Wish I’d thought of this …
Leonard Wilson of Riddle, Oregon wrote the following letter to the Public Forum section of his local newspaper. Folks, this is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time!
Don’t help people sit on their rears
I have a question, not only for Douglas County, but for the entire state of Oregon. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order for me to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to go earn it for them?
Please understand, I have nothing against helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping somone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
What a great idea! Get off the dope, get a job, and support yourself! If you’re an addict, we’ll put you in rehab and help you out while you get clean. After that, get a job.
UPDATE 01/09/07 - Followup to this post is here.
works for me..but then I reckon if we cut off the welfare checks, food stamps, and subsidized housing we will have to put an armed guard in the local 7-11 stores..think of the new jobs it will create..
GUYK
3 Jan 07 at 12:42 pm
I also wish I had thought of this. I just forwarded the article to my congressman - find yours below!
Find your rep: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Bec
4 Jan 07 at 11:02 pm
Leonard Wilson’s topic is certainly on the line. I have a relative - 3 children - on welfare - lives in HUD house, get food stamps - and anything else that is available - but sells the food stamps for drug money - or money to play the slots, seldom gets kids to school on time - or at all. I would think it would be mandatory that she be given a drug test - weekly if necessary - or cut off her free allowance. Not only that, she receives money from the IRS every year for not working full time - … it just never ends ….and neither does the use of drugs.
Jean
6 Jan 07 at 2:41 pm
All I can say is AMEN!! Why can’t people see handups, not handouts are the way to help people?!
Holly
8 Jan 07 at 12:42 am
So this guy wants poor people who use drugs (and their families) to be even more destitute than they already are? Seems like a bad idea to me, since both low socioeconomic status and drug use are factors that increase the likelihood of crime. Not that our welfare system is super
awesome (Any system that penalizes savings and and forces recipients to take the whole ball of wax when it’s not what they need is in need of revision (A friend of mine graduated, got a job - that didn’t offer health benefits - and wanted to eventually get off of welfare. She had a 2-year-old, as well as some chronic health problems, and so needed to continue with the healthcare and daycare provided by welfare, but didn’t need the cash or foodstamps benefits that she qualified for. The state
*made* her take the cash and foodstamps benefits in order to continue with the health/daycare.).), but geez, at least it does a passably decent job of keeping people fed and sheltered. I’d say that’s worth my tax dollars, how about you?
And, of course, that’s not even addressing the fact that this letter to the editor is chock full o’ stereotypes…welfare recipients are lazy, don’t work, just sit at home on their butts waiting for their checks, and do drugs. This guy likely also thinks that welfare moms are promiscuous, have kids just to increase their welfare checks, are bad parents, and are stupid. Are some of these stereotypes true in some
cases? Definitely. In most cases? Definitely not. I’m very willing to bet that he either doesn’t personally know anyone on welfare, or the ones he does know don’t fit his stereotype, so he doesn’t realise that they’re on welfare (and they probably haven’t told him, thanks to the
negativity and shame that society likes to heap on welfare recipients).
Mr. Wilson apparently *does* have a problem with welfare. It’s the only explanation I can find for why he singled out welfare recipients as not worthy of tax dollars without urine tests. He’s not advocating that people who use public transit only be able to do so after a urine test, or people who use police and fire services, roads, state health
insurance, public education, etc., etc., etc. No, he wants to make it harder for people who need it to get public assistance, by adding yet another hoop they have to jump through (which of course acts as a deterrent not just for people who use drugs, but for those who have ever used drugs, had drugs used around them, or get false positives on drug tests).
So, in response to the subject, no. This isn’t the truth. The state wouldn’t save money by drug testing welfare recipients. The money “saved” by kicking people off of welfare would be far surpassed by administrative costs, costs of the criminal justice system, costs to society, healthcare costs (if you’re not getting proper nutrition,
you’ll get sick more often…and if you can’t afford decent food, is it likely that you can afford healthcare?), education costs (kids who don’t eat breakfast, for example, don’t learn as well), plus any legal costs incurred by implementing such a situation (can you imagine that there *wouldn’t* be a lawsuit? Drug testing is an invasion of privacy, and I
know the ACLU agrees…yes, there have been some areas it’s been held to be acceptable, but for the most part, those areas are a) private employers, b) public employees in positions responsible for the safety of others, like school bus drivers, c) public employees with cause, and d) random testing - meaning without cause, without discrimination). Not to get all “public health” here, but prevention is almost always cheaper than treatment. It’s cheaper to eat healthfully and exercise than it is to treat heart disease. It’s cheaper to pay for birth control than for pregnancy & childbirth. It’s cheaper to prevent toxic waste spills than
to clean them up. And it’s cheaper to pay out public assistance to those who need it than to not.
