Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[State] Rick Perry, Dewhurst Support Drug Testing for Welfare, Unemployment Benefits

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by percicles, Nov 14, 2012.

Tags:

Page 1 of 2

percicles Contributing Member

Joined:

Jun 11, 2002

Messages:

10,890

Likes Received:

2,930

This policy really worked well in Florida. Fiscal conservatives will applaud it.

Perry, Dewhurst support drug testing for welfare, unemployment benefits

Texas’ top two leaders on Tuesday endorsed a change in state law to require first-ever mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients and those receiving unemployment assistance.

Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said the move would keep welfare recipients from spending money on illegal drugs, instead of necessary living expenses for which it is intended, and would cut down on unemployment costs to businesses for unemployed Texans who cannot pass a drug test.

At least 23 other states including Florida have either implemented a similar change or are considering it, as welfare reform has become a key issue among conservatives and in cash-strapped states looking to tighten elegibility criteria and to curb abuses.

“Texas taxpayers will not subsidize or tolerate illegal drug abuse,” Perry said at a morning press conference to announce his support of the change. “Every dollar that goes to someone who uses it inappropriately is a dollar that can’t go to a Texan who needs it for housing, child care or medicine. Being on drugs makes it much harder to begin the journey to independence, which only assures individuals remain stuck in the terrible cycle of drug abuse and poverty.”

Dewhurst, noting he is the only “traditional business owner” among the state’s ladership who has had experience with hiring difficulties in the private workplace, said there are cases where businesses offer jobs to job candidates, only to have them flunk drug tests. In other cases, he said, applicants turn down jobs or ask that their start date be delayed so they can continue collecting a state unemployment check for several additional weeks.

“People on drugs are less dependable and they put businesses and other employees at risk,” Dewhurst said. “We owe it to all Texans to improve the structure on welfare and our unemployment benefits. This new approach to (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a welfare-to-work program) and unemployment brings it back to its original purpose.”

Drug users who flunked a mandatory test could be disqualified from receiving benefits for up to 12 months, the officials said. Dewhurst said they could qualify for treatment programs covered by the federal Medicaid program, if they were eligible.

Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, a powerful business lobby group, applauded the proposal — filed as a bill on Tuesday by state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. Senate Bill 11 has a low number because it is a high priority for passage, Dewhurst said.

Hammond said 80 percent of Texas employers are now requiring drug-testing of employees and prospective employees, as a condition of employment. If benefits are linked to passing a drug test, he said, more unemployed Texans will be more readily available for work when they apply.

Despite strong support from top state officials and lobby groups, other interest groups quickly questioned the idea — with some suggesting that it could lead to more unemployed, drug-addicted Texans ending up penniless, and perhaps in the criminal justice system that will cost taxpayers even more.

“How sad that our state’s highest elected officials have embraced this mean-spirited measure that would punish innocent children for their parents’ conduct,” said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas. “This proposal is a costly, ineffective, inhumane and punitive effort by state government based on stereotypes about our state’s neediest Texans.”

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/perry-dewhurst-support-drug-testing-for-welfare-un/nS5dT/
Click to expand...

For reference:

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows

Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.

The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton.

Attorneys for the state immediately appealed the ban, and will face off against the ACLU again at the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta and the U.S. District Court in Orlando in coming months.

The costs and benefits of the law — and the outcome of the court case — could reverberate nationwide. This week, Georgia passed its own drug welfare law.

Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last year, 25 states have considered similar legislation, Newton said.

Data about the law’s cost may impact the court of public opinion, but Jenn Meale, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said it won’t play a role in the legal proceedings.

That’s because ACLU’s case rests on whether the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against "unreasonable searches" by the government.

"Any costs associated with the program are irrelevant to the analysis of whether the statute is constitutional," Meale said.

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for mar1juana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

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.

The findings don’t ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn’t supplement drug use.

"It’s not about money, it’s about the drug issue," said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, who sponsored the legislation. "It’s about using every tool we have in the toolbox to fight drugs."

Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office, said the governor agreed: The drug welfare law is about protecting children and getting parents back to work.

"It is important to ensure that people who receive TANF dollars use the cash assistance appropriately and not spend it on illegal drugs," she said.

Smith said he believes the law helps keep people off drugs and that there’s undocumented savings in the form of less prison costs and fewer broken families.

He sponsored another bill in 2012, recently signed into law by Scott, to allow state agencies to drug test their employees and fire those who test positive.

