Drug Screening Required for Welfare

[wfumike02]

The health care bureaucracy you just created would be so immense as to defy belief. "Baseline health measurements?" Just creating and assessing this impossible criteria would cost more than Medicare does. Talk about government waste and overreaching.

And what happens to the children cut off from welfare payments? Collateral damage?

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the law provides for providing a guardian/receiver for the children of those who are cut off.

 

[wfumike02]

So your solution is basically screw 'em.

How do you incentivize success? How to you encourage this success? How much are you willing to spend on education and job training?

Again, welfare exists because the other options are a lot more expensive. I posted this 2 weeks ago and it applies here: "The problem is "kick in the ass" programs are pretty expensive. You can say "teach a man to fish" and all that, but it's much cheaper to just hand out fish and assume the people who get it need it to eat."

The infrastructure is already there in most states IF you want to implement this the right way. The criminal justice system has become very treatment oriented in a lot of ways. The way it works is that a treatment organization cooperates with probation. There's no way it would be difficult for treatment providers to coordinate with entitlement agencies as well. I agree with you its not productive to only go for a punitive remedy though.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

And so I'll ask again. Why is ok to pay rich people to do drugs then?

I don't care if rich people or poor people do drugs. The issue is whether we (as taxpayers) are paying them to do drugs. We're not paying rich people to do drugs. None of the cash coming out of my paycheck goes directly to a rich guy to buy coke. Rich people are using their own money to do drugs, they aren't asking me to pay for it. Some of the cash coming out of my paycheck is going directly to poor people who are using it to buy drugs. If the poor person working at McD's uses every penny of his paycheck to buy drugs, I really don't care. But, he shouldn't be using direct taxpayer cash to buy them.

 

[WakeandBake]

What is it about the distinction between someone who lacks either the desire or ability to contribute to society and those who don't lack either? If someone is unemployable due to addiction that is something that society should be able to identify.

welfare recipients don't get funds because they are addicted to drugs. As I understand it they get funds because they have children in their care and cannot go to a job and leave them behind unattended. they get funds because they have not received adequate job training in their lives up to that point, and therefore cannot find work. it is usually women who have been abandoned by a breadwinning male and she is left holding the baby without any choices. That is why they get funds, not for being unemployable due to addiction. You must be thinking of disability, and I wasn't aware you could claim disability for drug addiction but maybe you can.

 

[wfumike02]

What about the woman who just takes a toke off a joint at a party? she didn't buy it with taxpayer money, it was free. Someone just handed it to her. What if she gave someone an hand job for it? No taxpayer money there either.

more class warfare and "blame the poor" policies from the right. nothing to see here.

You wanna get people off the dole???? give them a fucking job, give them a fair salary so they can pay their bills and move up, rich assholes.

Big management and Financialization have killed the American middle class, and now they gonna git 'em some welfare queens and potheads and deflect the guilt.

Most people don't need to be given a job to have a desire to be productive. I agree that where someone wants to be a productive member of society, society should do what it can to give that person the tools to be productive. This includes situation where addiction is what's preventing them from being productive members of society. So then you would agree that funding that person's addiction isn't empowering them?

 

[wfumike02]

No RJ, only POOR people who get money. Rich people who get money are alright - they learned how to do it at expensive private universities and from their rich daddies and mommies who game the system all the time but look great doing it and play golf at the club.

And so I'll ask again. Why is ok to pay rich people to do drugs then?

Where is the government paying rich people to do drugs?

 

[jhmd2000]

welfare recipients don't get funds because they are addicted to drugs. As I understand it they get funds because they have children in their care and cannot go to a job and leave them behind unattended. they get funds because they have not received adequate job training in their lives up to that point, and therefore cannot find work. it is usually women who have been abandoned by a breadwinning male and she is left holding the baby without any choices. That is why they get funds, not for being unemployable due to addiction. You must be thinking of disability, and I wasn't aware you could claim disability for drug addiction but maybe you can.

The solution to this question is easy: we should have public schools and immediately cease forced-insemination programs. That would give the job training and give them choices about whether they would be stuck with babies.

 

[WakeandBake]

Where is the government paying rich people to do drugs?

the government isn't paying ANYONE "to do drugs"

They're giving the wealthy gifts in the form of tax breaks so they pay a lower % of their income than others (under the guise that they 'create jobs' when a larger and larger % of them are bankers and financial sector workers who don't create any)

They are giving the poor a check to eat, clothe, and board.

You want to invade the poor people's privacy because you have a problem with what they spend that money on. You don't care what the rich do with their gift.

 

[PhDeac]

I don't care if rich people or poor people do drugs. The issue is whether we (as taxpayers) are paying them to do drugs. We're not paying rich people to do drugs. None of the cash coming out of my paycheck goes directly to a rich guy to buy coke. Rich people are using their own money to do drugs, they aren't asking me to pay for it. Some of the cash coming out of my paycheck is going directly to poor people who are using it to buy drugs. If the poor person working at McD's uses every penny of his paycheck to buy drugs, I really don't care. But, he shouldn't be using direct taxpayer cash to buy them.

