Posted on 01/31/2015 2:18:27 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Scott Walker has had a good week. The press is googly-eyed over him, waxing on about how he could just win this thing, and he's still rolling on his high from last weekend's Freedom Summit. Of course, that's not really something to write home about when you're besting the likes of Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee.
He's got that populist message down pat just like his other friends on the campaign trail. Income inequality! Deteriorating middle class! And he's so concerned about those things he's going to govern on that basis, right?
Walker has a real problem on his hands, because while he's basking in the afterglow, he still has to govern. It turns out he's not doing that awfully well.
Wisconsin’s low-income workers and some members of Congress are speaking out against Governor Scott Walker’s call for making people on public assistance undergo a drug test. Governor Walker confirmed in a Q and A at the conservative American Action Forum in DC on Friday that the 2015 budget he will unveil Tuesday will include measures that cover those who need food stamps, Medicaid and unemployment benefits, among other programs for those in poverty.
Walker claimed his motivation for the controversial move was feedback he’d received from Wisconsin companies. “As I traveled my state, I hear employers, small business owners say, overwhelming: ‘We have jobs. We just need workers. And we need two things: people who know how to show up every day for work, five days a week, and gimme someone who can pass a drug test,’” he said.
Now here's how that plays out with real people who need assistance.
For Wisconsin workers who currently depend on public assistance, like 21-year-old Milwaukee waitress Peyton Smith, the burden of the law would be much more personal.
“For [Governor Walker] to put another barrier in front of us is like saying we’re guilty, but we’re not guilty,” Smith told ThinkProgress. “It’s already hard to go down there and file for government assistance. We have to report in every day, fill out papers. Now I have to take the time out of my busy schedule to take a drug test? Come on!”
Epps-Addison, who depended on food stamps when she began law school at the start of the Great Recession in 2008, echoed Smith’s difficult experience in signing up for public benefits.
“There were times even I couldn’t navigate the process, as a law student with a college degree,” she said. “The system is set up to disempower people and make them frustrated enough to give up before receiving the help they need.”
Smith, who has a three-year-old daughter and another baby due soon, works about 20 hours a week at Denny’s — though she has repeatedly requested full-time employment. Because it’s a tipped job, she makes just $2.33 an hour, and currently relies on food stamps to feed her family.
“I’m willing to work. I’m not lazy at all,” she said. “But the jobs we can get are horrible, low pay, and we can’t get the hours we need. As a parent, it just sucks. I want things that are healthy for her, but the fruits and vegetables she needs to grow as young child are expensive.”
Scott Walker, like the party he represents, is awesome at tossing around the simple solution sound bite. Need workers? Drug test the ones on welfare! Never mind that they're likely not skilled at building furniture or whatever jobs he's talking about. When employers say they need people to show up who can pass a drug test, what they're really saying is that they have some nice minimum wage jobs over here with long hours, shifts, and little in the way of pay and benefits.
And please, never mind about that pesky unconstitutional thing. Scotty will make that go away...somehow.
“How often will they be drug tested? Who pays for the tests? What happens if the test is positive?”
I would rather joe working stiffs wages get used to administer the tests, than pay for drugs, as the money gets spent either way
I work as civil service for the DoD and we get no notice drug tests, five year polygraphs. I have seen several senior people walked out the door with their belongings in the last few years as the DoD tries to meet the sequester goals.
SO you can believe what you want, but don’t sell something to other people that you don’t know about.
Yep. Walker's heart is sort of in the right place, but to me, it just sounded like more cowbell.
I'd MUCH rather see Walker pushing for making it so welfare recipients forfeit the right to vote as long as they're dependent on welfare -- overt government charity (as opposed to Social Security, which supposedly is drawing from your money that it invested for you) -- that folks on food stamps or rent payment assistance, etc., receive it on the condition that they are prohibited from voting. Once they can support themselves independent of government charity, their voting rights are restored. THAT would be a whole lot better than drug testing. So if they're doing drugs, what, they're going to starve on the streets because of mean old Republicans?
