Lawmaker seeks drug testing of welfare recipients
LA State Wire
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - A Jefferson Parish lawmaker is hoping he can persuade the Legislature on his fifth try to mandate drug testing of welfare recipients in Louisiana.
Republican Rep. John LaBruzzo's bill is scheduled for a Wednesday hearing in the House Health and Welfare Committee. Though he's gotten it out of committee before, LaBruzzo has repeatedly failed to get the measure passed through the full Legislature.
The proposal would require at least 20 percent of people who receive benefits to submit to drug testing.
LaBruzzo says the bill could help families get addiction treatment and make sure tax dollars aren't spent on drug habits. Opponents say the bill unfairly targets poor mothers, without evidence demonstrating they are more prone to drug problems.
States eye drug tests for welfare recipients
MIAMI (AP) — Lawmakers in more than two-dozen states have proposed drug-testing recipients of welfare or other government assistance, taking a tough stance on aiding the poor in the down economy. Critics say such laws would be unconstitutional — an argument that federal judges have agreed with before.
Similar proposals have been introduced in past years by lawmakers in dozens of states, but none currently requires drug testing because it's difficult to get around the arguments that the tests violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. Michigan's random drug testing program for welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was halted by a judge, kicking off a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court ruling it unconstitutional.
No other state has enacted such a program, worrying about legal battles. But lawmakers say they're willing to take the risk, as cash-strapped states struggle to close budget gaps, potentially paving the way for major legal battles. The National Conference of State Legislatures said at least 30 states have proposed to drug test recipients of government aid during the current legislative session.
"It's hard for me to justify to taxpayers that I'm taking your money and giving assistance to people who are buying drugs with it," said Florida state Sen. Paula Dockery, who is sponsoring a bill requiring testing for those who receive temporary cash assistance. The bill passed in the final days of the session and Gov. Rick Scott is expected to sign it.
Showing posts with label Welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Welfare. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
P-A-R-E-N-T-S
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. J. K. Rowling
90 pregnancies at one high school
By James Eng
About 90 teenage girls at one public high school in Memphis, Tenn., are either pregnant or have had a baby this school year, according to media reports.
Frayser High School has 978 students – 508 of which are girls. That means nearly 18 percent of teen girls at Frayser are either currently pregnant or recently had babies.
As a Title One school, Frayser receives federal dollars based on the number of students from low-income families who qualify for free or reduced lunch, according to WMC-TV.
Pregnancy is not a new problem for the school, one Frayser graduate says. "When we would come back from summer break, there would be a thousand people pregnant. We were like, what's going on?" Alicia Williamson told KTUU. Williamson graduated from Frayser in 2004. She added, "There were a whole lot of bellies. You had to watch out so you didn't bump into them. Being 2011, I thought a lot of them would have thought this is not the right way to go, having babies during school time.”
The news comes as the city plans an initiative to fight teen pregnancy in their community with a nonprofit organization called Girls Inc., which teaches girls about pregnancy prevention.
In Memphis, the teen pregnancy rate is between 15 percent and 20 percent – and in Frayser, the rate is 26 percent, said Deborah Hester Harrison, executive director of Memphis’ Girls Inc. It’s no surprise that Harrison places at least part of the blame on the media, such as the popular MTV shows “16 and Pregnant” and “Teen Mom.”
"So much of our society is sexually oriented. As adults we can look at that and it doesn't impact us, but kids are different," Harrison said.
90 pregnancies at one high school
By James Eng
About 90 teenage girls at one public high school in Memphis, Tenn., are either pregnant or have had a baby this school year, according to media reports.
Frayser High School has 978 students – 508 of which are girls. That means nearly 18 percent of teen girls at Frayser are either currently pregnant or recently had babies.
As a Title One school, Frayser receives federal dollars based on the number of students from low-income families who qualify for free or reduced lunch, according to WMC-TV.
