Yes?

Michigan Governor Ignores History, Signs Welfare Drug Testing Bill Into Law

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder elected on Friday to waste taxpayer dollars in an effort to punish the poor for being poor. Ignoring the lessons learned when similar programs were adopted in Florida, Tennessee, Utah, Oklahoma, and other states that have adopted measures to shame society’s most financially vulnerable through humiliating and unnecessary drug testing procedures, Snyder signed a bill into law forcing those who can’t afford to eat to face the additional humiliation of having to pee in a cup if they are “suspected” of illegal drug use.

The CDC reports that, on average, 9.2% of the population age 12 and older use illegal drugs each month (7.3% of the population uses Marijuana, which is slowly becoming more accepted in society). States that have chosen to drug test the poor have, in the past, unwittingly revealed that poor individuals actually use drugs at a much lower rate than the national average.

Florida, for example, spent $118,140 to drug test 4,086 applicants seeking to receive welfare benefits between July and October 2011. Only 108, or 2.6 percent, failed the tests — with most testing positive for marijuana. About 40 individuals scheduled tests, but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families. The reasons for cancellation were unspecified. Ultimately, taxpayers lost $45,780 to this blatant attempt to shame the disadvantaged.

The state of Missouri drug tested 636 applicants, finding only 20 who tested positive for illegal substances. About 200 refused to comply with this unnecessary testing. The cost of the program was a whopping $500,000.

Between November 2012 and May 2013, the state of Oklahoma drug tested 1,890 people. Only 83 of them tested positive for illegal drugs, at a cost of $83,000.

In Utah, only 14 out of 6,007 who were screened between August and October 2012 tested positive at a hefty $32,000 bill to the taxpayers.

“I have not seen any kind of credible data to this point to suggest these kinds of programs help people who are on drugs,” said staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Criminal Law Reform Project Jason Williamson.

The state of Tennessee found a whopping one person who tested positive for illegal drugs.

Despite that drug testing of welfare recipients is, historically, a waste of money, Snyder has approved HB 4118, which will allow drug testing of welfare recipients “suspected” of drug use. No standards for “suspicion” have been detailed, but failure to submit to this humiliation will lead to ineligibility for benefits for a period of six months.

“We want to remove the barriers that are keeping people from getting good jobs, supporting their families and living independently,” Snyder said in a press release. “This pilot program is intended to help ensure recipients get the wrap-around services they need to overcome drug addiction and lead successful lives. We’ll then have opportunity to assess effectiveness and outcomes.”

The cost of the program, which will initially be implemented in three counties, is estimated to cost between $700,000 and $3.4 million. Proponents claim that the program will save $370,000 – $3.7 million.

In the end, not only will this be a gigantic waste of taxpayer dollars — but the measure will only serve to stereotype, stigmatize, and shame the poorest of the poor.

Tea Partier Who Compared Poor People to Animals Didn’t Pay Staff Enough to Feed Families

In April, failed Senate candidate Annette Bosworth compared poor Americans to wild animals. “There has to be a way that you begin the conversations. I've been in this race for ten months and it’s the first time someone has slowed down to say talk about food stamps, talk about what that program does to people, so if that’s what it took I’ll take the heat,” Bosworth said in May, while defending the comparison.

Soon after, she found out she lost her election bid in a painfully awkward FOX News interview. The following day, Bosworth was arrested for perjury following allegations that she circulated nominating petitions while on vacation in the Phillipines.

Now, a former employee has come forward to tell the world that the good Doctor Bosworth didn’t pay employees enough to feed their families. LeAnn Batiz once supported bosworth’s Senate run. However, after her experiences as an employee she can’t stomach throwing her weight behind the Tea Party politician.

“Someone who I can’t trust to pay her employees I don’t want to be making decisions for me in Washington,” Batiz explained.

“I did not get paid what I was promised or enough to survive,” Batiz said. According to Batiz, Bosworth promised a salary of $80,000 per year–but proceeded to pay her just over $10,000 in a six month period. “Ten-thousand in almost six months. Almost six months, so you figure that out and that turns out to be about $24,000 a year. That’s a long way from $80,000 a year,” she said.

