Posted on 06/18/2016 5:40:00 PM PDT by ErikJohnsky
Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., in February. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) A Congresswoman who is “sick and tired” of drug testing welfare recipients has introduced a bill in Congress that would subject the rich to many of those same requirements.
Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., unveiled Thursday the Top 1% Accountability Act, which would require those claiming itemized deductions of more than $150,000 on their tax returns to submit to drug tests or file for less generous tax deductions.
The proposal is a shot across the bow at Republican governors in states, including Moore’s home state of Wisconsin, that require the recipients of certain welfare benefit programs to be drug tested in order to remain eligible to receive assistance.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
>>”For the sake of argument, welfare is welfare, be it for poverty or special tax relief. (s/?)”
Yeppers. It’s all the government’s money whether they let you keep it or give it to someone else..
</s>
All money rightfully belongs to government, you see.
They are welcome to keep their constitutional rights as long as they paying their own way.
If you are collecting welfare, WIC food Stamps, AFDC, Section 8, etc, you have surrendered your rights, much as a minor child has few rights before their parents.
IIRC, when I signed on for my time in the navy, there was a form where I acknowledged certain portions of the Bill of rights no longer applied to me.
Drug tested to get your money back from the Government ? All Politicians should be Drug Tested once a month
Um...Gwen Moore isn’t grandstanding. She really IS certifiably INSANE!
Her son, ‘Grand Poobah Allah Sunshine (or whatever he calls himself this week) was the one arrested years ago for slashing the tires of Republican vans that were taking voters to the polls.
She, ‘represents’ the criminals and malcontents and useless feeders of Milwaukeestan. And by gawd, she does onehelluva job!
*SPIT*
The difference is that it’s their money.
The idiot obviously can’t understand that.
LOL. Wonder who would pass? So much crack in DC
So, um workers, police, military etc... are tested randomly and when deemed appropriate... but that’s okay because... the machine has to be fed?
A position like this is based on the premise that all income is owned by the government, and any you get to keep is a gift. That is the view of a tyrant.
I actually agree with you, but I also don’t like having my money forcibly taken from me and given to someone that spends it getting high, which is not a necessity and usually prevents them from getting or keeping a job. Why do I have to work hard to support their lifestyle?
Random breathalyzers too. For all of them.
Not saying that I suspect anything, just that it would be reassuring (and it would convey the best message to our young folks.)
Perhaps we should insist that they recite the full body of American law, from the immortal words “We hold these truths to be self-evident” to the present... ;-)
Maybe a different stroke is needed. If any of the welfare recipients are found to have purchased illegal drugs, then they will be shorted that amount of money the next month. The money is earmarked for their and their family’s survival. Buying drugs doesn’t qualify. So. if they are caught, and it is against the law, then jail them and remove their funds for the time they are incarcerated. After all, they are being fed and housed during that time.
red
I like it too. Why not? Rich take drugs too probably more then the poor. They have resources to keep them out of trouble.
I think that it is completely appropriate at the time when one signs up for public assistance, that they sign a form acknowledging the waiver of certain rights. Like their right to privacy with respect to drug usage as a condition of that assistance.
With respect to Ben Franklin...the poor must be driven from their lot, not by giving them benefits from the public treasury...but by making their lives so uncomfortable that they change them of their own volition.
We already drug test the military, why not Congress?
“A few years ago, I was let go from my job in a corporate re-organization. I was given the option of receiving 6 months pay in exchange for a one year non-compete.”
This type of behavior by corporations encourages voters to support more regulation of the private sector. Corporations want “at will” employment where they have the right to terminate employment for any reason at any time. At they same time they kick people to the street they insist on tying the ex employees hands by infringing on the ability of employees to obtain future employment (non-compete agreements) and the ex-employee constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech (non-disparagement). In some cases employers will write incentive compensation “claw back” clauses into severance agreements.
If we truly had “free market” at will employment, the employee’s obligation to the employer would end at the point the employee is no longer receiving compensation. If the employer wishes to place contractual limitations on the ex employee’s “at will” employment rights, or the constitution right of free speech, the employee should be entitled to full compensation during the period these limitations on freedom are in effect. The ex employee should be paid a full year’s salary for a one year non-compete clause. The employee who is required to sign a non-disparagement agreement in perpetuity should receive compensation in perpetuity for this restriction on his/her constitutional right.
One might argue the employee can refuse the severance payment and not have his/her rights restricted. Businesses know the financial circumstances of the terminated employee, or the economic conditions in the economy, result in most terminated management and administrative employees needing severance payments to help bridge the upcoming gap in employment. Employers therefore have the upper hand in placing long term obligations on former employees in exchange for limited compensation. Note that executive severance agreements are typically lucrative and match the period of ex employee obligation to the period of compensation while the severance requirements for managers and administrative people, the most economically vulnerable, are more likely to involve restrictions with little or no compensation.
This is one more instance where the “free” market results in employers taking advantage of workers and intervention by government is required to balance the scale to prevent exploitation. Restrict the ex employee for a year, pay the employee for a year. To do otherwise results in a situation of involuntary servitude prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Contractually limiting an individual’s market freedom or constitutional rights, without compensating them during the period the individual’s freedom is restricted, is involuntary servitude.
“but she is right in that you do not give up your constitutional rights when you accept government assistance”
That is correct, however getting government assistance is not a constitutional right...
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.