News
Texas lawmakers moved forward with a bill Tuesday that would require welfare applicants to be screened for drug use.
The bill authored by State Senator Jane Nelson, the Republican chairwoman of the committee, was approved by the state senate’s Health and Human Services Committee.
It would require applicants to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program to undergo screening by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
(Great idea for California lawmakers, but I don’t think they will ever propose it. )
Once again, TX leads the way!
Found this online and thought it was worth repeating:
Put me in charge of food stamps. Food Stamp ATM cards could only be used for food without the ability to get cash. No money for junk food, alcohol, tobacco, or sodas – just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, alcohol or tobacco, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV, Xbox 360 or a cell phone, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It might be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing or whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”
Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money you have to accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin “self-esteem,” consider that it wasn’t all that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND while you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct, since voting would be a conflict of interest. You will abstain from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Thanks for sharing J.
It stands to reason that people need motivation to work. When we remove the fundamental motivations, food shelter, clothing and even extras by providing them through redistribution we shouldn’t be surprised when people become clever at getting as many of the handouts as they can.
I read recently that some people on assistance programs in California get more in handouts than others earn in a year. That is just flat out wrong! It can happen because people have bent over too far to the fairness god.
I also like another idea that I read about recently to turn unemployment offices into job training/retraining centers. We are already spending money on office space and employees we might as well do something that would help get those people back to work instead of encouraging them toward total dependency. Not only would it be a more caring approach it would put that money to good use for the workers, possibly helping them to a better paying job.
Amazingly, it turns out that drug tests cost money. More money, in fact, then it costs to keep the current TANF requirements and not add the drug tests.
From the New York Times:
“Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.
As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
Wow, who could have possibly predicted this shocking turn of events? Well, Libby did way back when this issue was first raised here:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2011/08/14/should-california-adopt-d/
I am kind of embarassed that at the time I thought this sounded like a “good idea,” but after looking at the evidence, I have changed my opinion. Wonder if anyone else here will act in such a rational manner.
J. Soden: “Put me in charge of food stamps. Food Stamp ATM cards could only be used for food without the ability to get cash. No money for junk food, alcohol, tobacco, or sodas – just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, alcohol or tobacco, then get a job.”
If you would really like to be in charge of the food stamp program, J. Soden, it would probably help for you to take five minutes to Google some basic facts about it. It would have been really easy, for instance, for you to find out that nearly half of all adult recipients of food stamps already HAVE jobs, thus making your argument a false dichomotomy. My mother, for instance, both works and receives food stamps. That’s how we can afford to live like kings and enjoy the fine luxury good that is…frozen pizza. (Now that’s what I call rollin’ in the dough!)
But I guess when your self-esteem depends on taking refuge in bigoted stereotypes in order to make yourself feel superior to all those dependant parasites that exist in your imagination, researching what you’re talking about before opening your ignorant mouth is simply too much trouble. Facts? Psh, those are so PC.
Sorry, but your application to be the head of the food stamp program has been denied. “Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV, Xbox 360 or a cell phone, then get a job and your own place.”
A third of people on Section 8 housing also have jobs. Nearly half are elderly or disabled.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3634
Also, a cell phone is not comparable to a plasma TV or an X-Box. Those are luxuries. A cell phone, these days, is a necessity, especially for people who work or are seeking work.
“AND while you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!”
You are an absolutely terrible human being.
“Yes, that is correct, since voting would be a conflict of interest.”
As opposed to every other voter, who is a completely neutral party who doesn’t benefit at all from an election going one way or another. Oh wait, those people don’t exist.
Tina: “I read recently that some people on assistance programs in California get more in handouts than others earn in a year. That is just flat out wrong!”
Indeed! Why are people being paid so little for their hard work?
Oh. That’s…not where you were going with that, was it?
Texas is not the first. There are several other states that have passed this law or are in the process. Of course CA won’t pass a similar law which will be the welcome mat for all the drug users to move here.
Five States Considering Mandatory Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients:
“After years of political debate, five states (MO, WV, KS, KY, and IL) have started the legislative process for introducing (and in some cases passing) bills that would mandate drug testing for welfare beneficiaries.”
http://blog.edpm.com/blog-0/bid/59995/Five-States-Considering-Mandatory-Drug-Testing-for-Welfare-Recipients
More States Pass Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients:
“Lawmakers in at least 28 states this year have proposed drug testing or screening for public assistance applicants or recipients, according to a state-by-state map from the National Conference of State Legislature. So far this year, Utah has passed legislation requiring applicants to complete a written questionnaire screening for drug use while Georgia passed legislation requiring drug tests for all applicants for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly known as welfare, NCSL says.”