That law is also expected to cost money and to yield lawsuits.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html
Click to expand...

#1 percicles, Nov 14, 2012

RocketMan Tex Contributing Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 1999

Messages:

18,452

Likes Received:

116

Somebody ought to drug test those two assclowns....

#2 RocketMan Tex, Nov 14, 2012
David Stern Member

Joined:

Oct 7, 2008

Messages:

1,021

Likes Received:

33

RocketMan Tex said: ↑

Somebody ought to drug test those two assclowns....
Click to expand...

I'm sure they would test positive for prescribed drugs...

#3 David Stern, Nov 14, 2012
Baba Booey Contributing Member

Joined:

Jul 25, 2012

Messages:

2,552

Likes Received:

899

you gotta love the logic:

"This program is costing us too much money. What can we do to alleviate costs? I know, we'll add an extra expense. Brilliant!"

At this point, with republicans complaining about 47% not paying income tax, with some voicing opinions that they should pay something (even though they are against raising taxes in EVERY OTHER INSTANCE), along with this nonsense about drug testing for welfare, it's clear that cost has nothing to do with it. These tactics are clearly punitive in nature.

#4 Baba Booey, Nov 14, 2012
DimeDropper Member

Joined:

Jul 8, 2012

Messages:

389

Likes Received:

25

No call for drug testing executives of Wall Street banks prior to receiving trillions in welfare?

#5 DimeDropper, Nov 14, 2012
ROXRAN Contributing Member

Joined:

Oct 12, 2000

Messages:

18,087

Likes Received:

4,433

Drugs bad. Wood good. .

#6 ROXRAN, Nov 14, 2012
Midixinormous Member

Joined:

Nov 3, 2012

Messages:

472

Likes Received:

27

I really don't understand why people are so against this, I think they should expand it to include all elected officials.

#7 Midixinormous, Nov 14, 2012

False Member

Joined:

Apr 26, 2011

Messages:

571

Likes Received:

99

Midixinormous said: ↑

I really don't understand why people are so against this, I think they should expand it to include all elected officials.
Click to expand...

Because many people who use drugs still need welfare benefits. Many children dependent on parents who are drug addicts need every dollar they can get even if 50 cents on every dollar goes to drugs. Because it is a fiscally irresponsible policy that sounds good, but takes a terrible human and economic toll. All of these are huge reasons not to pursue this policy.

But screw all that numbers mess and screw those kids who should have known better than be born to some deadbeat dads and moms. In fact, let's spend as much as it takes so that everyone has to get drug tests at least every week. Let's also require everyone to take lie detectors.

PAID FOR BY THE DRUG TESTING INDUSTRY OF TEXAS

#8 False, Nov 14, 2012
Major Member

Joined:

Jun 28, 1999

Messages:

41,434

Likes Received:

15,869

Midixinormous said: ↑

I really don't understand why people are so against this, I think they should expand it to include all elected officials.
Click to expand...

Because it's just a big taxpayer subsidy to drug testing companies. Like Voter ID, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist - as demonstrated by Florida. You end up spending more money to accomplish less.

#9 Major, Nov 14, 2012
Raven Member

Joined:

Jul 24, 2002

Messages:

14,984

Likes Received:

1,025

Political posturing.

#10 Raven, Nov 14, 2012
cml750 Member

Joined:

Jun 14, 2002

Messages:

5,898

Likes Received:

3,543

False said: ↑

Because many people who use drugs still need welfare benefits. Many children dependent on parents who are drug addicts need every dollar they can get even if 50 cents on every dollar goes to drugs. Because it is a fiscally irresponsible policy that sounds good, but takes a terrible human and economic toll. All of these are huge reasons not to pursue this policy.

But screw all that numbers mess and screw those kids who should have known better than be born to some deadbeat dads and moms. In fact, let's spend as much as it takes so that everyone has to get drug tests at least every week. Let's also require everyone to take lie detectors.
Click to expand...

I support the idea of drug testing welfare recipients. I get drug tested at work and would lose my job and income if I test positive which would obviously affect my children. You see I have to be a responsible adult. I know this is a novel concept, but why should the government keep giving money to drug abusers with children?? I would be in favor of a three strike rule for drug addicts with children. After the third strike, they lose the welfare and the children. If their parents can't get off of drugs for their children's sake then they are not fit to be parents.

