See this headline? This was about LePage’s program where welfare recipients are required to pass a drug test to continue receiving benefits.
So far, 100 people have been identified for future testing. Only 15 have been contacted. Of the 15, 13 never showed up and 1 failed. Keep in mind that the person being tested can name the time and place and will be picked up and taken to the testing facility. They can also reschedule if a problem arises at the last moment.
So what’s the AP spin? Only 1 person failed!!!
Not showing up is a failure. Their benefits have been cut off. Also, keep in mind, a person failing the drug test can keep their benefits by enrolling in a drug counseling program.
The left still has a problem with this. They say this is “stigmatizing” the poor by painting them as the “type of person” who would be on drugs.
No, it’s removing the stigma by removing the possibility that you could be on drugs and still be receiving welfare. This would return a small sense of dignity to a welfare recipient.
The right is trying to return welfare to what it used to be, a safety net for people who’ve fallen into unforeseen circumstances between jobs. The left wants to make welfare a career choice.
Story HERE
So of the 13 who never showed up and will have their welfare cut-off, how much $$ does that save the taxpayers of Maine? And I could care less of the “dignity” of the drug-users compared with keeping tax dollars from subsidizing their drug use.
As lax as that sounds, the pols did it to mollify the public, not to solve the problem.
They should NEVER be given money. A sack of flour, a sack of beans, a sack of rice, a carton of eggs, a lb. of margarine, and a gallon of milk.
Maybe some dried fish.
And if they sell or trade that, they get NOTHING.
I agree! Being on welfare should suck. It should not feel like “Easy Street.” It should help people get by, but it should not create contentment.
As Ben Franklin said, “Make them as uncomfortable as possible.”
The comments left over there — wow! They don’t even try to hide their hatred against Republicans.
I say give them all the money they want. They just have to sign a waiver, voluntarily, that says if they take ANY gov’t money, they no longer get to vote. Paid from the gov’t treasury = no vote. If they are ever caught voting, they get their vote back but are forbidden from being paid from any public treasury again; for any reason, including a job.
Oh there will be lawsuits. You just have to have a real congress that impeaches any judge that hears any case against the law. Take away their pension when they get impeached too. The lawsuits will dry up and the freeloaders will never be able to vote again. In no time the ‘tards will be on the US-Meh-hee-kan border, ARMED, to make sure the undocumented democrat voters find their way north.
I suppose this rocket scientist would agree that background checks for firearm purchases should be done away with because so few applicants flunk them. Right? Right?
Soup kitchens. I still say we should go back to soup kitchens.
Right now no one sees the the lines of poor so Obama’s depression doesn’t really sting the social psyche.
Uncle Sam used to give coupons that could be exchanged for qualifiying food items. It was known as an “assistance” program – oh, the stigma!
I drug test all my employees. Is this “stigmatizing” the applicants as the type who would use drugs? The breadth of liberal illogic still amazes me.
Seen it with my own eyes. Many times since 1971.Food stamps
for rice,meat,bread and beans.Then out comes the $$$cash$$$
for cigars,cigarettes,wine and beer.I bagged groceries in Charleston
S.C. back in the day for 2 years. I was a teenage ace.I knew all the
$1 tip old ladies and hustled to bag their groceries…
So 2 got tested? And 1 failed?
Hmmm…MATH IS HARD.
Kind of like Thunderdome: Two men enter, one man leaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmRAiUPdRjk