The Missouri House Thursday passed a bill that would require welfare recipients to undergo drug testing upon "reasonable suspicion" they used drugs. But the Senate version of that bill, SB 607, is under sustained attack by Senate Democrats, who are filibustering it this week.This is one of those ridiculous sideshows that allows one of our ruling factions to show that they care about your money being wasted, while forcing the other faction to defend giving money to crackheads.
Under the bills, all work-eligible adults who received cash payments through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program would be drug tested if a caseworker has "reasonable suspicion" they are using drugs. Those who test positive would become temporarily ineligible for cash assistance, but their children could continue to receive benefits through a third party.
TANF is a federal program designed to help poverty-stricken parents provide for their children. In Missouri, more than 112,000 people get cash assistance through the program. The average family on the program gets $292 a month.
A legislative staff fiscal analysis of the Senate bill put the annual cost to the state at more than $5 million next year, and more than $6 million in coming years. Those figures represent the cost of drug testing an estimated 90,000 TANF recipients or new applicants each year and the cost of providing additional drug treatment services to deal with those who test positive.
What would happen if we broadened this proposal to cover other welfare recipients who don't fit the stereotype so well?
Patricia Woertz, Chairman, CEO and President of Archer Daniels Midland Company, is an ethanol subsidy queen of the worst possible sort. She has made a ton of money on the public teat. I want Ms. Woertz (and the rest of her family) to go in for a supervised piss test before she receives another dime of taxpayer money. She has three kids, and I'm worried about their exposure to this type of behavior.
At my company, if a driver is involved in any accident that causes damage to people or property, they have to go in for a urinalysis. Chris Dodd, please report for your drug screen. We are still trying to find someone willing to test Barney Frank.
Under the phenomenally corrupt deals within the pending healthcare monstrosity, Nebraskans will receive something called "The Cornhusker Kickback". Mary Landrieu orchestrated something called "The Louisiana Purchase" for her Louisiana constituents. Florida gets something mockingly named "Gatoraid". The residents of these states need to get a test tube, get in line, and give us at least three ounces. (Note to my Cajun friends in Louisiana: Nobody is impressed if you can supply 16 ounces. Nobody. Don't bother.) This should take a while, but the results will be in the mail before the November elections, which is all that matters in any of this.
Are you a farmer? Are you one of the ten percent of all farmers who collected 74 percent of all subsidies amounting to $130.6 billion dollars over a 12 year period? Get your wholesome, welfare-queen-condemning, salt-of-the-earth rear ends in line to fill up a piss cup. (Warning: Don't bother substituting livestock urine. It's been done before, and we know what you're up to.)
Al Gore is trying valiantly to force you to use products and technologies developed by his partners at the venture capital firm of Kleiner-Perkins. Well, Al, you're not going to get a cent until you can prove that you're not on crack. Plus, there are a lot of us who are just curious.
Seriously, why stop at the "traditional" welfare recipient? Let's test military contractors. Let's have every recipient of the Porkulus kickbacks go in for a urinalysis. Want an NEA grant? Prove that you haven't smoked weed, and good luck to you. Are you a UAW employee, and did Obama save your job with taxpayer money? Get in line.
Just think....if the Missouri Republicans and I get our way, we'll soon be doing nothing but test each other.
Welcome to the Work-Free Drugplace.
The poster came from here.
5 comments:
Say...given this sudden enthusiasm for testing, I feel certain I speak for others who'd like some assurance there's no hidden agenda here. Can you give some positive proof you have no financial interests in drug testing labs?
No "you fill my cup, I'll fill yours?"
Something stinks here and it isn't stale urine.
Who stands to make a profit off this forced pissing?
To heck with the Tea Party, where is the Pee Party???
Doctor,
You have taken words from my mouth.
When time permits, do a bit o' Googling on something called "CSA 2010". It's the Department Of Transportations latest safety program.
I'm betting dollars to donuts that this program was lobbied for by 1) DOT employees, 2)Lawyers, and last but not least 3) the manufacturers and administrators of piss tests.
So far, I've only fired one driver for refusing to take a UA, and that was under a "suspicious behavior" provision, not random testing (which we do). Now, the word "random" is replaced with "a lot".
After July 1, 2010, if you see a trucker on the road, you can rest assured that he has urine that Julia Child would be willing to cook with.
Urine Julia Childs would cook with?
While freedom to pursue personal lifestyle choices is one of the area where I stand firmly with the Libertarians...that's just disgusting, dude.
Dr. Ralph... Pee Party? Seriously? Actually, dammit... that was funny and wished I got that one off first.
(Sigh....)
I thought everyone would favor recycling.
Post a Comment