Alabama Passes 4 Bills Restricting Welfare

[phill4paul]

You do realize I never said or even implied as such. If I was on the end of needing it; I would be grateful enough that it was there that I wouldn't mind peeing in a cup as long as I was receiving the help. And I would recognize that I didn't have a right to that help.

But you do have a right to that help. That is the social contract. You have payed into the system and now that the time has arisen you are in need of pay back. That doesn't mean you abrogate your rights to take from the system that you were forced to contribute to.

 

[specsaregood]

But you do have a right to that help. That is the social contract.

We are going to agree to disagree then. I'd say you have a right to apply for that help and required to meet certain requirements. Being drug free and job ready should a job you are qualified for come about should be easy to agree to requirements.

 

[phill4paul]

We are going to agree to disagree then. I'd say you have a right to apply for that help and required to meet certain requirements. Being drug free and job ready should a job you are qualified for come about should be easy to agree to requirements.

Then you would be fine if every other Bill of Rights were included? Say, what if theye decided no one on welfare should have arms? How about if you are not allowed to peaceably assemble? Or go to church? Random home inspections at any hour?

 

[specsaregood]

Then you would be fine if every other Bill of Rights were included? Say, what if theye decided no one on welfare should have arms? How about if you are not allowed to peaceably assemble? Or go to church? Random home inspections at any hour?

Sure. of course nobody is suggesting that; but ok you want a strawman to beat up on go for it. Let me know when there is a REQUIREMENT to go on welfare. Until then, it is a choice. Just like you don't have to take a job that requires drug testing.

 

[gwax23]

make them pay for the drug tests. Problem solved. Are these laws perfect? No. But they will lower the amount of people on welfare and thus save the tax payers money.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Didn't a state like Florida try this a while back and it cost more in testing than it saved on disallowing recipients?

Different thing, they were requiring testing for all welfare recipients of any kind, including food stamps. #1 on this bill is only for TANF, or cash assistance. TANF as a program was already almost impossible to get, so I don't know how much of a difference this will make. When 1/100 of 1% if your welfare recipients are on TANF, even if this cuts the number down by half it would be less than the proverbial drop in the bucket.

NC laws are already harsher on #1, if you apply for TANF and you have a drug conviction on your record of any kind from any State, at any point in your life, then you are automatically banned for life from receiving TANF; excepting that IF the conviction was in NC and ONLY if the conviction was in NC, then you are allowed to go through rehab ONCE, and if rehab says you were successful then you get the ability to claim TANF back, but that is your one and only shot.

#2 already exists in NC.

#3 is only 2 jobs apps instead of 3 in NC

#4 I dunno but we probably do that here too.

Bear in mind that TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) is already a rare program that almost nobody gets. It's not like food stamps etc. It's a cash payment from the government. So doggone few people get TANF that eliminating it altogether would likely have almost no impact. So nothing they can do to TANF will have any real impact.

All in all there is nothing startling here, and nothing that will actually affect anything. It will probably make somewhere between 5 and 10 person's lives more difficult, but it will pay off in a Republican "tough on welfare" primary.

My verdict: all show no go here.

 

[jkr]

when the politicians take a drug test i will too...& include alcohol, ciggs, & pharma

ZERO tolerance
its 4 tha childr3nz

 

[phill4paul]

Sure. of course nobody is suggesting that; but ok you want a strawman to beat up on go for it. Let me know when there is a REQUIREMENT to go on welfare. Until then, it is a choice. Just like you don't have to take a job that requires drug testing.

We are talking infringement of the fourth amendment. How is comparing it to the First and second a strawman? There is a REQUIREMENT to pay into the welfare system. Therefore, there is a contract to use those benefits when they are needed. That social contract should never include the abrogation of a personal right. Ever.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

STARVE

No, not really. TANF is nothing to do with food. You are thinking of SNAP/EBT/FNS.

TANF is mostly about buying clothing, lightbulbs, gas for the car, razors for an interview, etc. It's called "cash assistance" locally.

In NC in order to get TANF in the first place you have to enroll in a job training and matching program.