#11 cml750, Nov 15, 2012
DimeDropper Member

Joined:

Jul 8, 2012

Messages:

389

Likes Received:

25

cml750 said: ↑

I support the idea of drug testing welfare recipients. I get drug tested at work and would lose my job and income if I test positive which would obviously affect my children. You see I have to be a responsible adult. I know this is a novel concept, but why should the government keep giving money to drug abusers with children?? I would be in favor of a three strike rule for drug addicts with children. After the third strike, they lose the welfare and the children. If their parents can't get off of drugs for their children's sake then they are not fit to be parents.
Click to expand...

Should farmers receiving price supports or ethanol credits be drug-tested?

#12 DimeDropper, Nov 15, 2012
cml750 Member

Joined:

Jun 14, 2002

Messages:

5,898

Likes Received:

3,543

DimeDropper said: ↑

Should farmers receiving price supports or ethanol credits be drug-tested?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that although I do have a problem with the ethanol mandate.

#13 cml750, Nov 15, 2012

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

Joined:

Oct 15, 2002

Messages:

16,596

Likes Received:

494

cml750 said: ↑

I support the idea of drug testing welfare recipients. I get drug tested at work and would lose my job and income if I test positive which would obviously affect my children. You see I have to be a responsible adult. I know this is a novel concept, but why should the government keep giving money to drug abusers with children?? I would be in favor of a three strike rule for drug addicts with children. After the third strike, they lose the welfare and the children. If their parents can't get off of drugs for their children's sake then they are not fit to be parents.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Texas will pay far more than it will save with this policy, right?

#14 GladiatoRowdy, Nov 15, 2012
Rocket River Member

Joined:

Oct 5, 1999

Messages:

61,787

Likes Received:

29,161

YES!!! Let's have a bunch of drug addicted people who have no money or means to get money . . .. loose on the streets.

I am sure someone strung out on meth, bath salts or crack
will be a perfectly safe and calm member of society . . . . . esp if they are homeless, hungry and fiending . .. .
WHEW!! Bring on Utopia!!

Rocket River

#15 Rocket River, Nov 15, 2012
Classic Member

Joined:

Dec 21, 2007

Messages:

6,101

Likes Received:

608

Major said: ↑

Because it's just a big taxpayer subsidy to drug testing companies. Like Voter ID, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist - as demonstrated by Florida. You end up spending more money to accomplish less.
Click to expand...

You're motivated if your Rick Perry's bro and own the franchise rights to Any Lab Test Now! in the urban areas of the big cities in Texas and you make Perry a member of your corporation as a 'silent' advisor.

http://www.anylabtestnow.com/

#16 Classic, Nov 15, 2012

2 people like this.
David Stern Member

Joined:

Oct 7, 2008

Messages:

1,021

Likes Received:

33

Classic said: ↑

You're motivated if your Rick Perry's bro and own the franchise rights to Any Lab Test Now! in the urban areas of the big cities in Texas and you make Perry a member of your corporation as a 'silent' advisor.

http://www.anylabtestnow.com/
Click to expand...

Interesting....

#17 David Stern, Nov 15, 2012
David Stern Member

Joined:

Oct 7, 2008

Messages:

1,021

Likes Received:

33

Classic said: ↑

You're motivated if your Rick Perry's bro and own the franchise rights to Any Lab Test Now! in the urban areas of the big cities in Texas and you make Perry a member of your corporation as a 'silent' advisor.

http://www.anylabtestnow.com/
Click to expand...

Where did you get that info from?

#18 David Stern, Nov 15, 2012

cml750 Member

Joined:

Jun 14, 2002

Messages:

5,898

Likes Received:

3,543

GladiatoRowdy said: ↑

You do realize that Texas will pay far more than it will save with this policy, right?
Click to expand...

That is possible, but what does money have to do with it? The benefit of testing is that the state will not be paying for illegal drug use and will also help to identify homes where children are raised by drug addicts. Often times children raised in these situations grow up to do the same thing. This could help break the cycle. This would require people to be responsible to receive benefits. If these people could get off of drugs, they may be able to find employment and get off of welfare all together. Do you really support just giving away things to drug addicts? Do you support leaving children in homes being raised by drug addicts?

#19 cml750, Nov 15, 2012
Classic Member

Joined:

Dec 21, 2007

Messages:

6,101

Likes Received:

608

David Stern said: ↑

Where did you get that info from?
Click to expand...

I was using the scenario as a hypothetical. It's obvious though in seeking this type of policy somebody stands to profit and tax payers stand to lose.

#20 Classic, Nov 15, 2012

(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Page 1 of 2

Share This Page