Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2013 | 2:21 p.m.
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.
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.
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.
There was one young man in my neighborhood who was declared eligible for disability payments due to damage he self inflicted from taking street drugs and abusing prescription medication.
While I agree with the intention of the proposed law, solving the problem isn't quite as simple as spot checking for drug use.
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.
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?
vegaslee,
Absolutely NOT!!! That is why I want them to craft good legislation based on sound principles.
@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.
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?
I am good with Wharfrart. Before becoming a classified employee of the State of Nevada you are tested for illegal drugs. I think that that is fair. Also very good points by vegas lee and boftx.
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.
"state treatment program" sounds scary. We get to pay for their rehab and then the rehab 6 months later and the rehab after that.
Actually, Roslenda, Florida DID NOT save anything. VegasEngineer is right. It cost florida a ton of money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-...
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/flor...
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/a...
Not only that, they found that those receiving aid were less likely to be using drugs then the general public. Wharfrat is right, its just another stereotype, another way to kick someone when they are down. I'm fine with drug testing, but if we do it for welfare recipients, we need to do it for all recipients of public money.
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.
The biggest abuse of EBT (food stamp) cards is that people trade their card and or the benefits for cash (to buy drugs) or drugs. I see it done all the time. I've also seen peopole pay for their stuff with more than one EBT card. Some drug dealers give their baby mommas and their friends to pay for their use of an apt.or other help to friends a pocket full of cards with the pin numbers. The best way to help both the state AND THE PEOPLE WOULD BE TO PUT THE CARD HOLDERS PICTURE ON THE CARD.Plus eliminate all candy, soda, cake, donuts, chips from being purchased.Put that into effect first. If a drug test is iniated (passed) it should be effective for all city, county, & state employees. Don't target just one segment of the population make the law the same for everyone. In other words if any person recieves city,county, state funds ie. benefits or paycheck, grant or any assistance they should be drug tested.
"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.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Yes you're correct ksand99, no need to bother testing for drug abuse I'd rather they stay on welfare and do their drugs this way my taxes can stay high and I can help support them.
More left wingers ideology.
Fact: If you use drugs you probably won't get hired.
Drug laws just make poor people criminals. When your stopped by the police one of the first things they ask is have you ever been arrested? I wish they enforce the laws that are already on the books!
A great idea that will be thrown out by liberal federal judges.
Nothing makes my day like being inline behind the fat chick at the market with the cart overflowing with food I can't afford and paying for it with her welfare card. But not to be too critical, they're paying cash for their booze and smokes with the wad of bills in the pocket.
Purge the social parasites campaign?
Strange how there was no mention as to where the "expected" funds derived from those being "cut-off" would be reallocated.
Better solution?
Why doesn't Settelmeyer simply propose elimination of ALL State welfare and public assistance programs while returning funds currently supporting such programs to the citizens from which they were stolen from affording said citizens the direct opportunity to decide for themselves who requires assistance instead of having their stolen funds processed through a labyrinth of bureaucratic skimming and drug testing apparatuses resulting in a mere fraction of the proceeds actually reaching recipients --
Surely those unable to find voluntary "assistance" in Nevada could seek such services elsewhere -- for example, in Mexico while enjoying a "permanent" vacation?
Ask not what you can do for your State but rather what your State can do for you?
: {
As someone who has worked in the Property Management industry for over 25 years in Las Vegas" I say it's about time our State started doing something about the MANY deceitful people living off of the system! I have witnessed so many Section 8 voucher holders cheating and lying in order to have their rent paid by our tax dollars. They receive TANF, WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, and sometimes social security for one of their kids, because they have a speech impairment, slow learning disorder, etc. However, at the same time, they've illegally moved in "one" of their Baby Daddy's, and a large percentage of the time he's a low life gang banger that sales drugs on the side. (Section 8 assistance is based on the income of the household and the number of members of the household and ALL sources of income are included. Additionally, the inspections of the home are conducted annually and with weeks in advance notice; Baby Daddy won't be around on the day of the inspection). While I have witnessed many families and seniors that deserve and need assistance there are many on a waiting list that can't get the help, because there are not enough funds to go around and yet we have so many living off the system for years that don't deserve it and they don't want to better themselves. I've personally witnessed Mothers go out and get pregnant for the third and fourth time because their oldest child is about to age out of the system and she doesn't want to lose the assistance amount she is on. By the way" that new baby's prenatal care and delivery is paid for by the tax-payers too. As a single Mother myself, it was frustrating to see these women sun bathing at the pool all day while their kids were in school and yet I was working ten-twelve hours a day to support my child and as a tax payer "her and her children too". Not to mention seeing them driving newer and better vehicles than what I drove. I actually discussed this with the case-workers of Section 8 numerous times and their frustration level was as high as mine. Our State needs to crack down on the abuse of the system and hire investigators to stop the fraud. We are spending millions of dollars a year to support fraud, theft and abuse of our tax dollars and if a drug test will get many of these abusers out of the system then it's a good start! They should require it for any and all assistance programs in our state.
