Las Vegas Sun

October 24, 2014

Currently: 82° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Proposed law would require drug tests to receive welfare

CARSON CITY — Drug testing would be required for those applying for welfare and other public assistance under a bill introduced Wednesday by a lawmaker who says that if people can afford drugs, they don’t need assistance.

Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, said his bill (SB-89) would help people straighten out their lives.

Those applying for public assistance would have to take a $10 saliva test for controlled substances. If they failed, they would be required to enter a state treatment program, during which time they would receive public assistance.

If they failed a drug test after 30 days, government assistance would be cut off. A person who fails the saliva test could ask for a urinalysis.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 54 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. I am not unsympathetic to what this bill is trying to achieve. That said, one can not logically conclude that a person who has taken drugs has in fact paid for them.

  2. Quite true. However, as an adult with control over their person (what they ingest), one may logically conclude that said applicant willingly took the illicit substance in question. Those without the fortitude to follow the bare minimum in exhibiting worthiness to receive FREE MONEY will garner no sympathy from me.

  3. UFCwasteOcash,

    I can accept your position without much problem. It is the premise that "if a person can afford drugs they don't need assistance" that I take issue with.

    Bad logic makes for bad law.

  4. This is a good start but they should also make them test every 60 to 90 days.

    If they are using drugs chances are they are not keeping their self in shape to look for work or work for that matter. Most jobs now test for drugs to hire you, if you don't pass you are not hired and state on public assistance.

    I understand what you are getting at boftx but bottom line is someone is paying for the drugs. Do you want it to be you?

  5. vegaslee,

    Absolutely NOT!!! That is why I want them to craft good legislation based on sound principles.

  6. @Vegaslee....you are also paying legislators and other elected officials. Should they be required to take drug tests in order to run for office? Upon election? Upon seating? All of the preceding? Singling out TANF and SNAP participants, among others, is simply a means of stereotyping recipients of public assistance. Perhaps we should also drug test the owners, directors and board members of all companies requesting tax abatements, training grants and other forms of corporate welfare. After all, it's in their best interest to get help.

  7. Didn't Florida try this and the testing program ended up costing the state much more than was saved?

    Is it really worth spending tax dollars to catch a few deadbeats?

  8. The Florida program saved multi millions as (some) people stopped applying for all sorts of aid. Some may have moved away but certainly some are getting by without benies with strings.

  9. "state treatment program" sounds scary. We get to pay for their rehab and then the rehab 6 months later and the rehab after that.

  10. Pat Hayes,

    Lets take it further. Require drug tests of all those applying for drivers licenses. I don't want drugged up people on the road trying to kill me either.

    Florida did try it. They also stopped it because it did cost them more for testing than they saved on people bailing out of the programs. It is also being challenged in Federal courts.

    Many other states, Virginia, Kansas, New Hampshire to mention a few have shot it down and decided not to do it after Florida's great failure.

  11. "The Florida program saved multi millions as (some) people stopped applying for all sorts of aid."

    This is a lie. Florida saw a net loss, as well as the same workload they saw from before the testing was implemented. Testing ended up costing more than the benefits that these individuals would have been paid.

    "The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening. The state's net loss? $45,780."

    "That's not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said."

    "The law also didn't impact the number of people who applied for benefits."

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/27...

    See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no...

    More right-wingers spouting base falsehoods.... the facts tell the opposite story.

  12. Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack

  13. Chuckles,

    Your rant is irrelevant and counter-intuitive.

    Florida proved that drug testing welfare recipients doesn't work, costs more than paying benefits, and doesn't discourage people from applying for benefits.

    Those are facts you are incapable of arguing.

    So what do you think these individuals who abuse drugs will do when evicted from their housing and denied food? They'll turn to crime. And when they get caught, they're sent to jail, which is plenty more expensive than a little welfare or food stamps.

    So your solution is a documented failure and would increase crime and the number of people locked up on the taxpayer's dime. You're a genius!

  14. Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack

  15. Chunky says:

    Many employers require drugs tests to work for them. Chunky is just fine with drug tests for people on government / tax dollar funded programs too.

    Illegal drugs, whether you buy them or they are provided by someone else are not exactly part of a productive lifestyle. If you've got money or time to get high, you've got money or time to go out and get a job!

    We've allowed the creation of an entire lifestyle and way of living off of government handouts and programs. That is not what the programs were intended for.

    It would be much better to see those handouts / benefits going to people who really do need them who are straight and sober.