Now you're making assumptions about how people on drugs are spending their money. How do you know a crack whore mom isn't using welfare money on food and clothes for the kids while selling her body for crack? According to your logic that's somehow better.

And none of this justification acknowledges the key thing in my post. They've already done pilot testing and this isn't a big problem in Florida.

 

[WakeandBake]

no it isn't. They aren't going to save squat - this is just to make people feel better

 

[wfumike02]

the government isn't paying ANYONE "to do drugs"

They're giving the wealthy gifts in the form of tax breaks so they pay a lower % of their income than others.

They are giving the poor a check to eat, clothe, and board.

You want to invade the poor people's privacy because you have a problem with what they spend that money on. You don't care what the rich do with their gift.

Yep. All wealthy people get tax breaks just like all poor people are on drugs. And the wealthy are still generating income and paying taxes. It's not about invading the privacy of the poor - it's about attaching certain reasonable conditions in when someone collects public money and contributes nothing in return.

 

[pourdeac]

"At least this is an effort at the state level, where such programs should occur, to fix a problem. I don't see this as an effort to save money, it's to ensure the money gets circulated in legitimate or ethical enterprises."

So then why not drug test anybody who receives government money, not just welfare recipients?

A lot of people already do get drug tested, the military for example or police or firemen, or bus drivers. I'm sure there are a lot of state gov contractor rules around the country that mandate drug testing. A lot of other people are just getting their own money back, for example social security. In those cases, money isn't really changing hands (at least in theory).

 

[WakeandBake]

Yep. All wealthy people get tax breaks just like all poor people are on drugs. And the wealthy are still generating income and paying taxes. It's not about invading the privacy of the poor - it's about attaching certain reasonable conditions in when someone collects public money and contributes nothing in return.

then you know what, just let them die or revolt or whatever. Because drug testing them isn't going to solve anything pal. They are going to drink, get tattoos, huff gasoline, buy jewelry -whatever. Spending MORE money to make a big show of "cracking down on entitlements" is just that, a show, to make people who are patting themselves on the back about how much they 'contribute' feel better.

 

[1976Deac]

How is it that getting a job is not included in any of the possible alternatives? I am not in favor of the proposal, for a number of reasons, but the complete absense of getting a job as a plausible alternative is interesting.

 

[pourdeac]

more class warfare and "blame the poor" policies from the right. nothing to see here.

So easy to say and then avoid dealing with the problem by blaming the right. It's not going to go away and turning it into a political class warfare argument isn't going to change that.

Addiction is fundamentally a choice paradigm. You can bribe most people to stay clean for significant lengths of time. Tying welfare money to drug use creates the same choice paradigm that these people will have to deal with. They will have to decide whether or not to use, cheat the system, or come clean. This is just another pressure for them to make a better choice...to help them overcome their addiction.

Continuing to give people the funds to use with no strings attached facilitates their addiction. Maybe you should watch some episodes of intervention. Programs are already in place to help these same people on the treatment side so that should not be an excuse for not trying it.

 

[PhDeac]

How is it that getting a job is not included in any of the possible alternatives? I am not in favor of the proposal, for a number of reasons, but the complete absense of getting a job as a plausible alternative is interesting.

The unemployment rate in FL is 10.4%.

And who's going to hire someone who failed a drug test?

When you make it mandatory to get a job, there's some assumption that somebody will hire them.

 

[WakeandBake]

So easy to say and then avoid dealing with the problem by blaming the right. It's not going to go away and turning it into a political class warfare argument isn't going to change that.

Addiction is fundamentally a choice paradigm. You can bribe most people to stay clean for significant lengths of time. Tying welfare money to drug use creates the same choice paradigm that these people will have to deal with. They will have to decide whether or not to use, cheat the system, or come clean. This is just another pressure for them to make a better choice...to help them overcome their addiction.

Continuing to give people the funds to use with no strings attached facilitates their addiction. Maybe you should watch some episodes of intervention. Programs are already in place to help these same people on the treatment side so that should not be an excuse for not trying it.

watch intervention? yeah, I've seen that show. I have had several friends with major drug problems who have gone through some serious shit. I am very familiar with street drugs, although I only smoke weed, and I know the negative aspects of drug use.

I made the point earlier that this policy is going to punish mainly good people who smoke a little weed - the overwhelming majority of illegal drug users. Many of these are good people who want to unwind a little. Our drug laws, specifically marijuana laws, are ridiculous. These are not people lying in the fetal position on drugs or selling their bodies as you saw on Intervention. .

Welfare spent on drugs is not what is bankrupting our nation. What are the numbers? I had no idea that hard-working people were getting ripped off by all these drug-using welfare queens. What are the numbers?

Supporters of this measure seem to be more motivated by resentment of the poor and having to pay into the welfare system than of trying to save money or save the poor from themselves.

 

[RJKarl]

Where is the government paying rich people to do drugs?