Batiz was shorted so much on pay that she was forced to become one of the “animals” about which her employer spoke. She and her family were forced to rely on food stamps–in fact, Bosworth’s office even helped her enroll!

“But instead says, ‘Hey, I want you to keep working for me. I don’t want to have to pay you. Instead we’ll help you get on welfare,’ and then to turn around and say people who are on welfare are bad people, people who are on welfare are dependent people that was just the end,” Batiz said.

Editorial Cartoons of the Week

GOP Thanks The Troops By Gutting Food Stamps For 170,000 Veterans

Apparently the GOP thinks veterans haven’t sacrificed enough after deciding to cut roughly 170,000 vets from food stamps.  If you’re a Republican politician,  it is just so much easier to find the biggest flag pin you can find and get a photo-op in front of as many people in uniform as you can. But once the photo-ops is over, it’s pull yourself up by the combat boot stars (or more likely eat them for sustenance). It seems House Republicans decision to go all evil dead with a chainsaw to the food stamps program, cutting $40 billion and booting 2.8 million people off the program next year, includes 170,000 veterans. But they’re still free to continue fighting our commerce wars, as that program will never lose a penny.

Civilian life for a veteran is no walk in a poppy field and cutting food stamps doesn’t help.

Much too many returning veterans succumb to homelessness. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs reports that 131,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, with twice that many falling into homelessness over the course of a year. And it doesn’t get much better for the countless vets experiencing brain injuries and PTSD, as they’re at an even greater risk of becoming homeless.

So what does the GOP do for veterans?

Back in 2007, when the paste-eater in chief was in office and running around deciding things on aircraft carriers, our troops were languishing at Walter Reed.  At the Walter Reed medical facility, moldy ceilings, leaky plumage, rodent infestations were among some of the thank yous for  soldiers that the Bush Administration had sent to fight a neocon wet dream.  Well, it’s a good thing they learned their lesson, right? The fact remains that returning veterans have the hardest time at adjusting to civilian life and finding work more so than anyone else. In fact, unemployment for veterans who have served in the past decade is at an astonishing 10 percent, That’s roughly 3 points higher than the national rate.

The common culprit behind such woefully high unemployment for veterans is war-related trauma, with roughly a quarter of recently returning vets claiming disabilities.  Consequently, a great many of veterans rely heavily on food stamps while they’re rebuilding their lives, or picking up where they left off. But you know the GOP mantra: sacrifice for the rest, handouts for the rich. Maybe the US military uniform should be a Brooks Brother pin-stripe suit instead.

Yes we know where their priorities are.

GOP Logic

When we think of Rep. Phil Gingrey (R), who's currently running for the U.S. Senate in his home state of Georgia, we tend to think of his far-right social conservatism. It was, for example, Gingrey who expressed support for Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comments. More recently, the Republican congressman, while arguing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, called for children to take classes on traditional gender roles because fathers are "a little bit better" at some things than mothers.

As it turns out, though, Gingrey is capable of offending people while addressing economic issues, too.

Woe is Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia, who bemoaned in a closed-door meeting this morning that he's "stuck" making a paltry $172,000 a year in Congress.... Capitol Hill aides can go work for a lobby shop and make $500,000, the congressman said, according to National Review's Jonathan Strong. "Meanwhile I'm stuck here making $172,000 a year." [...]

Some of Gingrey's fellow lawmakers were "incensed" by the remark, hence the leak to Strong, but the comment probably won't help the GOP's problems of being perceived as a party exclusively for the wealthy.

That's true; it won't help at all.

The median household income in this country is about $51,000 a year, and in Georgia, it's a little less. Gingrey makes well over triple that, and reportedly has a net worth of $3 million. The Republican lawmaker is also the beneficiary of taxpayer subsidized health care -- benefits he's eager to deny to others -- and has the security that comes with a generous congressional pension.

Here's a radical thought: maybe he shouldn't be complaining about his compensation?