    That's what Chunky thinks!

  16. Right. "If they failed a drug test after 30 days, government assistance would be cut off."

    Then they have two options: (1) eat the air and get fat or (2) shoplift a food store, end up in jail and get free room, board and meals on the taxpayer at significantly higher rates then gov. assistance on the block. Which option does Senator James expect?

    Maybe the Senator has been praying for guidance again but the answers delivered come from an altogether different source...

  17. "Actually, if they fail the "on-going" drug tests and they get kicked off the welfare system, and then steal and end up in jail, then we are actually saving money."

    This, too, is not based in fact.

    "A report by the organization, "The Price of Prisons," states that the cost of incarcerating one inmate in Fiscal 2010 was $31,307 per year. "In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it's anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000," he said."

    The average welfare benefits for a single adult? Around $200 per month.

    Pop quiz: which is cheaper?

    $31,307 or $2400?

    (... waiting for the right-winger to propose jailing everyone on welfare... since they seem to think it's so much cheaper!)

  18. "We have a responsibility and accountability problem, and this is a start."

    No it isn't. This is scapegoating and showboating and demonizing anyone who dares ask for help. Only the truly gullible fall for this kind of insipid political theater.

    This program has been tried by a GOP governor with a GOP-controlled legislature and was a spectacular failure. Nothing that Senator Settelmeyer has proposed would do ANYTHING to reduce the cost of the system or actually help those who need it.

    Settelmeyer's blowing the dog whistle and all the right-wing hounds are howling in Pavlovian response.

  19. As Long as the "Drug Tests are paid for by The State and all Government Check recipients are included, I see No Problem. The Mayor, Governor, Schools Teachers, Police Firefighters, Grandma Getting Medicare - everybody Line Up. These are all the Same Government welfare queens the Republicans keep talking about. It's time to trat them all the same. Sarcasm - if it were not a Serious Republican Policy initiative.

  20. ksand makes many fine points...

    This is yet another 'R' idea that screams,
    "We can't see the forest fer them trees!"
    "Let's save a dollar now that'll cost us 5 later!"
    "Let's assume that most folks receiving assistance are lazy scofflaws that hang around getting high all day while you & I pay for it with our TAX dollars!"

    The facts in evidence are (as ksand & others point out)...

    that this is a FALSE ASSUMPTION-but there are those that are GLEEFUL about the prospect of forcing folks to stand in line to pee in a cup to prove something for which there is no factual foundation.

    This is not about 'taxpayer savings'. It's about pandering to the basest knee-jerk reactionaries that feel 'indignant' about a PERCEIVED level of abuse in the system. Legislation that would cost the state buco-bucks in tax dollars while enriching the fat cats in the bazillion-dollar drug-testing industry.

    http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/22/4-...

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politic...

  21. This is just another attempt by paleoconservatives to perpetuate a stereotype that recipients of aid are worthless drugged-up elements of our society that are unworthy of support from real hardworking American taxpayers. All this demonstrates is that there are elite elements in power who are largely ignorant of realities that most of us deal with.

  22. no, i haven't read the cost figures when florida initiated a drug testing plan but if it cost just $35 for a drug test we can simply deduct this from the recipient check which would cover the cost. i also wonder if once they tested negative for 2 or 3 consecutive test they could drop down to every 6 months then yearly.

    i am a fierce independent here & may lean to the left (so i'm told) but i am all for drug testing & dropping the sub-abusers from the payroll. they can receive 'out patient' treatment (which is much more cost effective.) if they cant get off drugs & resort to crime to support their 'habit' they should be in a jail/prison. it would take the sting out of paying my share of taxes knowing it is keeping criminals in jail.

    in michigan we had ADC (we called it Absent Daddy Compensation). i think this may have changed to TANF (???) it was for women with children who needed support. my thoughts on this should be that every time you show up to pick up your check (assistance) you have to take a depo-provera shot (injection) which is to prevent you from getting pregnant. if you want to have another child you should be off public assistance. its a pretty simple solution for women having MORE children while receiving public assistance for children they cant currently support.

    i know this may sound like something hitler may have devised but its quit a simple solution to prevent the 'legacy' of mothers having kids to receive benefits.

    just some thought from a guy who would be a great politician.