Bree
12 Jan 07 at 5:28 pm
“The new federal welfare reform law gives states the option of testing recipients for illegal drugs and sanctioning those who test positive. The law also prohibits states from providing cash aid or food stamps to those convicted after August 22, 1996, of drug-related felony offenses, unless the state chooses to pass a law modifying this requirement or opting out of it entirely. There are no provisions regarding alcohol abuse. Beyond the substance abuse provisions, the new law’s stringent work requirements and five-year time limit—and shorter limits in many states—will necessitate that states find ways to help recipients with substance abuse problems become more employable.”
Ed Furmanick
18 Jan 07 at 5:13 pm
The pervasive nature of substance abuse is rotting the country as a whole. Resources are scarce, period. If we confront the welfare system we must also sanction those affluent people who simply use the system for extra benefits. Drug addicts need treatment facilities and many centers can actually capture the public benefits to pay for treatment. Some people obviously have mistaken enabling for punishment. Sanctions must be progress-specific in terms of public support for the treatment of drug/alcohol addiction. Even if the welfare benefits are stripped, it’s only a matter of time before the addict finds another way to manipulate for money. The system is massively flawed, but the core issue is the destructive effects that dope and alcohol have on individuals and their families. Health and safety in any city would demand fair treatment and support for those suffering, especially the children. Accountability within the welfare system would demand random urine tests. So why doesn’t the city and state step up and start building buildings with services attached? Start building buildings!
brandon beckman
12 Feb 07 at 4:58 pm
Wow, a whole new twist. The amazing thing to see is that so many people think that more free services should be offered to people who do nothing to deserve them. (No, I do not believe that just being alive gives you the “right” to anything.) If drug testing were in place, whether to manage a user, or discourage them for applying, how bad could that be. If it is easier to get a job than public assistance, well yippee. I have had family members on public assistance, and those family members had “friends” in the same situation, speaking only of them-I have never seen a more disgusting abuse of a system. The worst thing about it, it is so easy. I think the most amazing thing is, is that we are a society who has no clue about being poor, and how to conduct ourselves accordingly. You see, when I started out, I couldn’t afford cable, let alone a big screen, I didn’t have lots of jewelry, or acrylic nails, and I didn’t drive a big gas guzzling car with spinners. (sorry if that is sterotyping, but I didn’t make that crap up) As soon as people realize that if they want better things, they will have to work for them, and if they want assistance they will have to earn it i.e. pass a drug screen-oh yeah did you all know that drugs are illegal?, then maybe things will change. As for those struggling to make it out of the system, they will, and when they start paying taxes, and watching people they knew once never move from their couch, believe me, they will feel the same way.
Linette
27 Feb 07 at 1:33 pm
Amazingly, society is comprised of those who know nothing about the devastating effects and conditions caused by the disease of addiction but prefer to speak out and ignore the benefits of treatment. Drug addicts and alcoholics suffer just as a cancer patient does. Explain the preferential treatment. And, by the way, entre-nous prescription drugs are NOT illegal and their effects and contributions to addiction are just as pervasive as an illegal street drug. So, before these unsubstantiated judgements are passed on to other humans with debilitating conditions please educate yourself on the serious and totality of the disease of addiction.
brandon beckman
17 Apr 07 at 12:03 pm
I’ve arrested drug dealers that collect welfare checks and carry credit cards. HUH?? Whats wrong with that picture?
Im not saying everybody abuses the system but a very LARGE percentage of the people are. There are many people that use the system to get on their feet (like it was intended) but there are many who live off the system from generation to generation.
I arrest yound healthy strong individuals that can do physical labor but simply refuse to. Why? Because its easier to do nothing and collect a check. Every night is a Saturday night. Go to sleep wake up…and its Saturday again. How nice.
Roderick
19 Apr 07 at 9:16 pm
I empathize with your frustration.
Brandon Beckman
3 May 07 at 11:04 pm