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/more-states-pass-drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients-85899388650
Chris: “Indeed! Why are people being paid so little for their hard work? Oh. That’s…not where you were going with that, was it?”
You really are ignorant, Chris, in matter concerning the economy and what it takes to create and sustain good paying jobs.
Government is eating up a lot of the money that might go to entry level and low skilled workers. Government is printing money making every dollar worth less. Big corporation is doing okay, managing their profits well and benefiting mostly from new business overseas but many are just bumping along. THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT HIRE MOST OF THE LOW SKILLED AND ENTRY LEVEL PEOPLE are going out of business or struggling to keep the lights on under the terrible policies of this equally ignorant (or evil) administration!
And how dare you make a flippant remark toward me that basically compares people being paid to WORK with people being given more for doing absolutely nothing.
The Obama free phone service alone has cost the taxpayers, including small businesses that hire most entry level and low skilled workers, over a billion dollars since Obama changed the law:
Newsweek:
Demand has soared…imagine! It’s two years later. I wonder what the cost is now.
Daily Caller:
“Found this online and thought it was worth repeating.”
I don’t know why. It’s only the same wildly ignorant, prejudiced blather that’s been spouted by white recipients of social welfare benefits for ages now.
You have never been able buy ciggies or beer with California food stamps. WIC requirements are even tighter:
“WIC foods include: infant formula; infant and adult cereal; baby food fruits, vegetables and meats; whole wheat bread, brown rice, soft corn and whole wheat tortillas; juice; eggs; milk; cheese; peanut butter; dried beans or peas; fruits and vegetables; soy beverage, tofu; and canned fish.”
Doesn’t that make you feel better?
If the government has work for poor people to do, why shouldn’t it just hire them, and pay them a salary rather than “assistance”.
(Oh, no! That’s too expensive.)
As for the voting proposal. I’m forwarding that one to the Supreme Court as evidence that we are not quite ready to do without the Voting Rights Act.
And the drug testing scheme … over and above the irritating question of morality (you’re going to consign addicts to death by starvation?) … do you really want to spend money on this? I thought you didn’t want to spend money on anything.
I just had the most delicious thought.
What if … you looked into the sponsoring legislators’ campaign finance disclosures (if they even have to do that in Texas) and found ample contributions by a corporate entity owning testing labs.
That would be so cool.
“Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140.”
Not if they subtract the cost for the drug test from the benefits.
Libby: “What if … you looked into the sponsoring legislators’ campaign finance disclosures (if they even have to do that in Texas) and found ample contributions by a corporate entity owning testing labs.”
Oh and what if you looked into the campaign finance disclosures and found ample contributions for democrats opposing the legislation from certain well funded civil rights groups, La Raza, the SEIU, or the Mexican government (it hands out brochures on how to get food stamps and bennies in America).
Libs you keep thinking your side doesn’t have big money to spend or a self-interest agenda. Who was it that gave big money to Obama…oh that’s right, big banks (forced bailouts), and big CA education!
Addicts, my dear, have already consigned themselves to death. They have a choice in the matter.
“Addicts, my dear, have already consigned themselves to death.”
That may very well be the most heartless thing (also ignorant) that you have ever posted here.
As I just wrote on another post, you might want to learn about the effects on addicts of the enabler.
We’ve been empathizing, sympathizing, aiding and abetting these people for decades. Its time at least some of us had the guts to admit that these people do it to themselves. It worked better when more was expected of people in adulthood…before adulthood their parents were held accountable.
The truth is sometimes difficult, ugly, or even cruel but it is, none the less, the truth.
Did you ever see the interview with Dick Van Dyke where he talks about his alcohol addiction? He opened my eyes…talked about the family that did everything to try to help him and nothing worked until he faced what he was doing to himself and made a choice…this was prompted only after choosing a face down in the gutter lifestyle that nearly killed him. that is what addiction is…a very slow death.
Tina, I’ve seen this very thing up close as a cop. Addictions of drugs and alcohol are extremely destructive to the body and the mind. I’ve see top CEO’s fall all the way to the bottom as drunks…it’s a shame. -Jack
Chris should NOT resort to language that is both filth and designed to inflame in post number #3 (more appropriate to have been #2) ‘you don’t know what the #*%& you’re talking about’. From when I first read any of his postings, this appears to be a new low, and it is time for Chris to pull himself together and use less demeaning expressions when a another’s opinion affects him so violently. I’ll wager he has no idea of who or what J.Soden does, has done or who it benefited, and Chris most likely doesn’t even care. His posts of late seem more filled with attacking hate that is inherent with frustration. However that doesn’t give him the right to be offensive. Tina or Jack, please do not excuse his ignorance of civility in your forum. Chris needs to understand, and then adhere to the forums rules, or post elsewhere. I applaud Chris’s Mom’s work ethics and would like to hear that his is equal, I have doubts though. Chris if you continue to let what ever is driving you to even rationalize your bitterness toward others, you will discover any success you seek will always be out of reach.