  23. Sen. James Settelmeyer, R. Linden, is a third generation rancher who runs cattle on his own land and on land leased from the BLM. Average cost per animal unit per month for private leased land is between $19 and $21, on BLM land it is $1.96. The Senator is apparently receiving a substantial benefit from the public to run his private business. When hearings are held around the west regarding ag subsidies ranchers and farmers are out in force claiming that they would go broke without this assistance. Should the Senator be required to undergo drug testing prior to receiving public benefits?

  24. Drug testing should be required for any public assistance including welfare, section 8, wic, unemployment, school meals, etc.

  25. We make decisions and should have to be held accountable for them. The nations move towards a society without responsibility is harmful and given it's logical end will cause our destruction.

    We want to help those who need it and want it, to a point. Repeated failures cannot be ignored and without ignoring the extreme difficulties of addiction, decisions are still decisions and we make one every time we use drugs, drive drunk, fail to pay child support, exceed the speed limit, etc.

    Some are critical, some are not but they all have one thing in common, that they don't take place without a moral decision to do right or do wrong each and every time.

    At some point, folks in Hawaii can't be held accountable for the actions of someone in New Jersey nor those of us in Nevada for someone in Chicago and that is what is happening too often to too many. It adds up to billions and the nation is broke. If the nation was an individual, family, company or any other entity not printing its own currency it would be declared bankrupt. How bankrupt is a matter of degrees and morality.

  26. Requiring clients to be drug tested does not mean we have to test everyone ever time, but we could. It means that when something else is going on we could insist on a drug test. Say Child Protective Services has reports of abuse but social workers don't find direct evidence. We also would want the LEGISLATION to include that non-profits and local government programs can require drug testing of clients.

  27. Brass: nice to see another thoughtful post. Some have no comprehension of how deterrents work--you cannot quantify the volume of those who will move on without a criminal response. And of those would would have a violent or aggressive response, many would do that anyhow out on our streets. Lock em up sooner rather than later. Save the children from their "parents."

  28. @noindex....unemployment insurance is not public assistance. UI is financed [usually] by a premium taken out of an employee's paycheck and a premium charged the employer based on [usually] a combination of the industry and the particular employer's experience.

  29. @Heretic...Unemployment Insurance is a state run insurance program which can, if the state fund runs short, be supplemented by Federal funds borrowed by the state. Those borrowed funds must be paid back. No state is required to participate in the supplemental program. The Feds don't change any state rules as to qualification for receipt of insurance although the rules vary widely from state to state. For example, one western state which used to be heavily dependent on timber harvest had rules which allowed receipt of UI during spring breakup...anywhere from 2 to 3 months. The timber companies wanted to maintain a skilled workforce so they were willing to pay a high premium to make sure that workers would ride out the layoffs and be available to come back to work when called.

    UI is only tied to the deficit in that it shows up as a current expenditure. It is not booked as an accounts receivable although that's what it is.

  30. Not only should a drug test be mandatory but a no more child policy should be instated for mothers who are not married and or can not prove income to raise the child. Abortion would be the option or give up benefits. I think many would keep their legs closed in this case. Harsh? yes, needed? Yes. Where does it say the US government will pay for you to have babies and pay to raise them as well? China has a 1 child policy and enforces it. They also seem to have all the money, does this add up?

  31. Petef: Worth trying. Have all the babies YOU can support without relying on a partner (man, woman, or government). Relationships / marriages come and go so be prepared to do it alone. Might be time to look at "sliding scale" benefits so that a custodial parent who has a proven work record could get enough in benefits to locate and keep a job. However, those with a limited work record and/or limited work skills should not be eligible for child care subsidies, the extra $1,000 Welfare Division will put into your car or transportation, the bus passes to "look" for work and on and on and on.

  32. TomD et al: FYI: In the Clinton years and several times previously, government tried to put the mothers to work. I recall when a friend on aide was upset that she had to find some sort of work when the youngest turned 6 years old. She considered having another child at that time..... Part of the problem is also that you are "encouraged" to work even part time but we spend so much subsidizing your big job at 7-11 or Circle K that we spend more on your transportation, child care, work clothing grants....than you make. See, we are endorsing and promoting the life style where parents chose to have kids they have no plans or means to support.

  33. Tell me again, why would it be wrong to require women on welfare to take some form of contraceptive?

    If a person is willing to take the King's Penny to survive, then the King should be able to dictate some criteria for receiving that Penny.

  34. "Tell me again, why would it be wrong to require women on welfare to take some form of contraceptive?"

    First he wanted to rig the electoral college to give an advantage to gerrymandered congressional districts. Now he wants to sterilize any woman who dares accept public assistance.

