Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients!

Employers can weed out potential employees on the basis of mandatory Urinalysis testing. Why is it that welfare recipients are not required to be tested? In all seriousness, employers are allowed to refuse employment or even fire when positive results occur from mandatory or random drug testing. The US Military conducts both random and mandatory testing, which can be used to remove soldiers or sailors from the ranks. This should be Incorporated into the welfare system, If someone is sitting on the government payroll, receiving payments without working, why shouldn't they be required to provide samples to determine if they are wasting the monies we give them for subsidence on illegal activities. I would prefer to limit welfare funding to Rice and Beans (Refer back to an earlier posting ), than to do the drug testing, but as long as they have the opportunity to sell or trade off their benefits, we need to ensure that money is used properly. So That's my view, if I have to submit to drug testing to work they they should have to submit to receive the hard earned money I pay into the welfare program to support them.

Food Stamps Out >> Rice and Beans In

The biggest problem with Give-away programs is that they required monitoring and yet the only monitoring system in place is on the Honor System. When food stamps came out, it wasn't long before enterprising individuals found out that, grocery stores really didn't check id's or for the most part, even cared if they were buying what the food stamps were originally for. I remember being in a store and a well dressed man paid for part of his food with food stamps and for the rest pulled out a oversized wad of large denomination bills. Not only was he buying steaks, beer and Cigarettes, but, the clerk didn't care. The store was getting their money from the government. Soon others began selling their food stamps under the guise of money laundering, That's right they would sell their food stamps pennies on the dollar. That way they could buy those necessities unavailable at the grocer, like pot, heron, crack.... (get the picture). Then came the EBT cards, the governments answer to relieve the stigma of paying with food stamps, this was designed to 1) make other watchful eyes think the person was buying with a credit or debit card. and 2) more secure since the person would be signing (when was the last time a grocery clerk checked your id when you checked out). Now you can buy all kinds of unnecessary things with your EBT card, since many grocery stores carry a lot more than groceries (i.e. Walmart). So how do we get back to providing a proper sustenance for those who truly need it, while maintaining that person's dignity? Here's my answer... Beans and Rice, that's right beans and rice your basic foods beans have fiber and protein, while rice has carbohydrates (these are those items we send to disaster areas). In addition to giving those items away to the poor, you give them to everyone. Literally destroying their market value. A junkie won't find anyone to buy their beans and rice if anyone can get them for free. Families won't starve, because, they will always be able to eat beans and rice. There won't be any stigma attached to eating beans and rice, and if you want steaks and beer on the side, you will be paying for it out of your pocket not out of mine. Besides if properly stored they can last forever. As for paying farmers not to grow potatos or corn or tobacco, the federal government could pay them to grow Beans and Rice.

When Voting Becomes A Conflict of Interest

I know this will stir up a hornet's nest, but, I really believe this needs to be said. "People on public assistance, should not be able to vote." It is a matter of conflict of interest. Politicans will pander to these people promising them more aid, more money, for their votes. If people on welfare are restricted from voting, these same politicans will be more likely to help them with workable programs to get them off the public dole, instead of keeping them there. For instance, I have had single mothers working for me, who when given a raise, asked me to cut their hours, because they would earn too much and would lose benefits. A mere dollar increase, was causing them to lose two dollars in benefits. Why should we punish these people and make it harder to alleviate their situation. We should set up the system which gives them every opportunity to get free of the system. What should have happened is for every two dollar increase in earning they should have only lost one dollar in benefits. In so making it easier to get off the welfare wagon, and building self sufficient members of society, contributing to the GNP. That won't happen until politicans stop seeing the poor as a voting block, so they will have no interest in keeping them poor. I have no problem with giving assistance to those who need in the short term, but, we have created welfare as a career choice.