I for one feel an apology is owed by you to the board and J.Soden specifically for your poor language.
Tina: “And how dare you make a flippant remark toward me that basically compares people being paid to WORK with people being given more for doing absolutely nothing.”
I am very sorry that you never learned basic reading comprehension. I was clearly agreeing with you that it’s wrong for people to be making more from government assistance than many people make working. But since government assistance is not enough for anyone to make a good living on, that means that people must be making ridiculously low wages. People are not being paid the value of their work. I was not comparing them to people who do not work.
“The Obama free phone service alone has cost the taxpayers, including small businesses that hire most entry level and low skilled workers, over a billion dollars since Obama changed the law:
…But since TracFone started offering totally free service in August 2008, paid directly by the subsidy, demand has soared…”
I am very sorry you never learned how to count. Obama was not President in August 2008. George W. Bush was. Congratulations on another spectacular backfire.
“Not if they subtract the cost for the drug test from the benefits.”
Huh? So…if we pretend the drug test doesn’t cost anything, then we can call this move fiscally conservative? Capital idea!
Libby: “That may very well be the most heartless thing (also ignorant) that you have ever posted here.”
Libby, yesterday she told me that Americans were more free before 1935 than they are today. I’ve given up trying to figure out what the most heartless, ignorant thing Tina has ever said is; there seems to be no rock bottom. At least now we know that when she talks about “Americans,” what she means is “white middle-class men,” and when she talks about “freedom,” what she means is “low taxes.” But then, you probably figured that out a long time ago.
It occurs to me, Tina, that you already know that the TracFone program was changed under Bush rather than Obama, since we’ve discussed all this before. Even then, you refused to admit that there was no such thing as an “Obama phone.” So it’s not that you can’t count, it’s that you’re intentionally lying.
I apologize for assuming stupidity, when I should have attributed your false claims to malice. I’ll remember that in the future.
Chris, by all means express an opposing view, we encourage that! But, please, please, DO NOT presume to know the mindset of your opponent, especially when it’s posed in commentary likely to provoke a violent response. This is forbidden Chris and you know it. Now let’s scale back and play nice, okay?
What do you mean by “violent response,” Jack?
I don’t like assuming bad faith on anyone’s part, but when someone repeats the same lies over and over, even after faced with indisputable proof that what they are saying is obviously, factually untrue, I can’t keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. There comes a point when harsh condemnation is necessary.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but respect is a two-way street. Blaming Obama for something that was done in August of 2008 is not showing respect for this site’s readers or the other people involved in the conversation. This kind of sloppiness is all too common on this site.
Chris, what did I say about Obama? You lost me. -Jack
I was talking about Tina’s accusation that Obama “changed the law” regarding the TracFone service, even though this law was changed in August 2008, before Obama was president.
Drug testing welfare recipients could easily be cost effective if the testing was put up for competitive bidding.
Of course progressives will argue against drug testing. Why they do so is anyone’s guess. 😉
Re: Chris, by all means express an opposing view, we encourage that! But, please, please, DO NOT presume to know the mindset of your opponent”
Such silly presumption is what Chris and all progressives are all about. Let Chris be the presumptive, snotty, arrogant, bigoted, dim bulb person he is. Quit picking on Chris! Free Chris! Let Chris remain unleashed!
“Libby, yesterday she told me that Americans were more free before 1935 ….”
Yes, I know. “Free” to starve. There ain’t a whole lot to be done with such willful ignorance … except try, try, and try again.
Tina, in addition to the psychology of addiction, there is the physiology of addiction, about which you do seem to be appallingly ignorant.
So is the medical profession, actually, but at least they know it … and are working on it.
As I see it, the conservative position amounts to: “let ’em wallow unto either an epiphany or death, but I ain’t spending a dime, howsoever.
The progressive position: We’ll put ’em through rehab as many times as it takes … until it takes.
On a lighter side.
Humor: What Liberals Say
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0uAuuQnh90s
I laughed at a few of those, Peggy.
But everything *is* racist. 😉
Chris you were being a smart a** and you know it and you were using the example not to inform but to get at me.
“…that means that people must be making ridiculously low wages. People are not being paid the value of their work.”
I explained to you that we have no idea of the value of work because the government and unions have forced wages up artificially. Whenever lower wage employee wages are increased ALL wages necessarily go up. I have also explained to you that people are making less money in the private sector because of the huge burden (cost) of local, state and federal government in general is depleting small business private sector funds. Public employee compensation has also been rising much faster than public sector wages according to several analysts that made broad comparisons rather than simply job to job comparisons. Government has just gotten to big and expensive. Spending by government continues to increase every year with no accountability and without consciousness about the drain on the golden goose. You choose to completely ignore or dismiss these factors, why?