Pregnancy is not a new problem for the school, one Frayser graduate says. "When we would come back from summer break, there would be a thousand people pregnant. We were like, what's going on?" Alicia Williamson told KTUU. Williamson graduated from Frayser in 2004. She added, "There were a whole lot of bellies. You had to watch out so you didn't bump into them. Being 2011, I thought a lot of them would have thought this is not the right way to go, having babies during school time.”
The news comes as the city plans an initiative to fight teen pregnancy in their community with a nonprofit organization called Girls Inc., which teaches girls about pregnancy prevention.
In Memphis, the teen pregnancy rate is between 15 percent and 20 percent – and in Frayser, the rate is 26 percent, said Deborah Hester Harrison, executive director of Memphis’ Girls Inc. It’s no surprise that Harrison places at least part of the blame on the media, such as the popular MTV shows “16 and Pregnant” and “Teen Mom.”
"So much of our society is sexually oriented. As adults we can look at that and it doesn't impact us, but kids are different," Harrison said.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Flouting the rule of law seems to be a family trait.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Greenwood Cottonmouth: Company Worker Gets Raise, Walks Out
Ever wonder why things are so bad in the Delta? Read this.
Local Sandwich Shop owner, John Doe, recently moved to Greenwood from California. Doe said he has worked in human resources off and on for 15 years in the restaurant industry. Adjusting to employee behavior in the Delta has been difficult, he said.
"Within five months of being here, I've had three cooks walk out on me. This was after I had either increased their hours or given them a raise - or both - because they were doin' a good job. It's hard to find good employees here," he said.
"The third time it happened - yesterday - I stopped LaQuincia in the parking lot and said, 'Hey! What's wrong? I gave you a raise. Was it not enough?' And man, she went off on my a**," Doe said.
The employee went through a five-minute laundry list of various government benefits, such as childcare, healthcare and subsidized housing, that she would lose if she earned more money. Doe said she acted as if he was trying to bankrupt her.
"I apologized and offered to take it back," he said, "but she stormed off. I guess I've learned my lesson.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Christian Charity: Social Justice and the Good Samaritan
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
Charity—a loving spirit concretely expressed in unselfish good deeds to one’s fellow man—is a primary Christian duty. Nobody who has read the New Testament can come to any other conclusion.
In his parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), Jesus explains what it means to love one’s neighbor as oneself. When the Samaritan happened to encounter a man who had been badly hurt by robbers, he compassionately ministered to the man’s needs. This was in stark contrast to two other men who already had seen the wounded man and left without helping him. The vivid contrast was made even more stark by the fact that the merciful man was a Samaritan, whom Jesus’ own people, the Jews, despised as religious inferiors, while the heartless men who ignored the victim’s plight—a priest and a Levite—came from the ranks of the religious elite.
The good Samaritan gave what he could to help the wounded man. He first took care of him himself, and then, when his own pre-existing commitments necessitated his departure, he paid an innkeeper to nurse the man back to health.
In this famous parable, Jesus illustrated, with exquisite (and typical) brevity and simplicity, the two forms of Christian charity: first, assistance provided personally and directly to another; second, rendering assistance indirectly by donating one’s own property to those who have the time and skills to tend to those in need, in lieu of our own hands-on assistance.
As a thought experiment, let’s imagine the story of the good Samaritan taking a different twist. Let’s suppose that the Samaritan, upon spotting the badly wounded man, also sees a rich man walking by. Let us then suppose that the Samaritan is a big, powerful man who intimidates the rich man into handing over enough money to pay for the wounded man’s care. The man in need would still receive the help that he so desperately needs, but would the Samaritan still touch our heart, and would he have acted selflessly? Would we remember him as a paragon of Christian virtue and charity?
Jesus had not demanded that the Samaritan take money from strangers on the street by threat of force. That wouldn’t feel right, would it?
The obvious difference, of course, is that in Jesus’ parable, the Samaritan acts voluntarily—out of the goodness of his own heart—whereas in my hypothetical, counterfeit version, the Samaritan engages in an ersatz pseudo-charity by forcing someone else to pay for the good deed that the Samaritan wants to be performed. Is it true charity to be generous with other people’s money?