Does Sen. James Settelmeyer have a wife who runs a drug testing company?
That's "conveniently" how it worked in Florida.
It was a waste of money then and it's a waste of our money now.
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!
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
we dole out $1 Trillion dollars in welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing
it's about time it comes with CONDITIONS -
if you test positive for controlled substances then you should NEVER be eligible to collect welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, tax money - NEVER - FOR LIFE
the tests should be recurring EVERY 30 DAYS for as long as the welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing types are collecting ANY tax money -
INCLUDING MEDICAID - do illegal controlled substance drugs and you're out FOREVER
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!
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...
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. From jail they can't keep popping out babies and they can't teach their next generation how to live off of the system. Not to mention, maybe their kids will take the hint and become a true contributor to society, instead of doing what their Momma did. These people that commit fraud against the system teach their own kids how to do it and it's been going on for generations.
No pass no pay ....why give them 6 mo. assistance ....and free rehab ??? not a good bill....no pass no pay ,, that's the answer
For all you do gooders that say its cost more to test and that it does not save any money, I say this. So what!
I don't want to help anyone not willing to help themselves. Period!
We have a responsibility and accountability problem, and this is a start.
"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!)
"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.
This is a terrible idea. To those in our society that do not understand the power of addiction, this may sound like a good idea, but it's not. It will only create more problems. What's the plan for those that don't pass? Are we to just throw them on the street? What about the children of parents that don't pass?
Here is the link to the text of SB 89 that the Sun neglected to provide:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2...
The Sun thinks you should have to do the legwork of looking up the text of proposed legislation instead of simply including the link within news articles.
"The average welfare benefits for a single adult? Around $200 per month."
I believe those calculations are not based on facts.
There's monthly rent (some Section 8 vouchers pay upwards of $900-$1000 a month), TANF, WIC, prenatal, baby delivery, Medicaid, etc. etc. for generations to come. Oh, but wait... I forgot... the way our system is so stupidly set up; the children of the incarcerated will just end up with a family member who will then receive benefits (tax dollars) because the jailed Momma can't take care of her own kids anymore. So what's the answer?
(... waiting for the right-winger to propose jailing everyone on welfare... since they seem to think it's so much cheaper!)
I'd rather see them in jail suffering just a little... versus we, the tax payers paying their rent, groceries, etc. while they sunbath at the pool all day doing drugs, driving expensive cars, and having a free loading thug called a baby daddy illegally living there rent free too.
That's one of the problems. These women that have been taught to cheat the system know that decent people won't want to see their kids living on the street. They take advantage of that fact!
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.
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...
Welfare rolls going to drop 70 %.
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.
The average welfare benefits for a single adult? Around $200 per month
ksand99 do you really believe this? LOL
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.
"Florida proved that drug testing welfare recipients doesn't work, costs more than paying benefits, and doesn't discourage people from applying for benefits."
------------------------
And now Nevada Republicans wanna do it here?
Rarely is the question asked: Is our Republicans learning?
Nope.....................
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?
Here in "Flowerdough", the gubmint attempted this and discovered that it end up costing us taxpayers too much.
Besides that, Florida Governor Rick Scott was highly criticized because he wanted Solantic, a company OWNED BY HIS WIFE, to do the testing...
(www.tampabay.com/news/business/article11...)
This law is not well thought out.
The majority of drugs that people take, will clear out of your system in 72 hours.
So if you know when you are getting tested...you won't use (3 days) prior to being tested.
The only thing people can get caught for is pot..stays in the body much much longer, even then there are ways to get around it.
Seriously...we have bigger more important issues.
Not to mention...this FAILED BIG TIME IN FLORIDA.
Whats next testing for gambling???
Drug testing should be required for any public assistance including welfare, section 8, wic, unemployment, school meals, etc.
It's a question of right or wrong. The argument that it won't affect that many so don't test is ridiculous in my mind. You have to start somewhere to begin the process. In the short term it might cost more and not be cost effective but in the long term you will begin to chip away at the mindset of "I can collect and do drugs because they don't test"....