“I am very sorry you never learned how to count. Obama was not President in August 2008. George W. Bush was. Congratulations on another spectacular backfire.”
I should have said Obama uses the law much differently than initially intended. In effect he has changed the law. This article from the Examiner, which also sourced information from US News and World Report, explains Obamas expansion of the program, its horrendous cost, and the degree to which you should refrain from all that prideful gloating:
“if we pretend the drug test doesn’t cost anything, then we can call this move fiscally conservative?”
The practice of passing the cost on to the consumer as a hidden tax is a strong tradition in progressive circles.
Libby: “n addition to the psychology of addiction, there is the physiology of addiction, about which you do seem to be appallingly ignorant.”
That would be wrong. It is still a matter of personal responsibility and choice.AA has been around for 75 years and there are millions of alcoholics and addicts that are clean and sober because they chose to do something about their problem.
Al-Anon helps to train the enablers that seem to always try to “help” and only end up getting in the way. Empathy and support come in many packages. Addicts need strong people to support them; excuses don’t cut it.
“As I see it, the conservative position amounts to: “let ‘em wallow unto either an epiphany or death, but I ain’t spending a dime, howsoever.”
Wrong again Libby. I donate every year to an organization that works with addicts and achieves success.
“The progressive position: We’ll put ‘em through rehab as many times as it takes … until it takes.”
Yeah…as long as “we” can use other peoples money!
Peggy you are a peach! I really needed a good laugh.
That would be wrong.
Again, your ignorance is extremely irritating. A full-on alcoholic brain … you can find pictures on the web, if you look … no white matter! A shriveled grapefruit in the cavern of it’s skull. Wild.
But! Were there the societal means to lock up said alcoholic brain … for a year, say … in a publicly funded institution (not a snake pit), an institution staffed by knowledgeable, competent, well-paid, compassionate souls (and we do not, currently, run any of these), you could grow that white matter back, and maybe, just maybe, with the help of really inspired psychologists, shift those lymbic patterns that drive a person to drink.
But you don’t know, you’re not interested, you don’t care, and you certainly won’t pony up.
Tina, nowhere in that article does it refer to Obama expanding the program or changing the law, “in effect” or otherwise. It does allege fraud and talk about how participation has grown (which is unsurprising given the recession that started in 2008, before Obama was president). It alleges that Obama has spent a lot of money to promote the program, but does not provide a source for that claim. And it talks about a future expansion that Obama might make in the future. It shows no evidence that Obama has been directly involved in any changes to the program as of this date. None of this justifies your initial claim that Obama has changed the law. That is still 100% false. Why can’t you admit that? Why do believe it is acceptable to lie to advance your cause?
You’re right Chris, an administration that actively solicits people on assistance to apply for a new phone, whether or not they need it, by providing them with a form mailed directly to their address, already partially filled out is not a “change in the law” as I admitted in my previous comment.
It does represent a very costly CHANGE in how the program was administered by previous administrations. In my opinion that is an effective change in the law (to the tune of billions in hidden tax on citizens who pay for their own cell phone use and the higher administrative costs).
Obama did with this program what he loves to do; he bypasses the legislative process and does whatever he wants to redistribute the countries wealth. The terrible joke on unsuspecting citizens is that even with underhanded practices like this Obama is still unable to better our economic situation or encourage more revenues to “his” government. He does rack up trillions in debt that unfortunately in January exceeded our GDP.
You believe this to be a lie. Fine believe what you want but don’t ask our readers to take your word and refrain from unfounded accusations. You have no evidence that this story is false, at least none that you have offered here. The higher numbers of people applying for this government freebie are accurate and suggest hyper active involvement in solicitation under this administration.
THIS IS OPINION: Obama spends buckets of money like this because he is still and forever in campaign mode. The man does not lead, does not follow, and does not get out of the way. He glad hands and makes empty promises, seeking votes, period.
Apparently that is just fine and dandy with you.
Our readers might be interested in this from the American Enterprise Institute:
The people receiving forms in the mail to get free phones would be better off with a growing economy and the low unemployment numbers that would soon follow. To believe that Obama actually cares about these people is to believe that pigs do indeed fly.
Because of the success of the past humorous video I thought I’d try another one. There are even a couple of award winners that would get my vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mijjdYtHz-o
Tina, where is the evidence that Obama had anything to do with the increased promotion of this service? The president has a lot of bigger priorities; not everything each federal agency does is the president’s idea, though he would probably have to sign off on it.
I happen to think that promoting a service to help struggling people during a recession is actually a pretty good policy, by the way.