    The right -- err.. "modern whigs" (what a joke) -- think that when you sign up for food stamps, you forfeit the right to control your uterus.

    How about some hypocrisy?

    "It is the mandate that private entities provide such coverage that is the problem here. I know that several will disagree with me, but ordering a Church to provide services that it deems as going against its doctrinal beliefs is akin to ancient times when Rome dictated that while people could basically worship whatever God or gods they wished, they must also worship the Emperor as a god, as well." -boftx, Feb 2012

    So it's wrong to require churches to offer insurance plans which cover contraception... but it's not wrong for the government to force a Catholic woman to disobey her religious beliefs?

    This is sickening.

  35. The level of ignorant hate and outright lies that some people post here is appalling. It's amazing how many people with complete disdain for the poor claim to have intimate knowledge of someone on welfare.

    If only they had an intimate knowledge with the truth, or at the very least, GOOGLE.

    @chuck333 Thinks its LOL funny that anyone would beleive "The average welfare benefits for a single adult? Around $200 per month."

    Well chuck333, the jokes on you. Glenn Beck's The Blaze has a list of the ten states that pay out the most in public assistance..http://bit.ly/XVzc0W Alaska has the highest Avg. TANF cash assistance per month at a whopping $602, and that's for an entire family.

    And I would like those who claim women keep getting pregnant to receive more benefits to explain how this is possible with the states 60 month limit on TANF benefits? And how is $50 a month an incentive to have a baby when the average cost of a newborn is just shy of $90. The reality is The typical welfare family consists of 2.9 people compared to the average 3.16 nationwide. Welfare moms actually have LESS CHILDREN than those not on the public dole.

    And, Florida showed us that, despite what most hate rhetoric states, welfare recipients are less likely to use drugs than the general populace.

    But facts are usually no match for the vitriol hate on display here. What a sad commentary that so many would be willing to spend more tax dollars in a pathetic and fruitless attempt to punish the least fortunate among us.

  36. It is obvious that people are seething with resentments ---- not against a Senate that would rather shut down government than compromise, not against those who have voted against jobs, not against corporations and grossly rich people who pay little or no taxes ---- but against people in their own or lower classes. They believe that undeserving others are getting a benefit, a privilege, or a consideration that they are not. That is why they gleefully post suggestions on how to make life more difficult for people who collect public assistance. They feel superior to the "parasites" and enjoy thinking up new ways to degrade them. How pathetic!

  37. In answer to another poster, I did not say "sterilize" but rather asked about requiring some form of contraceptive while receiving assistance. There is a vast difference between the two.

    Also, if a person's religious convictions would prevent them from doing so, then they can always try to get help from somewhere else, maybe the Church they belong to. If nothing else, the person could accept the condition that any children born while receiving assistance would not qualify for any additional benefits. And of course, abstinence is a form of contraception.

    In the example that poster gave, the Church was being compelled to do something by law. In this case, the act of requesting assistance is voluntary. Again, there is a difference.

  38. Is it a choice? The choice you are presenting these individuals is: control over your one's reproductive health or food/shelter. For those in need, you're not offering a choice.

    In addition, you're forcing tons of women to take birth control when it is not medically necessary.

    And yes, you're in favor of sterilizing women for an indeterminate amount of time. Is it just for when they're receiving welfare? What if they just use food stamps? What if they qualify for Medicaid... does that subject them to your uterine-control whims?

    So Cindy, who sends her abusive husband to jail for beating her up, requests housing aid and food stamps to pay for a home for her and her child. You would punish her by dictating her medical needs, and force her to "choose" between her religious beliefs... and a roof over her head or food or medically-necessary health care.

    Your proposal is disgusting, sexist and inhumane.

  39. "In the example that poster gave, the Church was being compelled to do something by law. In this case, the act of requesting assistance is voluntary. Again, there is a difference."

    This is also false. The church is not compelled to employ people. That is voluntary. They choose to employ people at Catholic hospitals, thus subjecting them to laws. It's exactly the same thing. They could just as easily close down the hospitals, according to your logic.

    Yet you crucified the administration for laws requiring that they OFFER coverage for birth control. In your scheme, you're FORCING women to take birth control, even when they do not need it. All things being equal, your proposal is worse.

    So why the double standard, Jim?

  40. The BDR is not enacted yet. If you have such great ideas, contact your Legislators and get the verbiage tweaked before they vote.

