Reply #63: Answer a question with a question: What is this welfare of which you speak? [View All]

[OmahaBlueDog]

There is this widespread misconception among a whole huge segment of the population that the government is just handing out cash to layabouts. Nothing could be further from the truth, but let's examine this.

Section 8 (rent subsidy): OK, so we urine screen all applicants for rental assistance. Since we all know that, if they fail, it's unlikely this scenario extends any sort of treatment, the likelihood is that we end up with homeless drug users, who may or may not be able to get access to missions or shelters. I'm supposing that the argument here is that being forced into homelessness will cause these people to see the light, straighten out their lives, get married, and go to church. I'm not seeing it.

WIC: It's food assistance for moms with kids. OK, so we urine screen all applicants. Mom fails. So....we're doing what? Taking the infant and throwing the child in an orphanage? Starving the child? Envisioning some fantasy in which, seeing her starving child crying before her, Mom just kicks that meth habit, straightens out her life, gets married, and goes to church. I'm not seeing it.

LiHEAP and Weatherization: It's assistance with heating bills, and aid for caulking and insulating old houses. In some cases, assistance with replacing inefficient appliances is involved. OK, so we urine screen all applicants. They fail. So,now they are freezing addicts. Their kids freeze too. So... they go to shelters, or leave oven doors open, or run cars in garages. Some die, which probably makes a certain segment of wingnuts happy. Again, I'm supposing that the argument here is that being forced into freezing will cause these people to see the light, straighten out their lives, get married, and go to church. I'm not seeing it.

EBT (or, the program formerly known as food stamps): Off at a tangent - I can never think of food stamps without thinking of the Robert Redford movie "The Milagro Beanfield War", in which a character utters the following line - "Hey, man! You can't buy bullets with food stamps!" But, I digress. Food stamps (which was actually intended to prevent the consequences of malnutrition that made many Americans 4F for the draft in WWII)now come in the form of a debit card that is used at grocery stores and Wal Marts around America. I'm sure you have heard that many stores stay open all night on the 1st day of the month when the cards automatically refill. Again, I'm supposing that the argument here is that being forced into starvation, or forcing their kids to starve, will cause these people to see the light, straighten out their lives, kick cocaine or heroin, get married, and go to church. I'm not seeing it. What I see is starving people who will steal or kill to eat or feed their kids. More crime, and you ultimately pay to keep people in prison.

Many of those who want drug testing for "welfare applicants" are the same clueless bunch who want to solve illegal immigration by "shipping them all back to Mexico." All problems have simple solutions, and the US could implement these simple solutions -- except for those namby pamby crybaby liberals and their activist judges and the ACLU. Many others have an even simpler philosophy - "it's not my problem, and I don't want to pay for it."

So I have a simpler solution. Drug testing for driver's licenses. Bi-annually. It's not pleasant, and it's probably not necessary. However, it's fair. It's fair because the wealthy get tested right along with the poor. Your kid spent all semester at prep school smoking lettuce? Sorry -- he can't drive the Lexus. Maybe next year. What do you mean little Tiffany tested positive for cocaine? Sorry Tiff -- no Miata for your Sweet 16. Too bad. While we're at it, we should probably consider bi-annual physicals for driving, to make certain folks aren't going to have diabetic blackouts or heart attacks behind the wheel. And why stop at vehicles? Boats and personal watercraft -- I don't think the stoned or drunk should be yachting or jet skiiing.

OK, you don't like that one. How about drug testing prior to the receipt of farm subsidies? How about all applicants for federal contracts take drug tests? Perhaps recepients of alternative energy tax credits should provide a sample? Applicants for flood insurance -- there's something you need to do first. Writing off depreciation for that obsolete equipment? For those stock losses? We need a sample first!