Goose, Meet Gander
In Kansas, GOP lawmakers want unemployment recipients to take drug tests.
Democrats said oh sure, we’ll do that just so long we “require drug tests of businesspeople controlling companies that get economic incentives from the state.” Republicans, of course, balked. They called it political grandstanding. Pot, meet kettle.
Then Democrats added themselves and their their fellow lawmakers to the bill.
That’s when the Republican lawmakers stomped their feet.
Look, I am opposed to drug testing politicians. I favor IQ testing instead.
Thanks to Ralph for the heads up.
I’m for IQ tests too. Who’s going to administer them? A panel of paid professionals or a randomly picked group of good ol’ boys?
1It is not so much that I want Goose and Gander to both get such, but more that I want to know who is paying for it?
When there is so much complaining about non-balanced budgets, why throw in a huge financial burden program like this. I admit, I don’t like enabling vices like illegal drug use or alcohol abuse, but I do not see functional efficient methods to block it without also blocking innocents as well, like children.
2At least they managed to block it in Kansas. The Texas Lege passed drug tests for unemployment benefits. The Gov. wanted to also test welfare recipients but that got voted down. So now, not only are the people unemployed, possibly due to no fault of their own, they are then further spit on by making them feel like the state thinks they are drug users.
3Of course, the taxpayers get to pick up the tab for all this and there will probably be a miniscule number of “positive” test results which will be held up as “proof” that the program works. In other states where this has been tried, the costs far outweigh the benefits. Florida as a case in point. (welfare in FL)
Florida tried this, and ended up reimbursing those who passed, resulting in a $45,000+ payout. The court ruled it was unconstitutional. Also pointed out is that unemployment is not an entitlement, but something we all pay for.
4Texas is/was trying this also (March article in Dallas Morning News). There are multiple examples of why this is a bad idea, but there is no way to cure Texas stupid.
Republicans never let an actual fact get in the way of their deeply held beliefs.
5If anyone has the time and inclination, look up the history of the way the Brits treated the starving Irish during the Potato Famine. Yes, they voted a type of unemployment assistance but you had to work like a team of mules to even try to get it. You could perform admirably per their criteria only to get such a small percentage of what was promised due to corruption. The point behind this was that it was hoped the population in Ireland would be reduced and stay that way. Sounds rotten, doesn’t it. Well, it was. And rotten keeps rearing its head in different places and different times but always from the same kind of bias.
6Florida spent $78,000,000 to test welfare recipients and saved themselves $60,000.
7Some fiscal responsibility, eh?
The repugs clamor to get government out of our lives, but want it in our toilets. Any excuse to humiliate the poor.
8Can we make lawmakers take drug tests?
9As a taxpayer I see no difference in where our public money goes, so either test them all, or don’t test any of them. Who’s “wasting” more of our resources, the guy in front of you at the grocery store buying cheese with food stamps, or the clowns in Washington on CSPAN voting to repeal Health Care for the 30th or 40th time? At least the guy buying cheese doesn’t have to go through the same check out line 30 or 40 times – – and then not make a cheese sandwich.
10I’d love to find out what Louie Gohmert is on, because if he isn’t then he definitely needs to be on something.
11I’ve always maintained that fairly administered poll tests including history, logic and the Constitution with let’s say 60% as a passing grade would result in a Democratic hegemony that would last 100 years. Except that, as someone who understands history, logic and the Constitution, I find that I’m against poll tests. Not just because nothing is ever fairly administered (which is true) but because there are certain rights that should not require passing ANY test.
12@daChipster—Do you mean stuff like food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care? What kind of radical are you, anyway?
13I’m for both IQ and drug testing. I’m greedy.
14IF we do IQ testing, what happens to the ones with negative numbers?
15I agree with Marge Wood saying about IQ tests, “Who’s going to administer them? A panel of paid professionals or a randomly picked group of good ol’ boys?” You cant trust these Rethuglicans. I am old enough to remember how well literacy testing worked in texas at election time. As you might suspect the literacy test SHOULD have been administered in the candidates.
My other concern is what the lower cutoff score for IQ tests administered to candidates. There will be surprises, some of them unpleasant for candidate and voter alike. Can you really vote for a bald, unlikeable guy with say a 68 IQ even if he has been your representative since 2005?
16I am totally amazed that the Democrats in my state are finally standing up against Gov. Brownback and his Republican-dominated lege.
Of course, this comes at a price: they are in Day 97 of an overtime session that is costing Kansas taxpayers $45,000 a day.
However, if that means that the Dems can keep the truly disastrous Brownback budget from passing in its current state, then I do not mind my tax dollars burning up in Topeka. Brownback is the single worst governor in my state in my lifetime, and I am a senior.
BTW, Brownback has been taking many of his cues from your Governor. People here often refer to Brownback’s bromance crush on Perry (insofar as his policies and attitudes, at least).
17It’s scary, but I believe my congressvarmint actually NEEDS drugs to maintain the low level of intelligence and productivity that he so desperately requires just to get dressed in the morning. Dear Lord, how I wish he would retire, but I doubt he knows his own age and probably frequently forgets his name. Sigh…
18I would drug-test anyone getting a subsidy, a government business loan, or a government contract: they’re getting not just taxpayer money, but BIG BUCKS taxpayer money. Also all elected state and national legislators. But–to avoid wasting taxpayer money–they’d be tested at their own expense. (They’re getting the big bucks–they can pay for their own drug test.)
19Just found your not a “blog”. You are such a breath of freeze air!! There is one sane TEXAN. THANK YOU!!
20