This is the murky moral territory onto which many Christians stray in the name of “social justice” or the social gospel. The desire to help those in need is laudable, but the means often employed by advocates of “social justice” are not.
Many Christians commit a fundamental error when they call for government to redistribute wealth to the poor, the sick, the needy. Government necessarily introduces the additional factor of compulsion into the equation, as government employs organized force.
If we wouldn’t justify an individual collecting funds for the poor by threatening passersby, then how do we justify government using the threat of fines or imprisonment to extract property from some to give it to others? In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is strangely absurd [to suppose] that a million human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind (or liberate) each of them separately.”
This isn’t to say that no collective action should be taken to minister to the poor. Indeed, many churches and various private-sector charities are doing praiseworthy work for those in need, and they merit our financial support. The common factor, though, in these nongovernmental organizations is that participation is voluntary. Nobody compels you to belong to a certain church or contribute to a specific charitable organization. It is your prerogative and choice.
By all means, be charitable. But don’t mix charity with compulsion. Jesus never did.
Charity—a loving spirit concretely expressed in unselfish good deeds to one’s fellow man—is a primary Christian duty. Nobody who has read the New Testament can come to any other conclusion.
In his parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), Jesus explains what it means to love one’s neighbor as oneself. When the Samaritan happened to encounter a man who had been badly hurt by robbers, he compassionately ministered to the man’s needs. This was in stark contrast to two other men who already had seen the wounded man and left without helping him. The vivid contrast was made even more stark by the fact that the merciful man was a Samaritan, whom Jesus’ own people, the Jews, despised as religious inferiors, while the heartless men who ignored the victim’s plight—a priest and a Levite—came from the ranks of the religious elite.
The good Samaritan gave what he could to help the wounded man. He first took care of him himself, and then, when his own pre-existing commitments necessitated his departure, he paid an innkeeper to nurse the man back to health.
In this famous parable, Jesus illustrated, with exquisite (and typical) brevity and simplicity, the two forms of Christian charity: first, assistance provided personally and directly to another; second, rendering assistance indirectly by donating one’s own property to those who have the time and skills to tend to those in need, in lieu of our own hands-on assistance.
As a thought experiment, let’s imagine the story of the good Samaritan taking a different twist. Let’s suppose that the Samaritan, upon spotting the badly wounded man, also sees a rich man walking by. Let us then suppose that the Samaritan is a big, powerful man who intimidates the rich man into handing over enough money to pay for the wounded man’s care. The man in need would still receive the help that he so desperately needs, but would the Samaritan still touch our heart, and would he have acted selflessly? Would we remember him as a paragon of Christian virtue and charity?
Jesus had not demanded that the Samaritan take money from strangers on the street by threat of force. That wouldn’t feel right, would it?
The obvious difference, of course, is that in Jesus’ parable, the Samaritan acts voluntarily—out of the goodness of his own heart—whereas in my hypothetical, counterfeit version, the Samaritan engages in an ersatz pseudo-charity by forcing someone else to pay for the good deed that the Samaritan wants to be performed. Is it true charity to be generous with other people’s money?
This is the murky moral territory onto which many Christians stray in the name of “social justice” or the social gospel. The desire to help those in need is laudable, but the means often employed by advocates of “social justice” are not.
Many Christians commit a fundamental error when they call for government to redistribute wealth to the poor, the sick, the needy. Government necessarily introduces the additional factor of compulsion into the equation, as government employs organized force.
If we wouldn’t justify an individual collecting funds for the poor by threatening passersby, then how do we justify government using the threat of fines or imprisonment to extract property from some to give it to others? In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is strangely absurd [to suppose] that a million human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind (or liberate) each of them separately.”