What also amazes me is how often this comes up.

A couple of years ago, then-Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) of Montana assured his constituents he can relate to their economic difficulties, arguing he and his family "are struggling like everyone else." Rehberg had a net worth at the time of about $56 million.

Soon after, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) complained, "In the last election I was labeled a millionaire. Seriously. I ain't wealthy." Gosar, in addition to his congressional salary, owns a building worth up to $1 million, a dental practice worth up to $500,000, and an antique store worth up to $500,000.

And then there was Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) who complained about driving "a used minivan" and how much he "struggles" to pay his bills, despite his large congressional salary.

I haven't seen any polling on this, but I suspect most Americans don't want to hear well-paid politicians complaining about their finances. When many of those same politicians are fighting tooth and nail to make things tougher on struggling families -- cutting food stamps, trying to take away health care benefits, etc. -- it only adds insult to injury.

The Right Wing Propaganda War On Food Stamps

Congressman shops to eat on Food Stamp Budget

While the threat to cutbacks in food stamps died with the recent farm bill, it will most certainly be back on the agenda shortly. Now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), my family lived on them at times when growing up in the Midwest. I'll save you the story, but if not for that and a few other 1970s food supplement programs, we would have starved — no question in my mind. As it was, we could only afford cheap, high-sugar, not very nutritious items with the amount my mother received.

Watch this congressman face the same choices as his grocery budget gets real tight when he tries to live on the amount that his fellow elected officials want folks to live on. 

 

Paul Ryan Wants to Throw 1.8 Million People Off Of Food Stamps for Having a Car

One of the most outrageous components of the Farm Bill is that millionaire Rep. Paul Ryan wants to deny people food stamps if they own adequate transportation.

Beyond the $20 billion in cuts that will throw an estimated two million children, elderly, and disabled Americans off food stamps, millionaire Rep. Paul Ryan is pushing an amendment that would close the door to assistance for the vast majority of Americans. Ryan and Rep. Frank Lucas are proposing that categorical eligibility be eliminated and replaced with an asset limit. If an individual has $2,000 in savings, or a car worth more than $5,000, they will not be eligible for food stamps.

The CBO found that the impact of the move to an asset limit would throw 1.8 million people off of the program. The Hill reported that, “In 2011, only 2 percent of all SNAP households had gross monthly incomes above the poverty line. Most of those were low-income single mothers whose disposable income was actually below the poverty level when childcare expenses were factored in. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 1.8 million people would lose food assistance if categorical eligibility is eliminated. Most of these would be low-income seniors and working families with children. These families typically live paycheck to paycheck. Denying them the ability to save for emergencies, such as fixing a car, or unexpected expenses, such as buying a uniform for a new job, only makes them more dependent on government resources, not less.”

What Reps. Ryan and Lucas are really looking for are criteria that will allow them to throw as many poor people off of the program as possible. Essentially, Ryan and Lucas are trying to deny poor people food because they have a car. The $5,000 limit for automotive value is ridiculous. A car that is worth less than $5,000 is unlikely to be a reliable vehicle. For elderly, disabled, or working poor people, a car is often their only way to look for a job, get to work, or get to the doctor.

It is the ultimate hypocrisy for millionaires like Paul Ryan to be telling a poor person that they have no right to own reliable transportation.

Transportation is often the key to a poor person finding work. Without reliable transportation, you can’t get a job. The majority of Americans on food stamps are children and the disabled. Those children will now be thrown off the program if their family owns a used car worth more than a junkyard clunker.

Ryan is proud of the fact that his legislation would condemn millions of vulnerable Americans to a life of hunger. For Paul Ryan, everything is an Ayn Rand fantasy. Ryan is using poverty as a weapon, because in his view there can only be one winner in the battle of makers versus takers.
Where the rest of us see a grandmother or a child, Paul Ryan sees a leech who is sucking the system dry.

In his warped mind Paul Ryan thinks that starving millions of Americans is a good thing, and he will use any means necessary to make sure that his “makers” emerge victorious.