  41. "In addition, you're forcing tons of women to take birth control when it is not medically necessary." - ksand99

    Kevin,

    The women who post here probably have a better answer, but I would speculate that the majority of women who take contraceptives probably do not have a medical condition that requires it (though I will be the first to say that there are indeed medical conditions which can be treated by such.)

    The intent is to remove fraud and abuse as much as possible from the system. I'm sure there are other issues that you would like to see much greater restrictions on, as well.

  42. Some of these comments are truly repugnant! There really are some cruel and heartless people out there. Even more offensive is the fact that they seem to take pride in their lack of empathy.

    Why do people believe they should have ANY say in how people they have never even met conduct their lives? Stop claiming that because your "tax dollars" pay for their public assistance you should be able to dictate how they live. Those who want to cut welfare for the neediest families often have no trouble with the richest corporations milking the same system for all it's worth.

  43. @ANGELLEE...."And your little 60 month rule for TANF is bull*hit! My sister has been getting $$ for her 9 year old since he was born! Try again!"

    It's not "MY LITTLE 60 MONTH RULE." It's the state's and is clearly explained here: http://www.tanf.us/nevada.html

    But I guess we are just supposed to believe you. Just ignore the lies you've already posted.

    Like, "My sister has been getting $$ for her 9 year old since he was born!"

    What about the other THREE kids she had in an earlier post where you told us she received "900$ a month in food stamps," Even though SNAP benefits max out at $798.00 for a family the size you claim she has. (http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcal...)

    So, sorry ANG, when you feel the need to make up elaborate and easily disproved stories to vilify the poor, I would classify that as having pure disdain.

  44. Angellee / bghs the 24/60 month rule is FEDERAL. However, I know of NO OVERSIGHT or fraud checks on this. AND any checking that is done via computers is on the SSN so if Mom uses a different child's SSN perhaps even claiming a different father......she keeps collecting. The line, from permanent-takers, that I like is "Don't judge me." Well gee, take care of yourself and stop begging from the taxpayers. Elsewhere I've referred to those who "surf" the programs and bounce from program to program. Local, State and Federal have limited cross checks. Non-profits don't seem to cross check at all. I am ALL FOR A TEMPORARY safety net for all Americans whether or not they have dependent children. For most of the rest of us, when the UC runs dry, you are on your own. Might get a dollop of EBT Food Stamps and sure you can dine at the soup kitchens and shelters but we dump ALL OUR REVENUE on Moms with dependent kids. DHHS can't even get around to considering a trial of dormitory housing for disabled and/or transition from homeless for Vets. They just dump it all on "the kids". Anyone who reads many of my posts should have figured out that my opinion is that these kids lead miserable lives often with little to no concern from either parent, let alone any attention, clothing, toys, nurturing,.... How do I know? Been there.

  45. An answer is to allow Custodial Parents to put the kids into foster care when they are unable to support them--after our temporary safety net ends. In order to get the kids back, they'd have to have employment or income.....various conditions. Kids in foster care and/or group homes sometimes have a chance. Kids in the "care" of drug-using, non-working, parents who use the kids for an income don't get much of a chance. You think those kids get nurturing, toys, school clothes? You think they get attention? ALTERNATE ANSWERS: churches, non-profits, job training programs. Just STOP PAYING PEOPLE TO HAVE KIDS they won't support, financially or emotionally.

  46. Based on the esteemed Senator's logic, I think the bill should include testing for alcohol and nicotine too since those are also drugs and they may be more expensive than some illicit drugs not to mention the fact that they can just as easily ruin the user's lives.

  47. All of you smug, self-righteous people are pathetic with your misplaced anger! Your assumptions that people on public assistance are looking to game the system are based on nothing more than bigoted stereotypes. Your ridiculous suggestions on how to degrade those less fortunate serve no purpose except to expose you as bullies.

    You are so consumed with animosity toward disadvantaged people who might be reaping undeserved rewards that you don't even notice or care that almost twice as much is spent on corporate welfare. Locally speaking, your tax dollars are spent on settling lawsuits due to poor police work. Or six figure salaries that local firefighters receive for playing xbox for hours on end.

    You keep repeating LIES about welfare recipients because it makes you feel superior. Contrary to the stereotype, families receiving aid are slightly SMALLER than the U.S. average. States with the highest benefits have the lowest rates of additional births, and the states with the lowest benefits have the highest. How does that support your stupid theories about women popping out kids for welfare?

  48. @TJ...."SI monthly payments are paid for all types of reasons from basic issues such as speech impairments and skin conditions, up to asthma, autism, growth disorders, etc."