This isn’t to say that no collective action should be taken to minister to the poor. Indeed, many churches and various private-sector charities are doing praiseworthy work for those in need, and they merit our financial support. The common factor, though, in these nongovernmental organizations is that participation is voluntary. Nobody compels you to belong to a certain church or contribute to a specific charitable organization. It is your prerogative and choice.
By all means, be charitable. But don’t mix charity with compulsion. Jesus never did.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Madison County Journal---EDITORIAL/'I'm just a Bill' (from Capitol Hill)
A fundamental breakdown in the legislative process is occurring with the health care bill and the way Democrats are bending the rules.
A majority of Americans are repulsed by backroom deals like the Cornhusker kickback and other bribes necessary to snare votes to ensure passage.
Tax increases to pay for the new entitlements and the bureaucracy to regulate it all are all but guaranteed in what the Democrats no doubt believe is the crowning achievement of their welfare state.
School children with a basic knowledge of civics know that a bill has to pass both the House and Senate to become law.
Under the new rules Democrats have cooked up like a batch of meth, no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Read the entire article at Madison County Journal Online
A majority of Americans are repulsed by backroom deals like the Cornhusker kickback and other bribes necessary to snare votes to ensure passage.
Tax increases to pay for the new entitlements and the bureaucracy to regulate it all are all but guaranteed in what the Democrats no doubt believe is the crowning achievement of their welfare state.
School children with a basic knowledge of civics know that a bill has to pass both the House and Senate to become law.
Under the new rules Democrats have cooked up like a batch of meth, no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Read the entire article at Madison County Journal Online
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Is Greece the Future of America?
by Sheldon Richman
Future of Freedom Foundation
It may be possible to look into America’s future. How? Watch what’s going on in Greece. According to the Washington Post, “Greece needs to raise about €23 billion [more than $31 billion] in April and May to pay debts coming due. Greek officials say that either is impossible, or would require punitive interest rates — making it harder to bring the budget under control — unless Europe helps out.” So the Greek government awaits a bailout from Germany and France, but first it has to impress them that it is serious about fiscal austerity.
The Greek welfare state’s annual deficit is about 13 percent of its GDP and its accumulated debt is 113 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, the U.S. government’s overall debt is now on track to reach 90 percent of GDP by 2020, more than $20 trillion. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, the annual budget deficit will be $1.2 trillion more than the Obama administration has guessed. The ten-year figure is now projected to be $9.76 trillion. The annual deficit is about 10 percent of GDP.
Government spending is rising — and the new entitlement called health-care “reform” hasn’t passed yet. That’ll be good for a couple of trillion over the next decade.
The economic consequences of all that are likely to be dire. As the government tries to borrow more money, both to finance its programs and to pay the old debt that’s coming due, it will have to promise a better return to nervous lenders, such as China. But raising the interest rate will push other borrowers’ rates up, which in turn will put a damper on economic activity. Unemployment will grow and revenues will shrink, but entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, will keep growing. They already face tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and are heading toward bankruptcy. Military spending will also increase, along with most other government spending.
What will the politicians do when they find interest payments swallowing the budget, leaving them less and less money to shower on political supporters? They might resort to higher taxes, which would further dampen economic activity. They might get the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt through inflation; but that would wreak economic havoc. Politicians aren’t likely to cut spending because it would jeopardize their careers. At that point, the government might default on its debts, a step that has much to recommend it.
Thus, the welfare state is a fiscal failure.
The welfare state has long been presented as the viable “third way,” a happy medium between laissez faire — full separation of state and economy — and state socialism — government control of the economy. Advocates of individual liberty have emphasized that the welfare state violates freedom because government takes wealth from those who produce it and transfers it to favored groups. Defenders have responded that the welfare state embodies compassion: people with means give to those less fortunate. But forced transfers through government are not true compassion. A virtue like compassion requires free choice, but government gives you no choice. So the compassion of the welfare state is counterfeit. It’s more about distributing goodies at others’ expense to win votes for politicians.
