Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Public to N.C. politicians: You pee first

It's a little indelicate but the folks at Action NC want to make a point. They want you to send a pee cup to your legislator. The, ah, urine receptacle aims to "send a strong message to lawmakers" about a bill the N.C. Senate passed to require all welfare recipients to take a drug test before they can get benefits.

The proposal, which passed the Senate Monday on a party line vote - only one Democrat voted for it and no Republicans voted against it,would require that those applying for Work First benefits pay first for a drug test. If they pass the drug test, the $100 costs would be reimbursed. If they fail, they wouldn't get the money back nor get benefits for at least a year when they can reapply.

Action NC, a grassroots community organization focused on helping low and moderate income residents, called the idea a "political stunt." They noted that by the state's own estimates, the plan is not likely to save a dime on catching welfare recipients doing drugs - studies show they are no more likely than people not on welfare to engage in that activity - and it will cost at least $2 million to implement.

"One good political stunt deserves another," the group noted - thus, the pee cup.
"You can send a pee cup to your State Senator with a small $8 donation to Action NC. We will tell the N.C. General Assembly that if they are going to require drug tests for North Carolina residents, then they should pee first."

On Monday, Democratic state Sen. Gladys Robinson tried to do that when she introduced an amendment that would require drug tests for lawmakers, the governor and cabinet secretaries. Makes sense. They're on the public dole too. But GOP state Sen. Tom Apodaca nixed that using a substitute amendment as a parliamentary maneuver to kill the proposal.

Democratic Sen. Martin Nesbitt made sure lawmakers and the public listening in knew what was happening: "The substitute amendment is offered to have the effect of killing the other amendment. You need to know that before you vote because you'll be killing the one that requires a drug test of the leaders of this state since we want to require it for the followers of this state. And we seem to be getting into a situation where we're kind of above the people."

Do tell.

This unwise idea came up a couple of years ago when House Speaker Thom Tillis was overheard suggesting it. We said then that the plan was costly, wasteful and probably illegal. The only people likely to benefit from such an idea are drug-testing companies.

The real losers could be children of people who need public assistance, many of them children of middle-income parents, who in this depressed economy, have had to ask for state aid. Many of these families might not be able to come up with the $100 cost to do the test, or might struggle mightilty to get it while their families go without other necessities. And even if their parents do test positive for drug use, is it really humane for their children to be penalized for it? Isn't it better to get the parents into treatment than to cut off benefits to needy kids?

Lawmakers should rethink this idea.




19 comments:

CharlotteObserver said...

If you need it the Observer does this all over the conservatives everyday. So just catch some of it and... oh wait you want to pass, sorry the drug test.

Oh and one of the words to prove I am not a robot is Flush, how delightful the observer is.

John said...

So explain to me exactly, why it is OK for my employer to require drug tests before they hire me but it's some horrible wrong to require that welfare recepients, who are paid their benefits with our tax money to pass the same test?

This is where liberalism runs off the rails!

John said...

"And even if their parents do test positive for drug use, is it really humane for their children to be penalized for it? Isn't it better to get the parents into treatment than to cut off benefits to needy kids?"

Typical Fannie nonsense. If the parents test positive, isn't it really more humane to get those at-risk children OUT of that home? What makes you think that any benefits received would actually find it's way into the child's mouth instead of into the parent's arm? Geez, you don't spend much time in reality do you? Does the Observer have drug testing?

Dena said...

John, I totally agree with you and I am a diehard Independent with Democrat sympathies. I am constantly railing against GOP stupidity. And I totally agree with this legislation. Not only was I required to submit to a drug test BEFORE I was even granted a job interview, but then I had to agree to submit to random drug testing throughout the length of my employment. If you aren't doing something illegal, then it shouldn't bother you if you are asked to submit

John said...

Oh, and Fannie... how do you get the parents into treatment if you don't test to find out they need it? Again, your reasoning doesn't ride the train all the way to the station!

John said...

Mandatory drug testing... if it's good enough for the men and women of our armed forces who defend our freedoms, then it's good enough for those who benefit from the services and assistance our nation's tax money provide!

Intolerantone said...

"Studies show they are no more likely than people not on welfare to engage in that activity - and it will cost at least $2 million to implement."

If you drug test them you will "KNOW" vesrus "NOT KNOW" if they the tax payor money is being spent on what it was intended for. Why is that Libs so badly don't want to find that out? Also, since when is a lib concerned with wasting money???

Bill said...

Florida instituted drug testing in 2011. Their own reporting shows only 2.6% of applicants failed the test. 96% passed.

The program has cost Florida tens of millions of dollars and is currently in court.

So, keep up the good work Republicans - way to waste more taxpayer dollars on another non-existent problem.

Intolerantone said...

Again, waste and cost have nothing to do with the "real" issue liberals have with this proposed legislation. It is actually the accountability factor that infuriates the libs.

CharlotteObserver said...

Just more intrusion, just like requiring ids to vote, into the protected class of this country.

Protect those people who want the most protection by not requiring anything from them.

Intolerantone said...

Again, waste and cost have nothing to do with the "real" issue liberals have with this proposed legislation. It is actually the accountability factor that infuriates the libs.

Intolerantone said...

Again, waste and cost have nothing to do with the "real" issue liberals have with this proposed legislation. It is actually the accountability factor that infuriates the libs.

Skippy said...

CharlotteObserver said...

Wait until Obamacare kicks in genius...

I do pee and pay taxes and is sick and tired of supporting the welfare class that oh by the way votes Democrat..

boozer 52 said...

I work for a living and have to take PEE tests several times a year for my job, this is a typical response from the left when they really don't have an argument, they try and make a joke out of the subject. I have seen this happen many times. Sorry Fannie it doesn't work anymore!

Wiley Coyote said...

This is peanuts.

They may pick off a few people, but does nothing to eradicate or greatly curtail the billions in fraud from these programs by people NOT on drugs.

The USDA will not allow school systems to audit more than 3% of application for the school lunch program, yet they overpay benefits by $1.5 BILLION dollars per year.

If the NC legislature wants to really do something, demand our reps in Washington force the USDA to audit these programs they provide.

John said...

Denial is the first sign of sickness.

Stu said...

It's not so much the urine sample requirement as the $100 requirement from the people who don't have $100. That's why they need assistance. Your employer didn't ask you for $100 to cover your drug test and promise to give it back if they hired you.

kantstanzya said...

Gee...now the mean GOP wants people who live on money provided by hard working taxpayers to prove they are not spending it on drugs. How cruel. Next thing you know America will be denying welfare benefits to people like the Tsarnaev brothers who used theirs to buy bomb making materials and kill innocent people. Where is our humanity?

cooldela1966 said...

Just because you do drugs does not mean you should not be able to get government money. How else are you going to pay for the drugs? Encouraging drug addicts to apply for benefits is good for society. How? I'm not too sure but it must be something to do with how they vote.