How about Dept of Interior people and peoepl they are supposed to oversee:


Credit: U.S. Government/Tracy Olson
Before he became the man at the center of the Sex, Drugs, and Oil scandal [1], Gregory W. Smith ran a section of the Interior Department that manages $3.75 billion worth of government oil revenue.

Smith was one of the government’s more obscure bureaucrats, in charge of selling the vast quantities of oil and gas that companies gave the government, instead of cash, as payment for their use of federal mineral leases. Those sales, which resulted in cash for the Federal treasury, were conducted under what is called the Royalty in Kind program.

According to the sensational inspector general’s report [2] (PDF) issued last week, Smith was “its senior-most representative to the oil and gas industry.”

The report had some eye-catching allegations about Smith, including that he used his subordinates as suppliers of illicit drugs, including cocaine. One female staffer told investigators that Smith visited her at home in search of drugs and snorted crystal meth off her toaster oven.

Media coverage of the report highlighted the sex and drugs passages of the report, which took up only two of its 22 pages. In doing so, reporters gave scant attention to some equally juicy details about that other wellspring of Washington scandal: Money.

As told by the inspector general, the story began when Smith met Tony Daus, who was then the CEO of an environmental consulting called Geomatrix. The two men were flying first class from Denver to Houston in late 2001, and when they struck up a conversation, they quickly realized they worked in related fields. By the end of the flight, according to the report, they had agreed that Geomatrix would hire Smith to “market” their services to some of his big oil and gas contacts.

Geomatrix was bought by another engineering consulting firm, AMEC, in June this year. A spokesman for AMEC said they are “looking into this matter,” and had no further comment. He did confirm that Daus is still working at AMEC.

The IG investigators spoke with executives from at least four oil and gas companies, who said they met with Geomatrix at Smith’s request. They say the meetings turned into sales sessions, where Smith and Geomatrix reps gave them promotional materials and talked up Geomatrix’s services.

They indicated they felt pressured into meeting Geomatrix because of Smith’s position at the Interior Department, since he had power to make decisions affecting their business.

“I looked at him as a customer, and he asked,” said James Lytal, a former employee of El Paso Corporation, one of the companies involved.

Others said they thought Smith’s role as a Geomatrix salesman was “a bit strange,” given his government position, and another brought a lawyer to the meeting to ensure that Smith didn’t cross any ethical boundaries.

Interior Department rules allow employees to take on outside work, provided they have permission and scrupulously avoid conflicts of interest with their government work. The report said that Smith asked for approval for his Geomatrix work from Mary Ann Seidel, the Interior Department’s in-house ethics officer. But Seidel said she never signed the document because Smith had not given her enough detail, in particular, the names of companies with whom Geomatrix did business.

Seidel told investigators that Smith knew how to fill out the form properly, as he had done so before. Smith had even taken a lead in educating his staff about the department’s ethical rules. A month before his deal with Geomatrix, he sent a blast e-mail reminding staff that “it is important for us in the RIK office to pay especially close attention to the Federal ethics guidelines and to always keep them in mind in conducting our everyday business.”

“In no circumstances would it be appropriate for a manager in particular or any employee to hawk their outside firm to any of the people that we regulated or did business with,” Seidel told the IG investigators.

The Department of Justice has decided not to press any charges against Smith, but have not explained why not. A spokeswoman said the DoJ has charged a different former Interior Department employee for violating the conflict of interest law.

Geomatrix paid Smith $30,000 over 18 months at a rate of $75 an hour. The company terminated the contract in July 2003 because it had not managed to sign a single new client as a result of Smith’s work.

Smith’s attorney, Steve Peters, did not return calls for comment.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Now you're making assumptions about how people on drugs are spending their money. How do you know a crack whore mom isn't using welfare money on food and clothes for the kids while selling her body for crack? According to your logic that's somehow better.

And none of this justification acknowledges the key thing in my post. They've already done pilot testing and this isn't a big problem in Florida.

Yes, I agree that it would be better. If she wants to whore herself out for crack while using the welfare solely for necessities for the kids, then that is her choice and I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it (low-level criminal aspects of the drugging and whoring aside). But I'm suspect of the precise budgetary skills of many crackwhores.

If it isn't an actual problem, then that is more the reason to do it. It is a very visible (albeit effectively small) step in the right direction to promote personal accountability with regard to our entitlement programs, which is a shift in mindset that is sorely needed if those programs are ever going to be anything more than perpetuators of poverty.

 

[ABCDeac]

The health care bureaucracy you just created would be so immense as to defy belief. "Baseline health measurements?" Just creating and assessing this impossible criteria would cost more than Medicare does. Talk about government waste and overreaching.

And what happens to the children cut off from welfare payments? Collateral damage?

The health care bureaucracy that is created by Obamacare is already unbelievably immense, at least in my opinion. My proposal is something that would cost more in the beginning, and, again in my opinion, save costs and improve overall health in the long term. Aren't those the ultimate goals? If the goal is to provide coverage to anyone and everyone and to treat anyone and everyone like children for the rest of their lives, (1) that is an unattainable goal and (2) even if it was attainable, which it isn't, it would be a pathetic goal.