Historically compassion had little to do with government programs for the poor and social insurance for the working and middle classes. Beginning as far back as Queen Elizabeth I poor laws were intended to control people who were potential sources of social strife; and social insurance beginning in Bismarck’s German welfare state was calculated to make working people dependent on the government. In both cases the free society was subdued for the sake of those in power.
Now it is clearer than ever that the welfare state is not only morally flawed, it is also fiscally unsustainable. Politicians will always have an incentive to spend, while hiding the costs or pushing them onto future generations through debt. But reality doesn’t go away. It comes back to bite in unexpected ways.
We’re seeing it in Greece today. Tomorrow it will be other European welfare states. Then, if nothing changes, it will be America’s turn.
Future of Freedom Foundation
The Greek welfare state’s annual deficit is about 13 percent of its GDP and its accumulated debt is 113 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, the U.S. government’s overall debt is now on track to reach 90 percent of GDP by 2020, more than $20 trillion. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, the annual budget deficit will be $1.2 trillion more than the Obama administration has guessed. The ten-year figure is now projected to be $9.76 trillion. The annual deficit is about 10 percent of GDP.
Government spending is rising — and the new entitlement called health-care “reform” hasn’t passed yet. That’ll be good for a couple of trillion over the next decade.
The economic consequences of all that are likely to be dire. As the government tries to borrow more money, both to finance its programs and to pay the old debt that’s coming due, it will have to promise a better return to nervous lenders, such as China. But raising the interest rate will push other borrowers’ rates up, which in turn will put a damper on economic activity. Unemployment will grow and revenues will shrink, but entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, will keep growing. They already face tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and are heading toward bankruptcy. Military spending will also increase, along with most other government spending.
What will the politicians do when they find interest payments swallowing the budget, leaving them less and less money to shower on political supporters? They might resort to higher taxes, which would further dampen economic activity. They might get the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt through inflation; but that would wreak economic havoc. Politicians aren’t likely to cut spending because it would jeopardize their careers. At that point, the government might default on its debts, a step that has much to recommend it.
Thus, the welfare state is a fiscal failure.
The welfare state has long been presented as the viable “third way,” a happy medium between laissez faire — full separation of state and economy — and state socialism — government control of the economy. Advocates of individual liberty have emphasized that the welfare state violates freedom because government takes wealth from those who produce it and transfers it to favored groups. Defenders have responded that the welfare state embodies compassion: people with means give to those less fortunate. But forced transfers through government are not true compassion. A virtue like compassion requires free choice, but government gives you no choice. So the compassion of the welfare state is counterfeit. It’s more about distributing goodies at others’ expense to win votes for politicians.
Historically compassion had little to do with government programs for the poor and social insurance for the working and middle classes. Beginning as far back as Queen Elizabeth I poor laws were intended to control people who were potential sources of social strife; and social insurance beginning in Bismarck’s German welfare state was calculated to make working people dependent on the government. In both cases the free society was subdued for the sake of those in power.
Now it is clearer than ever that the welfare state is not only morally flawed, it is also fiscally unsustainable. Politicians will always have an incentive to spend, while hiding the costs or pushing them onto future generations through debt. But reality doesn’t go away. It comes back to bite in unexpected ways.
We’re seeing it in Greece today. Tomorrow it will be other European welfare states. Then, if nothing changes, it will be America’s turn.
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Growth of Dependency on Government Threatens the Future of American Democracy
From virtually the first day of his presidency, Barack Obama and his top deputies have advanced programs and initiatives that deepen and expand American citizens’ dependency on government. From new federal programs designed to boost economic activity to health care reform that could place the U.S. government at the center of the nation’s health care system, the central thrust of policy since January 2009 has been to increase Americans’ daily dependency on Washington.
However, the rapid expansion of dependency-creating programs did not begin with Barack Obama’s inauguration. Indeed, President Obama inherited substantial momentum toward greater dependency on government from the George W. Bush Administration and prior governments. President Bush’s years saw growth in all dependency creating categories, but particularly in programs aimed at health, education, and working-age income support.
The Heritage Foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)