It's no different than not rewarding welfare moms with assistance when they have another baby. You have to start the weening process of lifelong assistance somewhere. The "not cost effective" argument is a short term excuse. You have to look at the potential long term effects on mindset.
Only a matter of time before someone introduced this bill. It's rather moot though because there are so many other things that a welfare recipient can blow his/her money on besides drugs. What about alcohol or cigaretts? How about Gambling too? There are too many variables here to 'police'.
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.
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.
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."
first of all let us explain something. i worked for the welfare dept for a lot of years, the only one who will be denied welfare is the parent. they will still get money for the children. they will borrow a child from another sibling that are already in prison, jail, or just gone to make up for the difference. plus when the parents are denied, they will end up in jail and then the county will have to pay for foster care school lunches, medical bills etc, it is not worth it.
Mbags I agree with your birth control idea. (Yes, I am a female) I have for years questioned why we keep paying out benefits to women that just keep popping out kids. And then, they in turn teach their kids how to receive benefits. There are many in the system that are "generational-life longer" recipients and they are keeping our needy seniors and family's who are down on their luck or affected by the economy from getting help because there aren't enough funds to go around. My opinion" make one mistake and we'll forgive you and help you get back on your feet (limited and timed out benefits). BUT, you are also told that if you get pregnant again while living on the tax dollars that you are off the system. They can be offered permanent or long term birth control options after the first Oooops". Or they can be forced to take birth control as long as they are receiving benefits. Just some ideas and my opinion, but we've got to start somewhere.
mikeygs is also correct in many ways... I did section 42 tax credit for years and in order to qualify we had to third party verify all income sources to insure you qualified as low income. A large number of these people were on Section 8! Needless to say, I was shocked to discover that there are MANY young adults (teens) who had a baby and Auntie or Grandma are given custody of their child now and receiving "foster care" monies to raise their own blood. And of course these are "generational-life longers" that I previously mentioned. One generation teaches the next how to live off of the system... it's been going on for way too long!
@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.
Wharfrat, then why is unemployment tied to the federal deficit??
Test them all.....freeloaders need not apply! I also see many section 8 housing abuses. Let's start there.
I also think many of the posters here should be tested before they can post their drivel.
I think this is a good start. I have a sister that has 4 kids with 3 different baby daddies and guess what each and every birth has been paid for by the taxpayers of Las Vegas!!! 900$ a month in food stamps, free medical, and electricity paid for again by us! I begged her to have an abortion each time after the 1st one, then I begged her to get on birth control. Nothing worked. She is now a Meth addicted prostitute so she pawned the kids off on the last baby daddy and he gets all those benefits and then some. Its ridiculous, I would love to have my tubes tied but cant because I cant afford medical coverage. But she could get it free and wont! These women should be forced to be on birth control or have their tubes tied!! I get that everyone has rights but really where are mine? I'm forced to pay for mass breeders and there is no relief in sight! Ugh
I agree that there are many abusers to the system. I say, whatever it takes, we need to help those in need and eliminate those that abuse. I was at WalMart the other day and a healthy young lady was buying a cart load of merchandise. That merchandise was paid for with multiple payment cards which told me they were probably welfare debit cards. Her purchases included many junk food items and items that a person in need could do without.
@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.
Maybe we could force women on welfare to prove they are having sex to receive contraception!
Then if we locate the man they are coupling with we can order a vasectomy if the man is a welfare recipient.
We can then order stool samples of all kids on welfare to make sure they aren't drinking Kool-Aid and other sugary drinks.
We can then begin doing physical inspections, hey, if you are fat, an instant 20% reduction in food stamps. If you are obese, a 4th floor apartment, forced relocation.
We can order those 3 week tattoo's on their foreheads that say "Loser" on them, we can put them to work for tea party folks ironing their cones...
There is so much joy in degrading poor people, any other idea's?
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?
"Mbags I agree with your birth control idea. (Yes, I am a female) I have for years questioned why we keep paying out benefits to women that just keep popping out kids."
------
because the mindset is you are punishing the innocent child for the the mothers irresponsibility. The flaw in that argument is you will never right that wrong until you DO deny that innocent child. It's a means to an end...and there will be innocent casualties, but that is the ONLY way to stop the cycle of lifelong and generation to generation welfare. You have to start somewhere.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!
Some of these left winger comments are utterly ignorant.
