Scott Walker Calls Food Stamp Drug Testing 'A Progressive Thing'

Scott Walker Calls Food Stamp Drug Testing 'A Progressive Thing'

Scott Walker is insane... Is ANY of his rhetoric steeped in reality? So by now, I'm sure you've all read the title of the article and see where this thread is going, but here goes anyways. First this:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) wants to make food stamp recipients take drug tests so he can help them.

Help them? That's a lie through and through. I don't care what side of the political aisle you are coming from. Drug testing them isn't going to "help" them.

What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Take note of this link, I'll be coming back to it several times.

The other impact is increasing stigma around both welfare and drug use. It can increase the shame people feel around applying for welfare benefits in the first place, which could drive them away from getting assistance they may need to get by. At the same time, it may make drug users less willing to disclose and therefore keep them from connecting with treatment, according to Lower-Basch. “If people are afraid they’ll lose their benefits if they admit to using drugs, it makes it hard for them to say, ‘Hey, actually I have this issue,'” she explained. A study of Florida’s program, which has since been struck down by the courts, found that it didn’t produce any reliable estimates of drug use among welfare recipients.

Even if the policies did unearth drug users in need of help, however, that doesn’t mean states are going to get it to them. Many “don’t guarantee your slot [in treatment facilities] or in some cases pay for it,” she noted. Centers often have long waiting lists, so someone who gets referred may not even be able to get in. Some states used to use TANF money to expand access to drug treatment, but as the money allocated to the program has dropped in real value, those efforts have dried up.

So let's return to the OP article and Scoot "the idiot" Walker.

"We're trying to help people who are in need of our assistance to get jobs," Walker said, "because the best thing we can do with them is to make sure they get the skills and education they need, and make sure they are drug free if they have an addiction, to get back in the workforce."

Walker wants to drug test food stamp recipients so badly that he is currently suing the federal government for permission to do so. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has long maintained that federal law doesn't allow states to add drug tests as a condition of eligibility for SNAP. Walker wants a court to say the feds are wrong.

The only thing that it looks like Walker is trying to do is "help" the government waste taxpayer money. On top of suing the government, let's look at some success rates for these programs (from the second link)

Here's Missouri's, Oklahoma's, Utah's, Tennessee's, Kansas's, Mississippi's, and Arizona's (home to everyone's "favorite" sheriff) "success" rate.








For those bad at math, that is less than a 1% success rate. Are you starting to get a picture of how successful these programs are? Let's return to my OP article then.

The one-time Republican frontrunner in Iowa has tumbled in the latest Quinnipiac poll. The Wisconsin governor received support from just 3 percent of likely Republican caucus participants, down 15 points in just two months, putting him in 10th place. Walker led the field in July, with 18 percent. He sparked excitement among social conservatives following a speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January, but since then his campaign has seen a downward spiral. Walker, who grew up in Iowa, has touted his Midwestern roots, but it seems that may not be enough to win over voters in a state his campaign considers a must-win. Walker canceled speeches this coming week in Michigan and California to spend more time in Iowa and South Carolina.

Since the 1990s, Republicans have pushed drug tests as a way of being strict with welfare recipients, and in the Obama era, drug test proposals have become more popular than ever. But they usually target people applying for benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which is about a tenth the size of SNAP in terms of recipients. With his lawsuit, Walker is trying to take urinalysis to a higher level (though his screening proposal focuses on the subset of SNAP recipients who are able-bodied adults without children).

I'm not too confident that trying to force a federal program to drug test welfare recipients is going to improve his polls too much... And for a final piece of Walker humor I leave you with this:

"No, our evidence is that we talk to employers that say we have jobs, we need people who can have basic employability skills and pass a drug test," he said.

HuffPost asked if Walker could name any of those employers.

"Well, I've talked to them for years," he said. "I'd have to go back and look through my schedule over the years, but we've had employer after employer say that consistently that they want employees that are drug free and they want employees that can pass basic employability skills."

To be honest, drug testing should be illegal. It's an invasion of privacy and what someone does on their off-work hours should have zero baring on their employment eligibility. I can understand that companies don't want people to come to work intoxicated, but there are better ways to go about discovering that. And drug testing welfare recipients needs to be forgotten from EVERYONE'S play book. It is a HUGE money sink and doesn't accomplish its stated goals. I'd say it is an artifact from the tough on drugs years during the 80's and early 90's, but its actually a new idea that has gained a lot of popularity during the Obama administration (though it is always pushed by Republicans).

