I don't know who wrote this article (to your left), but he is a genius. I never thought of this, but requiring that welfare recipients pass a drug screen would probably save taxpayers a great deal of money.What I want to know is how can anyone argue with this? What could anyone possibly say to refute the logic of this proposal?
I guarantee someone will raise the race issue. Maybe they are right. Maybe we do look at things too much in terms of race in the United States.
Because we have been led by the nose in that direction. Let me paint a picture...
LuAnn got pregnant right after high school. Anthony, her boyfriend, deals dope. He threw some money her way for awhile, but he ended up in prison, so now she gets nothing. She goes through a string of men, none of which are very nice, and they never stick around. LuAnn gets her housing from HUD, her food on her food-stamp card, and HUD even helps her pay her utilities. She can't afford to get a car, but her brother tells her if she moves a little dope for him, she can make enough for a nice ride, and maybe some decent clothes for herself and her daughter.
I could go on, but you get the picture. This could be anybody anywhere. I've known plenty of white people who lived this life. I've seen plenty of black and hispanic people living this way,too. So what is the root of it all?
Many claim economic issues are the root cause. Many claim that this is an urban issue. A lot of people claim that it is a lifestyle choice, typical of "white trash", blacks, and hispanics. I know one guy in particular that would claim it was a racial problem, even as he raises his children on his own because his ex-wife is living this way.
The real problem is based on a lack of values, work-ethic, or family structure. We are afraid to assume that we are right in this country, and so we adopt an apologist view when it comes to welfare and social services. Don't get me wrong, I understand that people do fall on hard times and need help. But how do we justify people who are 45 years old and have never paid rent or held a job. We are no longer helping, we are supporting. People want to talk about term limits for politicians, but what about limits on social services and welfare?
In a NORMAL household, there is a mother and a father, there is at least one source of income, and the two parents raise the children together. Things happen. People split up, fall on hard times, or whatever. So we have a wonderful system in our country to help people get on their feet. This system was created by people who understood that we are all responsible for each other as citizens of the greatest country on Earth. I don't believe that this system was created to take the place of the family or gainful employment.
We should enforce our values. We should reestablish the nuclear family as the expected norm in our society. We should see to it that people are held responsible for their actions. I have noticed that in America, only those who take responsibility are held responsible. That's not really how it is supposed to work. Maybe we do need to educate people who need help. Maybe job training is the answer.
I do know that urinalysis for food stamps, HUD, and other programs is certainly a step in the right direction.
What do you think?
5 comments:
Great idea. It would eliminate a large percentage of welfare recipients. Let's start now. I'm tired of seeing parents proudly show their children how to use their food stamp cards. I'm tired of seeing kids proudly learning to use food stamp cards. It never seems to occur to any of them that maybe food's not really free, that maybe someone, somewhere, is paying for it. Drug test them, set a time limit to get a job, give them job training, and require them to learn English.
I know quite a few families in southern Louisiana that may loose their "free money"
To let you know i attribute 1/16th of my ex's problem to native american heritage, now that i got that out of the way.
Who's my little cream puff!!!
And who the f@ck is bulldog 22g?
Bulldog 27.
p.s. don't get your panties in a bunch about the 1/16th comment, it applies only as a stereotype, not to you personnally
I AM! I AM!
This proposal definetly has constitutional law implications. Mainly Equal protection under the 14th amendment and believe it or not due process. Once a person gets on welfare they actually have a right to it. The government can't take it away from them unless it gives them due process....i.e. some type of hearing. The courts would be flooded. It might work to keep people from getting it...alter the requirements to get on it, but it would be hard to revoke those who are already on it. That may not even work because of equal protection. This is where the race thing comes in. If African americans can show that they are more likely to be on welfare and or be drug adicts, then we have a problem. Racial issues encounter strict scrutiny standars in the courts. This means in order to take away something...like welfare, the state has to have a compelling governmental interest, and the means have to be narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest. Since the welfare system has been working this way for years, it would probably be hard to show that compelling intrest when wayed against the needs of the drug addicts. Another hurdle lies in the americans with disabilities act. It has been argued, and succesfully in certain jurisdictions, that drug addiction is a disease that warrants protection under the ADA. It would take me several pages to fully explain all of these topics, but thats the gist. Needless to say, its not gonna happen. I do think that it is an excellent idea though. I wish our bleeding heart country would get some balls.
Post a Comment