Most people are not qualified for TANF, however, they will still get up to $200/month for food stamps per person whether they have drug convictions, are looking for work, visit bars and casinos, or not.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

We are talking infringement of the fourth amendment. How is comparing it to the First and second a strawman? There is a REQUIREMENT to pay into the welfare system. Therefore, there is a contract to use those benefits when they are needed. That social contract should never include the abrogation of a personal right. Ever.

Yes, so don't get me wrong, I am not defending their action I am just clarifying what is actually happening and explaining why it's not actually as bad as the OP makes it sound. I don't support the testing for welfare schemes for a variety of reasons, but if one out of the 60 or so different programs has to have it, then the one that hands out cold hard cash for free, to spend however you like, would be the right one to attach that abomination to.

Mostly I'm just clarifying the TANF program (Bills 1, 3, and 4) is 'cash assistance' and it is the most rarely-used form of welfare there is. At least in NC it is, and then that bill #2 makes sense in it's own right. There are praises and criticisms to make here, but at the end of the day this is only going to affect a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent, and if crazy restrictions ever applied to any of the 60-odd welfare programs, then TANF would be the one. "Here is your free $500 cash a week miss. See you next week for your next $500 free cash in exchange for absolutely nothing at all. Don't be a stranger! "

I actually talked one of my best friends in the NCLEG out of really pushing a Florida-like drug test for welfare bill by showing him the statistics of what actually happened in Florida, where spending went up 30% and they were only cutting like 2 out of 10,000; that from a fiscally conservative standpoint it made no sense. We end up increasing welfare spending by a third, and we only hit a few dozen druggies a year statewide. It's not an acceptable tradeoff, that you would spend less and stop more druggies by adding a voluntary no strings attached rehab program to the welfare application. You would spend less money than your proposal, you would eliminate more drug use than your proposal, and it would never go anywhere because Republicans would consider it a 'liberal' bill.

There is so much that just boils down to perspective...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

make them pay for the drug tests. Problem solved. Are these laws perfect? No. But they will lower the amount of people on welfare and thus save the tax payers money.

The way this law is set up and given what TANF is, there may end up being a total of 50 drug tests a year statewide under this law. Most people with a drug conviction in the last 5 years simply won't apply for TANF, they'll settle for food stamps and like it. And then maybe ask their girlfriend or boyfriend or spouse to apply for TANF instead of them.

The less than 1% of TANF applicants with a drug conviction who do choose to press on, will only do so because they have already counted it out and know they can pass the test. If not, then it will quietly be made known to them they are better off staying clean and coming back next month to apply.

So, TANF is 1/100 of 1% in the first place, only 1% of TANF applicants with drug convictions will press on, the ones that do will only do so knowing they are clean, the ones who are not clean will just come back in a month when they are.

You have a negligible number of a negligible number. It won't actually make a fiscal difference who pays for the testing, but someone applying for TANF is there because they can't afford soap, so you may as well just shutter the program, or allow the cost of the drug test to be pulled slowly out of their benefits later. But THEN you are really only punishing the clean...and that's probably not going to work out so well in the end.

 

[LibForestPaul]

We are all responsible for our choices. Druggies too. If he/she prefer to spend their money on drugs, rather than food, that is their decision to make for themselves.

Seriously? Guess I will be more specific and draw clearer map. The druggy will beat some old lady and steal her 24 dollars, whore herself out and get infected, wind up in jail or hospital, and the people of Alabama will still pay. How the hell does this help the old lady that gets her head smashed in, or some daughter and some Arbys that gets held up, raped, and killed. Denying food is asking for trouble. If this is what the people of Alabama have been told will be the outcome, so be it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Also, these bills do not affect food.

 

[Origanalist]

Seriously? Guess I will be more specific and draw clearer map. The druggy will beat some old lady and steal her 24 dollars, whore herself out and get infected, wind up in jail or hospital, and the people of Alabama will still pay. How the hell does this help the old lady that gets her head smashed in, or some daughter and some Arbys that gets held up, raped, and killed. Denying food is asking for trouble. If this is what the people of Alabama have been told will be the outcome, so be it.

Denying food is asking for trouble

Who the hell is denying anybody food? So to be clear, what you are saying is that if these people aren't provided with food some old lady is going to get her head smashed in and the fault lies with those that deny the freebies.

That's about as ............. as it gets.