Posted on 04/22/2010 6:09:23 AM PDT by Ebenezer
BATON ROUGE -- Having failed multiple times to get approval for his proposal to expand drug testing of public assistance recipients, Rep. John LaBruzzo retooled the bill Wednesday to focus on pregnant women.
With that strategic shift, the House Health and Welfare Committee voted without dissent to require that the state test 20 percent of those who receive aid from the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant Program. The priority would be on pregnant women, and no one who tests positive would lose benefits as long as they enter state-paid treatment programs.
LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, brought with him to committee several recovering drug addicts who are former welfare recipients. "If we can't identify the problem," LaBruzzo said, "we can't offer help."
That's a far cry from LaBruzzo's emphasis in the fall of the 2008, when he said government should explore ideas to encourage sterilization of women on welfare, and in 2009, when he framed welfare drug testing primarily as a money saver, presumably by denying or reducing benefits to people who tested positive and refused treatment.
His amended House Bill 617 now moves to the House floor, though it is possible that the House budget committee may end up having a say on the bill because of the associated costs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Pelican State ping
Good. It is truly a shame this bill doesn’t go as far as originally intended, but it IS a step in the right direction.
if you think Katrina sent a whole lot of people from those wards scurrying for Houston, just wait and watch if THIS passes...
Good, it’s about time. I’m sick to death of the freeloaders. This is why local charities did such a better job of helping the poor over what government does. Big, bloated, .70-.80 on the dollar used for administration, don’t have a clue as to who they are helping. Where as most charities are the exact opposite, with .10-.30 on the dollar going to admin. And the poor put a face to who they are getting help from, instead of just getting obama money that they haven’t a clue where it’s actually coming form.
While I wish the best for this effort, I can just hear the aggrieved howling from DC now. Up there this will go over about as well as a turd in the punchbowl.
Then maybe it will provide incentive to more states to pass such laws.
And why not the men as well?
This is America. The greatest country in the history of ever. You have the ability to reach for the stars. you have the ability to be an immigrant like Andrew Carnegie and become one of the richest men in the world. Likewise, you have the ability and right to fail. It seperates the wheat from the chaff.
We are the most charitable country in the world and our charity is more effective and bountiful than any mandated government program.
End WIC, food stamps, welfare, Section8 housing, free cell phones, utility subsidies, etc etc. You have the unalienable right to be an abject failure. I have the right to donate to your cause.... but when you use government to force distribution of my money at the point of a gun, it is abhorrent tyranny.
That - my FRiends - is one slippery slope.
Good luck To Rep. LaBruzzo on any of his proposals.
You’re not suggesting that some welfare recipients are spending their money on drugs are you?
That’s Racist
</sarc>
>>End WIC, food stamps, welfare, Section8 housing, free cell phones, utility subsidies, etc etc. You have the unalienable right to be an abject failure.<<
The problem is that these baby producing machines understand that American taxpayers will not cut them off because of their children. We cannot allow the children to suffer because of the actions of their irresponsible parent.
I will never sacrifice the financial security of my family in order to prevent someone else's child from suffering. Sorry, but everything has an order of priority.
There is no motivation like necessity. If we reward bad behavior, we will get bad behavior. If we make it so having 15 kids is no longer lucrative, there will be less incentive to engage in this behavior.
We still have soup kitchens, church groups, shelters, etc. Do not underestimate the American people. Also, don't believe that these people are just going to sit on the couch and starve to death with their kids.
While on the face value I agree welfare recipients shouldn't have their habits financed by taxpayers (especially when so many taxpayers have to undergo urinalysis for their employment) more government is not, and never will be, the answer. This is exactly what this program will bring.... more expensive bureaucracy.
I'd be willing to bet that it'd be cheaper to BUY the drugs FOR the welfare recipients than pay for the urinalysis and bureaucracies. Remember, government is the only ones to lose money running a whore house (Nevada) and a monopoly gambling institution (New Yawk's OTB).
If we continue at this rate, we will encourage others to do the same. Eventually (and it's coming) they will run out of our money...... Detroit and California are prime examples of this. 1/3 of Maryland's millionaires left because of the increase in taxes. We will never be able to bring their standard of living UP to ours through social programs, rather we will bring our standard of living DOWN to theirs.
"For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat." II Thessalonians 3:10 NKJV
If the government institutes a tax to pay for their WIC, food stamps, welfare, Section8 housing, free cell phones, utility subsidies, etc etc. , you will pay it. If you don’t you will suffer the consequences.... which will sacrifice the financial security of your family.
Correct?
Welfare is like having lice. It continues to grow until everyone in the community has it. It infects every area of your life when your neighbor is collecting free payments from YOU.
I have no idea how to abolish it without being cruel.
The only way I could figure is saying after 01 Jan 2013 (or a date some 2 years away) xx, yy, zz programs will no longer exist. From 23 April 2010, new applicants will not be accepted.
This way, there are warnings. We need to make the resolutions legally binding and that they remove the infrastructure to support the programs; this way the dems can't pull an 11th hour vote on 31 Dec to reinstate them.
That’s an idea that i hadn’t thought of. I like it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.