Now I know that Republicans are floundering in the polls, but I'm not sure jumping on the "drugs are bad mmmkay" wagon is a good idea. Public opinion is shifting AWAY from the war on drugs, not towards more favorability. Of course, Walker has tanked in the polls. He should talk to Chris Christie about how being tough on drugs is working out for his campaign.

The detoxification process for some drugs (such as powerful opioids, e.g. heroin) can be lethal without the right medical supervision. So, conceivably you could have someone dieing from trying to quit drugs to get food stamps so they won't die of starvation. What do you really accomplish by denying food to someone on drugs?

Not to mention, how would handle denying food stamps to a mother but make sure the children are taken care of. I guess the answer would be to take away the children. That only exacerbates and does not solve the problem.

That plan doesn't seem vetted very well.

You know, I don't think Walker is lying about saying the #1 concern from employers is passing a drug test. I live in what was just ranked the second worst town in Ohio (we moved up from being ranked the worst for the previous 4 years straight). My college degrees, experience, education, and skills aren't my best asset when it comes to getting employed around here. The best thing I have, and what automatically puts me ahead of over half the population of the town is that I can pass a drug test with no advance notice.

Friends of mine in similar areas all say the same thing. Their #1 skill (or not, in the case of some of them) is their ability to pass a drug test.

Now, I don't think that correlates to SNAP drug usage because all indications are that that's simply not a real issue but Walker is bringing up a very real problem, he just has the wrong solution.

Well those results blast the idea that all welfare recipients are wasters on drugs and drink out of the water.

Wasting money on something to alienate a few when it could be used to help the majority seems quite ridiculous.

And we all know that weed stays in the system as a residual for weeks and weeks, so someone who had a joint a month ago at a party will test positive....

All seems silly to me. We have better things to spend the money on. How many homeless people could have been helped with that drug testing money, or veterans. We all know how much the unloved veterans are suffering, there was a post on here about it.

Those graphs are manipulative.

I'll let you genius' work out how.

I wonder how many in local and federal government would fail a drugs test?

a reply to: Aazadan

Good point. I am all for legalization, and freedom of choice, but real employers have real drug tests, and in order to get a real job, more than likely you will need to pass a drug test. If you are on welfare due to bad circumstances, and you plan to better yourself, then you need to be clean in order to get these jobs that exist. If you plan on riding on the system as long as possible, then for all the people who have to piss clean to keep their jobs, I feel like they should as well. If they are taking Government money, they might as well say the work for the government.

Until a test for "high right now" comes out, this will continue to be an issue and will have lots of folks who wish they could indulge, but can't due to job requirements.

It needs to be looked at for all perspectives. People on welfare need to realize they are being enslaved just as what happened in the distant past, just using different chains. In order to make in the system, you need to play by the rules of the system. It's just that simple.

Some of the costs of testing are crazy. Where Oklahoma spend mad amounts and didnt test as many as Mississippi. Arizona spent $499 bucks and tested way more than Mississippi?

Madness...

I still think politicians should be tested like DOT employees. Random. Curious of those results though we know that would never happen.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Those graphs are manipulative.

I'll let you genius' work out how.

Well, I'm saying either you tell us what you mean by that or you're lying.

You should know better than to just come in here and spout some claim and not back it up. You've been here long enough to that don't fly around here Charlie.

It's not true just because you say it is.

a reply to: mOjOm

They don't tell us how many were tested, they don't tell us how much the tests cost separately and the graphs a formed to give the impression that only so many out of all recipients were found to be positive.


I'm not lying they're clearly manipulative.


I don't agree with testing either...
But I'm not gullible.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's pretty much how "fiscal conservatives" work. They only care about the costs of a program when it's not a program they support. Just look at Walker's crap about building a fence along the Canadian border. How would they realistically pay for it?

I also agree that these programs are wrong. But if they really believe in drug testing the people who receive money from the government, they should start by drug testing all lawmakers, law enforcement, members of our judicial system, and the upper echelon of any organization that receives government subsidies, grants, and/or contracts.

