Alabama Passes 4 Bills Restricting Welfare

[aGameOfThrones]

In the past two days, four measures restricting welfare use have passed the Republican-controlled Alabama legislature and now await the signature of Gov. Robert J. Bentley (R). The bills would impose new eligibility restrictions on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, a federal welfare program for low-income families, including mandatory drug tests for applicants with drug convictions.

Here are the four bills passed by the Alabama legislature on Wednesday and Thursday:

1. Senate Bill 63
Passed Senate 63-33 on Feb 26
Passed House 73-27 on Apr 3
Senate Bill 63 would require TANF applicants with a drug conviction in the last five years to be drug-tested before receiving their first benefits. Those who test positive for the first time would receive a warning. A second positive test would result in a one-year suspension of TANF benefits. A third positive test would result in a lifetime ban of TANF aid.

2. Senate Bill 114
Passed Senate 29-2 on Feb 26
Passed House 80-17 on Apr 2
Senate Bill 114 would make it a Class A misdemeanor to falsify information in order to qualify for any state or federally funded public assistance program.

3. Senate Bill 115
Passed Senate 28-1 on Feb 26
Passed House 70-33 on Apr 2
Senate Bill 115 would mandate that TANF applicants apply for at least three positions of unsubsidized employment before qualifying for aid.

4. Senate Bill 116
Passed Senate 25-0 on Feb 26
Passed House 64-34 on Apr 2
Senate Bill 116 would expand the list of places where electronic welfare cards cannot be used at ATM machines. The bill, which expands the federal government's TANF usage bans in bars, casinos and liquor stores, would also prohibit TANF recipients from using TANF benefits for lottery tickets, strip clubs, tattoos, piercings or psychic services.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ills_n_5093739.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[oyarde]

#2 looks OK ,since that would just be stealing, but kind of odd , they have no penalty now ? #1 , meh , who cares .I would rather there be nothing they could get that is Fed funded, I do not care what they do though.....

 

[jkr]

STARVE

 

[LibForestPaul]

Asinine. You are a druggy, so no food for you? I wonder what a starving druggy will do for food? Quietly die of course.

 

[Legend1104]

Asinine. You are a druggy, so no food for you? I wonder what a starving druggy will do for food? Quietly die of course.

I ok with it because if you can afford drugs then you don't need the governments help to feed your kids.

 

[tod evans]

This is just picking at the scab...

End all federally funded welfare and let Alabama do what ever it wants with its own tax revenue.....

 

[LibertyEagle]

Asinine. You are a druggy, so no food for you? I wonder what a starving druggy will do for food? Quietly die of course.

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.

 

[phill4paul]

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

 

[specsaregood]

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.

I'd make it go even further. Drug testing for all recipients; not just the ones with past drug convictions. Don't like it, don't get on the teat.

 

[phill4paul]

Ah, yes it was Florida....

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state's net loss? $45,780.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721

 

[specsaregood]

/.

 

[Wooden Indian]

There's an assumption that the poor pay for their drugs, which isn't often the case. A poor man or woman can easily score a few tokes off of a pipe while attending any social gathering.

This has little to nothing to do with "druggies". It's about, "If you want to eat, you need us to feed you, and for us to feed you, we will need your 100% compliance, comrade".

Not arguing for handouts here- only saying what I see the lawmakers actual agenda being.
They don't care about their budget or debt. They don't care about compassion or well being.
They care about control.

 

[phill4paul]

Where does it say AL is doing this with the intent of "saving" money?

Do politicians ever care about saving taxpayers money? Just more war on drugs nonsense to appeal to a particular subset of voters that believes in being "tough on crime."

 

[specsaregood]

Do politicians ever care about saving taxpayers money? Just more war on drugs nonsense to appeal to a particular subset of voters that believes in being "tough on crime."

I like the idea; for a couple reasons.
1. I don't want people to enjoy being on the dole.
2. In order to get off the dole, you are going to need a job. Many jobs drug test; if you are on the dole and doing drugs you wont be able to get one of those jobs. I'd consider this ensuring these folk are job-ready.

At the same time, I'd support mandatory regular drug testing for:
1. All elected officials and mandatory breathalyzer tests before any vote.
2. All govt employees (could make these random testing).

My goal would be to make these jobs as uninviting as possible.

 

[Wooden Indian]

I like the idea; for a couple reasons.
1. I don't want people to enjoy being on the dole.
2. In order to get off the dole, you are going to need a job. Many jobs drug test; if you are on the dole and doing drugs you wont be able to get one of those jobs. I'd consider this ensuring these folk are job-ready.

At the same time, I'd support mandatory regular drug testing for:
1. All elected officials and mandatory breathalyzer tests before any vote.
2. All govt employees (could make these random testing).

My goal would be to make these jobs as uninviting as possible.

And I get your rational here. I would just remind you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[phill4paul]

I like the idea; for a couple reasons.
1. I don't want people to enjoy being on the dole.
2. In order to get off the dole, you are going to need a job. Many jobs drug test; if you are on the dole and doing drugs you wont be able to get one of those jobs. I'd consider this ensuring these folk are job-ready.

At the same time, I'd support mandatory regular drug testing for:
1. All elected officials and mandatory breathalyzer tests before any vote.
2. All govt employees (could make these random testing).

My goal would be to make these jobs as uninviting as possible.

Well, there is always that pesky Fourth amendment that keeps getting in the way. And the courts are where this whole WOD/Tough on Crime bamboozle is gonna eventually end up anyway as it winds it's way to the Supreme.

The U.S. District Court handed Gov. Rick Scott a defeat on Dec. 31 when it struck down a law requiring drug screening of welfare recipients.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/p...equire-drug-screening-for-welfare-recipients/

 

[specsaregood]

..

 

[phill4paul]

I fail to see where one has a right to welfare benefits. I see it as waiving your 4th amendment rights in order to get handouts.

You do realize that not all welfare recipients are crack huffing gangbangers, right? Some individuals live there whole lives contributing to a safety net. Sometimes they end up needing it.

 

[tod evans]

You do realize that not all welfare recipients are crack huffing gangbangers, right?

The ones I'd like to see cut first wear suits and collect their handouts from the various alphabet agencies......

 

[specsaregood]

You do realize that not all welfare recipients are crack huffing gangbangers, right? Some individuals live there whole lives contributing to a safety net. Sometimes they end up needing it.

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.