Charity is a moral duty requiring sacrifice, mercy, and compassion on the part of the giver, and gratitude and moral indebtedness on the part of the receiver. Government has used its power of authority to usurp that duty from individuals and absorbing it into the state. It has turned a moral action, charity, into an AMORAL one, and evil results. When the state controls it, FORCE makes slaves of the givers, and entitled dependents of the receivers.
So what, if drug testing costs more then welfare benefits! I for one do not want to enable drug use! Why should I, against my will and against my moral principles, give money to people using drugs. It is depraved and cruel act to give a hand out to a drug user, I am willing to pay more in taxes to stop the drug users from getting money to pay for drugs at my expense. On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to help those who need it if they are willing to help themselves by being drug-free and ready to work. (Further, people if they have money for drugs, then they have money for food.)
For [Governor Walker] to put another barrier in front of us is like saying we’re guilty, but we’re not guilty,” Smith told ThinkProgress. “It’s already hard to go down there and file for government assistance. We have to report in every day, fill out papers. Now I have to take the time out of my busy schedule to take a drug test? Come on!”
Yes, how dare we ask for a test to make sure the money you’re getting for free isn’t going to drugs! What horrible people are we!
But did anyone ever notice those with real power, control, those in charge of safety and control over the lives of others are never randomly drug tested?
The folks identified here are not getting free money, they’re working for it. A distinction I’m sure this idiot doesn’t get.
It’s also irrelevant if those in government are drug tested. We may not like what they so but they do work for a living (mostly). Those receiving public assistance are not working for the money they received, by definition.
By the I like the idea of drug testing voters as suggested by a previous poster although I don't see it as being practical. I think demonstrating basic literacy in English, proof of ID, citizenship, and residency would screen out a lot of problems. I also favor at least a 30-day residency in the precinct that you vote, and an end to early voting.
I would like to see the polls open for 24 hours on election day, opening at the same time and closing the same time across the country, and more control over absentee ballots.
What the hell does that mean? Your either capable of work or you are not. If you are not then get disability. If you are then you must be clean at all times to accept that job when it comes.
Another result of Obamacare and the 30 hour mandate. Ain't Marxism wonderful?
Pray America is waking
Drug testing was random 2dDiv, I managed the program once.
I do t know when you were in, but officers were randomly tested during my time 1981-2009. I was “randomly” test most often when I was a Major and Lieutenant Colonel.
Wisconsin’s state employees are no longer unionized.
As far as I know, the only drug that will show up on Monday if you use on Friday is pot. Want to beat testing? Move from pot to harder drugs! Good incentive structure.
Here you do your application over the phone. Then they send out the paperwork, you sign it and mail it in. Unless there is some question you never even see anyone.
I just got off the phone with a Milwaukee Police officer and yes, they do get drug tested.They are tested before they leave the academy and again randomly. A select number of officers are randomly tested. The officer I spoke with has been tested about 6 times.
They also are tested after any type of incident. For example an accident or shooting. So you may want to walk back your comments a bit.
I will search the Milw. Police Dept. website for a link for you about the random testing. It does state on their site that a drug test is a condition for employment.
http://city.milwaukee.gov/jobs/PO#.VM17INLQWSo
1977 to 1983. What was your branch?
I also found this article about Portland’s police adopting random drug testing.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/city_of_portland_moving_toward.html
“Major metropolitan police agencies across the country including Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Milwaukee, Wis., have adopted random drug testing. The FBI does random drug testing of agents.”
An interesting article about when city governments can drug test employees. It does not violate the 4th amendment. It’s a good read and it mentions truck drivers, school bus drivers, etc. that can be randomly drug tested. The key word is “random”.
http://www.tml.org/legal_pdf/DrugTestingPublicEmployees.pdf
Random is not the norm...BTW, nothing in the link you provided talks about random, only a pre-employment test.
BTW, there are multiple articles where the Milwaukee Police union themselves are against random testing.
How come I had to p** in the bottle as an Army reservist during my monthly drill, sometimes every single month based on “random computerized selection”?
Because that was a requirement to serve. I sat on drug separation boards for years & there was but one, ONE case where the bottles got mixed up & we proved that within minutes & then told a suddenly overjoyed soldier to have a nice day & to continue to serve.
Everyone in the chain of command from POTUS on down should be required to p** in the bottle. Everybody!
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.