    Sorry TJ, I'm gonna call liar on this. In order for a child to recieve SSI "The child must have a physical or mental condition(s) that very seriously limits his or her activities; and The condition(s) must have lasted, or be expected to last, at least 1 year or result in death."

    Here's the thing. You claim that your stories are "TRUE and FACTUAL", yet they defy current statistics and verifiable factual data.

    I have found that anyone with "TRUE and FACTUAL" information can provide tangible proof to support their claims.

    Can you?

    Can Roberta?

    You all claim you don't want to see your tax dollars wasted, yet you support this program. That makes no sense. This program has proven to accomplish nothing more than increase the financial burden on tax payers.

    So if it won't save money? if it will actually costs more money? why do you want it?

    Seems Brooke is on the right track in exposing the true motivations behind this proposal.

  49. LasVegasTJ-

    Describing the conduct of others is not name calling.

    It is dishonest of you to deny feeling superior to welfare recipients when your comments are dripping with judgment and self-righteousness.

    "You like others commenting on this site have NO IDEA about the reality of what goes on by MANY living off of the system."

    It is presumptuous of you to assume I have no firsthand knowledge about poor people because you believe I haven't spent time around them. Between graduate school and my employment at a non-profit, I have years of experience working with the less fortunate. Not once did I witness the kind of outright fraud you claim MANY people are guilty of. There were a few whose behavior indicated that receiving public aid was a lifestyle choice but they weren't actively trying to game the system in the ways you describe.

    The only dishonest and deliberate acts of fraud I had knowledge of were not committed by those receiving assistance. It was the widespread and blatant misconduct of Section 8 caseworkers who were cheating the system by providing vouchers to their friends and family. These caseworkers were living in prime section 8 housing by stealing from the poor.

    You claim to have witnessed MANY acts of fraud. Did you report it? I did.

    The truth is, most of the people who want to make life more difficult for the disadvantaged don't actually want welfare reform. They enjoy scapegoating poor people too much.

  50. Brooke get over it. It is not self righteous to want to keep our earned income. It is not "feeling superior" to demonstrate a work ethic and support ourselves. It is nothing but positive to be self reliant and demand that others do the same. Actually this is the natural order of the universe--if you don't do for yourself, you don't eat. Some refer to it as extinction.

  51. bghs: it would be illegal to provide specific direct evidence of welfare clients who have defrauded us. Welfare does next to nothing to even look for fraud. They have one investigator statewide to look at clients who lie about not receiving the benefit checks--then put them on a $5 a month payment plan when they find the recipient cashed the check at her usual bar. Feds required the immediate reissue of ANOTHER check. There is NO FRAUD INVESTIGATION or punishment for defrauding us. bghs: When I started the "discussion" on local welfare fraud, the politicos and DHHS said we're doing the best we can with the limited (none) resources provided in the budgets. COP OUT. I've been a federal agent AND employed in social welfare. There is NO COORDINATION and extremely limited fraud investigation (elsewhere, zero in Nevada) in federal, state, local, non-profit social welfare. They're robbing us blind.

  52. Here's one for you Brooke. Check out the "attitudes" and how quickly they change. The young teen who just got her first apartment a bit deflated 'cause it's a "one bedroom for (me) and my 6-month old" to the wisened long-time client who knows how to ask: "in need" when begging/conning on Craig's List, at non-profits and to people--friends, relatives, in front of Walmarts. Meek, contrite, non-committal but "willing to work" when applying for more benefits from a government agency. Over and over again, the teen Moms think they're gonna get lots of free stuff from everyone, that everybody will seek her out to give her and the baby things. Then, as she works the system for a few years, it is her right to expect everything. When they discover there are some limits to what they can get and figure out that SOME get "extras" by getting into test programs, they develop the "trainability" to qualify for the optional handouts.

  53. How about the welfare clients who say "I pay your salary. If it weren't for me you wouldn't have a job."? Oxymorons.... You don't pay any taxes. The entitled are not shy about DEMANDING full service although they absolutely refuse to participate in productive work.

  54. LasVegasTJ...

    There is a world of difference between having an illness that is on the qualified SSI list and actually receiving SSI benefits. The vast majority of people who qualify and apply for SSI are turned down. I have met people suffering debilitating conditions who were denied benefits. They had to hire an attorney to appeal their case. It is common knowledge that most people will have to go through the appeals process probably more than once before they are approved for SSI.