Menu
UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting
  • Football
    • 2020 Football Schedule
    • 2020 Football Coaching Staff
    • 2020 Notre Dame Football Roster
    • 2020 Football Scholarship Chart
    • Notre Dame Football Injury News & Updates
    • Notre Dame Football Highlights
    • NFL Fighting Irish
    • Past Seasons & Results
    • Game Archive
    • Player Archive
  • Recruiting
    • Class of 2021 Commit List
    • Class of 2020 Commit List
    • Class of 2019 Commit List
    • Class of 2018 Commit List
    • Notre Dame Recruiting Film Evaluations
    • Visits News
    • Archives
  • Basketball
  • Forums
    • Chat Room
    • Football Forum
    • Open Forum
    • Basketball Board
    • Ticket Exchange
  • Latest News
  • History
    • Notre Dame Heisman Trophy Winners
    • Notre Dame Rivalries
    • Notre Dame Bowl History
    • Notre Dame Traditions
    • Notre Dame National Championships
    • Notre Dame NFL Draft History
    • Touchdown Jesus
    • Notre Dame Football ESPN GameDay History
    • Notre Dame Stadium
    • Past Results
  • Videos
  • Gear
  • About
    • Advertise With Us
    • Contact Us
    • Our RSS Feeds
    • Community Rules
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Home > Forums > The Open Forum
Login | Register
Upvote this post.
0
Downvote this post.

Good news on the welfare front.

Author: jabbadoody5 (16656 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:45 am on Mar 26, 2009
View Single

Someone has finally given into my demands. If they would only implement a birth control policy, I could start to get behind some of these welfare programs...maybe.

States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients
Thursday , March 26, 2009

CHARLESTON, W.Va. —
Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.


Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510707,00.html

Jumbotrons are for big dick playas!

Replies to: Good news on the welfare front.


Thread Level: 2

That's just asking for higher crime rates

Author: StoneFingers (2119 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:04 am on Mar 26, 2009
View Single

I'm against drugs and see them as a huge threat to our country. But regulating everything to this extent is bad news. There are cause and effect problems with this stuff. We need better education and citizen awareness and participation. This would only drive people deeper into crime to survive.

Thread Level: 3

So you'd rather keep paying for someone else's smack habit?

Author: jabbadoody5 (16656 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:31 am on Mar 26, 2009
View Single

(no message)

Jumbotrons are for big dick playas!
Thread Level: 4

It's a tough question

Author: StoneFingers (2119 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:46 am on Mar 26, 2009
View Single

No, of course I don't want that. But even more I don't want to see drug users starved, nor their families if they have them. But I do see your point.

Thread Level: 2

Its a great idea, just do it across the board. Anyone getting assistance

Author: Hibakusha (3425 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:51 am on Mar 26, 2009
View Single

has to pony up some urine. Probably wouldn't have any Wall Street types with cocaine in their pee. AIG?

Thread Level: 2

"That's an invasion of my crack-smoking privacy!" - just wait

Author: TontoGoldstein (11011 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:54 am on Mar 26, 2009
View Single

(no message)

If you support Obama you are a racist.
Thread Level: 2

It'll never happen.

Author: MAS (15022 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:51 am on Mar 26, 2009
View Single

The ACLU will be all over any attempt to require welfare recipients using birth control/not procreating while on public assistance and I bet they'd win in litigation.

Thread Level: 3

Fine, then their damn babies had better be able to find a job because thats some bullshit.

Author: jabbadoody5 (16656 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:02 am on Mar 26, 2009
View Single

(no message)

Jumbotrons are for big dick playas!
Close
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • RSS