If I have to pass a drug test to have the ability to pay for these people to collect on welfare, they sure as heck should have to pass a drug test to have the ability to collect my hard earned tax dollars.
This is a simple concept, please quit with your emotional appeals and understand that these entitlements are what is running this country into the ground. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.
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.
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.
"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?
The BDR is not enacted yet. If you have such great ideas, contact your Legislators and get the verbiage tweaked before they vote.
"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.
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.
@BGHS1986- I have no disdain for people that are poor. My issue is that they continue to breed excessively knowing they cant afford to care for their children. When my hours were cut at my job and I lost my medical for myself and daughter, I went and applied for insurance for her even offering to pay $100-$150 a month. The clerk said "Oh, you only have one child?" I said yes.. She replied with "Well you'd only qualify on your income if you have another child." WTF???? Really so go get knocked up so you can provide medical for both my kids then and pay $25k for delivery of the 2nd one? Your 100% dillusional if you believe there arent a bunch of women having children to keep the benefits. I'm all for helping elderly and disabled. Also someone that just hit a rough spot and needs a hand up! But life long welfare families? Get a grip! And your little 60 month rule for TANF is bull*hit! My sister has been getting $$ for her 9 year old since he was born! Try again!
@ANGELLEE...."And your little 60 month rule for TANF is bull*hit! My sister has been getting $$ 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.
bghs1986 -- You obviously haven't been around a low income entity and have very little first hand knowledge about the fraud that goes on with our tax dollars. No one defrauding the government is going to Google how they did it and that seems to be the only place you got your information. Also, you are simply touting TNAF figures. What about all the other low income/welfare assistance? Section 8, WIC, Medicaid, Food Stamps, child care, etc. Section 8 has NO time out period. Which is why MANY woman keep getting pregnant when their oldest drops off as a dependent. The more children a low income or no income woman has, the more benefits she receives! That means more rent that is paid on her behalf, more food stamps she receives, the more Medicaid she receives, etc.
I am one of those "people" that have personally witnessed the freeloading that goes on. Maybe you should go work at a HUD or Section 42/Section 8 community, and you'll quickly see the fraud that goes on.
I'm not saying it's everybody on the program; there are honest and decent people that have real needs and they utilize it long enough to get back on their feet. Then there are the life-longer freeloaders that milk it and they KEEP others that truly need it from getting help, because there are not enough funds to go around. It can take up to two-three years on a waiting list to get Section 8 now. God forbid anyone of us needs a roof over our heads or assistance with rent, because we'd be living in a box down on the strip. Why? Because there are so many life-longer freeloaders that have stayed on the voucher program for AS LONG as they can. This large percentage of people have no intention of getting off the system when we the tax payers just keep supporting them. I'd also like to mention that ALL women in the system qualified because of the children they gave birth to. We paid the prenatal and the delivery and we are paying to raise them too! It DOES benefit a woman to get pregnant if she wants Section 8 to continue paying her rent; in particular, when an older child ages out. Not to mention, the more children she has, the more subsidized or full rent that will be paid on her behalf.
Again, I AM one of the people that have personally witnessed fraud! Women on Section 8 qualified with her children, NOT a baby daddy, not a live in boyfriend, friend with benefits, etc. Yet she gets all these tax dollar benefits as a single mother and then she moves the freeloading man in her rent free place. When you report it to her case-worker and when and if an investigation is performed, the woman lies through her teeth and claims he's the baby sitter she needs for the kids, so she can look for a job. All the while, he's really one of the baby daddy's. So, unless you actually have first-hand knowledge and you didn't just Google to get your information, I recommend you spend a little time at a low income apartment community and then come back and post your comment. I'm willing to bet your opinion will drastically change!
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.
My sister has been getting $$ for her 9 year old since he was born!"
Chances are she has been receiving SSI for this child since the birth of the child. You are eligible for SSI payments if you are low income and have a qualifying illness. SSI 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. Again, this is part of the problem. Women that can't afford the kids they have already (thus they are low income and living on the system) and then they get pregnant a second or third time and we pay for the prenatal care, delivery bills, etc. Then one of the children becomes entitled to SSI because the Mother is low income and the child has some form of qualifying illness. The Mother will be paid these benefits until the child reaches the age of 18, plus, she'll get Medicaid for the child as well.
People who intend to milk the system know the ins and outs and have either been taught or learned how to get EVERYTHING that they are illegible to receive. Many are pro's at getting every dime they can off of the tax payers.