After all, judges, police or politicians who are drug addicts have a much greater possibility of endangering the public than a person so poor they qualify for food stamps. Imagine if half of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were currently addicted to drugs that cause paranoia & hallucinations. They'd literally be putting the world in danger because of their drug habits. And if an entire police force turned out to be addicted to any common street drug, how could they be trusted with drug related incidences?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: mOjOm

They don't tell us how many were tested, they don't tell us how much the tests cost separately and the graphs a formed to give the impression that only so many out of all recipients were found to be positive.


I'm not lying they're clearly manipulative.


I don't agree with testing either...
But I'm not gullible.

So basically you're saying they lied about everything to with those tests.

Why not assume that the Total was "Passed + Failed"???

Also, why not assume that the cost is "Total Cost/Total tests"???

What makes you think they'd lie about the numbers??? Better yet, what's your evidence to show that those numbers aren't correct???

I'm not saying you're lying either. I'm saying you need to support your claims or else we don't know if you're lying or not.

In 2011, Missouri adopted a law to require screening and testing for all TANF applicants, and the testing began in March 2013. In 2014, 446 of the state’s 38,970 applicants were tested. Just 48 tested positive.

Hyperbole Deluxe !!

originally posted by: xuenchen

Hyperbole Deluxe !!

Does that mean you think they are lying about the numbers too???

Evidence to support that???

a reply to: mOjOm

Clearly it doesn't cost 500 dollars to test 140,000 people so it's an irrelevant number to compare to positive tests results.

Only the gullible would look at those graphs and come to a conclusion.


I'd rather not assume btw, assumptions are not facts.

And without facts we cannot say whether testing was worth it.

That's the discussion. Whether it's monetarily viable.

I don't know, but those graphs don't help me to reconsider that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Greetings- The one here in Flori-Duh wasn't really addressed as much as it should have been in My opinion. Remember the "Pill Mills" (When 'they' were using up the first batch of opium from Afghanistan right after ousting TheTaliban who kept the opium at 7% of the world's supply. Since "The War" and 2001 it has grown to 86%+.. ) Anyway Gov. Scott closed the Pill Mills and opened up His personal business, Concierge Drs. or 'Strip Mall Drs.' When the law was authored by Smith (R)-Inverness the law read that the welfare recipient would have to pay for their own tests. At Gov. Scott's business they cost $34.00 At Fl. hospitals the tests averaged $150.00 So The Gov. undercut the Fl. hospitals at an avg. of $116.00 This was considered a "conflict of interest" so it was resolved by Scott signing over the business to His wife..

It would also help the reader to know that Gov. Scott spent $75M for a job that pays $237k/yr. You may know Him better as Rick Scott, healthcare fraud guy to the tune of $400??? M...

namaste

Edit: Forgot to mention.. The initial reports were that only 3.4% tested + But it was later discovered that those numbers were 'massaged' and ONLY 2.9% tested +.

Carl Hiasson a writer from Miami offered to pay for drug testing for ALL the Fl. Senate and legislature, oddly His kind gesture was DENIED.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Clearly it doesn't cost 500 dollars to test 140,000 people so it's an irrelevant number to compare to positive tests results.

Only the gullible would look at those graphs and come to a conclusion.

I'd rather not assume btw, assumptions are not facts.

And without facts we cannot say whether testing was worth it.

That's the discussion. Whether it's monetarily viable.

I don't know, but those graphs don't help me to reconsider that.

Ok, well they are presented as facts so unless someone proves otherwise those are the facts.

At 500 bucks for 140,000 tests I'd say that is very reasonable pricing. That seems way too cheap actually so you might be right about the pricing. The difference in pricing from one state to the other is quite a bit different.

But still, unless you can provide evidence to show they are wrong, you too are just assuming they are incorrect. Since you like facts rather than assumptions you should be proving them wrong. Wouldn't you agree??

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: xuenchen

Hyperbole Deluxe !!

Does that mean you think they are lying about the numbers too???

Evidence to support that???

Oh don't put thoughts in peoples' heads especially yours.

Go after the source, not me !!

*Knee hits jaw moment*

scott walker called it a progressive thing?.....these republican candidates are looking more bats**t crazy every day....and these are the ones running for president????.....just think of the ones that were elected in the house of representatives that we don't hear about.

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm not putting thoughts in anyone's heads.

All I'm saying is that to properly counter argue those graphs requires some evidence to do so. Otherwise those graphs that are put up by Krazyshot must be correct.