With young single mothers and their potential drug use being one of the most pressing problems facing Hoosiers, I found this quote from the defender of all things moral and the author of HB 1007 (Drug testing young single mothers at the cost of $1.5 million) Jud McMillin in the Journal Gazette:
“There have to be consequences for your actions. That is the philosophy of what we’re talking about,” said Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, the author of the legislation. “We are trying to drive them out of poverty by encouraging them to make better decisions.”
So let's drive them out of poverty by drug testing them, even though they've done nothing wrong and for the single fact that they are the poorestest of the poor?
So, let's talk about consequences for your actions, especially when you are a privlidged child and not one of the state's poorest. Here is a very interesting article about our defender of conswquences for your actions. I guess we know why alchol was removed as one of the items tested if you're a state legislator?
Welfare fraud in the United States is at its lowest ever.
Welfare reform such as what Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996, and the computerization of everything has cut fraud down to minimal levels.
The stereotypes of welfare fraudsters were created back when you could claim 68 kids you didn't have or use a dozen IDs to get more food stamps or cash assistance, and nobody would be any the wiser.
The stereotype of the recidivist welfare mother is also obsolete, because the program that allowed it no longer exists.
The program that allowed it to go on indefinitely and did not have any cut off points was called Assistance for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which ended AFDC and implemented Temporary Assistance to Needy Families instead.
Under TANF, a woman with children must not only be dirt poor, and I do mean POOR. She must also attend work training programs and/or be actively seeking gainful employment, and there's a five year limit.
TANF, for better or worse, (since we are in a second great depression right now and many hard working, decent, and honest people really are having a hard time finding gainful employment), has already made sure that the career welfare moochers have a hard time staying on the system, and get the boot after a lifetime cap of five years.
Where a lot of taxpayer money is going now, is to the elderly. Some need it, some don't.
If you want a modern welfare queen, you'll find quite a few in the SSI Old Age program, where they claim they can't work, and get a government check each month no matter how well off they are. (My grandmother drives a $40,000 Cadillac, has a huge house, and a 68" Plasma TV, and still gets over $2,000 a month from SSI).
If you want to reign in a government program that's really spitting out undeserved benefits, you'll go after SSI Old Age.
If it wasn't such a sacred cow, that is.
Ideally, SSI Old Age would have the same asset and means tests that SSI Disability does.
Nobody should be rich and getting a government entitlement check each month. I hope that's something we can all agree on.
Posted by: Ryan Farmer | February 01, 2012 at 08:53 PM
If the majority of us have to pass some sort of drug screen to earn a living, why shouldn't the ones that are being given the money that we earned for them have to be tested to receive it.
Posted by: Curious minds want to know. | February 01, 2012 at 09:00 PM