People applying for welfare SHOULD have to be drug tested... hell, I have to submit to drug testing every time I apply for a job .... if it's not a violation of MY rights then why is it considered a violation of potential welfare cheaters rights? The problem with the person being on drugs and then applying for welfare is that fact that if the person is on drugs they couldn't get a job even if they wanted one (which many do NOT)... that should NOT make them eligible for welfare simply because they don't have a job if the reason they can't get one is because they couldn't pass a pre-employment required drug test. What's good for one (working class) is good for all (moochers).
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.
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.
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?
BrookeLogan- "All of you smug, self-righteous people are pathetic with your misplaced anger!"
Brook, It appears that you are the one that's angry" and name calling too. Smug? Self-Righteous? I don't for one second think I am better than anyone else. BUT, I do believe in right and wrong, as well as people not taking advantage of a hand out longer than needed, to help them get back on their feet. You like others commenting on this site have NO IDEA about the reality of what goes on by MANY living off of the system.
" You keep repeating LIES about welfare recipients because it makes you feel superior".
I have not told ONE LIE about my first-hand knowledge or witnessing the poor (fraudulent) choices that many women have made in order for them to remain living off of the system, in one way or another. What I have said is TRUE and FACTUAL. Like I've told others" Go work on a HUD, Section 42 or primarily Section 8 property and then come back and tell me who's a smug, self-righteous liar.
To elaborate on my previous comments about fraud on this post. I'll go even a step further. I've also witnessed MANY women here in Las Vegas receiving tax dollar benefits and working under the table; some as an exotic dancer, escort or prostitute. Yes, unreported income that is not taxable or traceable and it doesn't count against their "low income".
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Show me a citizenry/society that is willing to reveal their bio-chemistry to their government and I'll show you ways their government can control and strip its citizenry of nearly every right and liberty they ever possessed.
Those that forfeit their privacy for the promise of security deserve neither.
: {
bghs1986 and BrookeLogan --Not a liar and yes, I clearly understand the definition and parameters of the SSI benefits. SSI PAYS for a number of things to include Dermatitis (example: Psoriasis is one on the list).
http://www.ssa.gov/disability/profession...
I'll give you two case and points : One on how "I" could have lived off of the system and two, myself witnessing how someone HAS lived off of the system. And yes, the second case had been reported by me, along with many others through the years.
My daughter has struggled with Psoriasis since childhood and although I wasn't low income, due to an unfortunate situation, I became a single Mother when my Daughter's Father died when she was five. Had I been low income, my daughter would have qualified for SSI and Medicaid. My Granddaughter was born with Asthma and has been treated for the condition almost six years now. That too is a listed disability. Again, if my daughter was low income my Granddaughter would qualify for benefits as well. If we were low income, all we would need to prove evidence is a treating doctors' evaluation. The point here is that IF I had chosen to keep having babies, and not better myself, by building a career after my daughter's father death, I could have been one of those women that relied on the system to take care of me.
The other end of the spectrum: I have what I will refer to as an acquaintance. He would be considered "slow" by any definition and considering he couldn't even get his high school diploma he's left with working menial jobs (when he does work). He met a woman that had been in the foster system most of her life. She did drugs, prostitution, etc. and for some unknown reason her birth certificate was not accurate. (This will come into play later) As a young adult woman, she delivered a couple of children by another man. Prior to them getting together, she lost custody of her children due to drugs and both the children's daddy's family was given custody of them, and the state paid for foster care. Because she couldn't stay clean, she eventually she gave up all her rights to the children. A few years later, she then became pregnant with one of my acquaintance's kids. This child was born with autism and the Mother collects SSI for the child. In the meantime, she claimed she couldn't get a job because of the error on her birth certificate. Another friend of mine paid an attorney and the courts to get her name issue resolved. While in court, she told my friend that she was so thankful for them for getting her birth certificate issue resolved, so she could now apply for disability!
To date, this woman is pregnant again and she has yet to marry the Father because she can receive so many benefits as a single low income woman. But then again, with him making minimum wage (when he does work), she would probably still be able to receive benefits is she were married to him. All four of her children have been delivered on the tax payer dollars and we've paid her benefits on and off for years, via prenatal care, delivery of the kids, TANF, WIC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, SSI for one child, and who knows, by now, she may be receiving disability for herself too. This is a classic example of a woman who has been taught to be a life-long freeloader living on our tax dollars. Yet, if she had been required to drug test or be forced to take birth control after the first child, while accepting benefits, she wouldn't be working on her fourth child and STILL living on the system in one way or another!
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.
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.