towerpainter -- I agree with much of what you have said today. I too think that while there is financial opportunity available from the government, there will always be those that exploit the situation by doing little or nothing to better themselves. I also think that people shouldn't be drug tested simply because others disagree with their particular life-style.

Yet, where I believe we disagree comes from much of your post from the other day. There is a misconception that most people on welfare are lazy and have no desire to contribute to society. The fact remains that few on welfare actually live this way. In Wisconsin, 33% of recipients are disabled and another 33% are employed greater than 20 hours per week. There are only a third of the recipients that are not working while being able to do so.

Furthermore, the group that encompasses those without employment is the one that typically has the fastest turn-over. Many of these people find work that gets them back on their feet. However, for some of them, the work they find only pays enough to reduce the amount of benefits they are eligible for.

What is really troubling however is the amount of people qualifying for these type of benefits. In 1992, welfare in WI saw a decline from ~130k to ~60k people. Since 2000, the numbers had been on a steady rise. By 2008, enrollment in these programs reached ~175k. Since then, it has more than double due to the recession.

I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of the people receiving benefits are the stereotypical 'welfare queens'. Poverty in this state has double since 2008. This has all happened during a period where businesses have been downsizing and banks have been reluctant to help finance expansion of existing businesses.

How then would you propose that those on 'welfare' better their situation when the market doesn't have enough opportunity available to support the amount of need for jobs that exists today?

baegucb what you say makes absolutely no sense Mr Limbaugh who is irritating at times and very in love with himself does indeed make huge money talking for an hour and a half or so a day but he is not getting money for nothing from government. Whether anyone likes it or not he provides a very equitable commodity. He has more listeners than any other talk show in America in that genre by far. That being said advertisers are willing to pay huge money for their spots. See this is a part of the American mentality that makes me sick you don't like what he says so "drug testing" is called for. Why because you don't like his success? I'm sure you love the lice infested rock stars who promote drug use. See me I believe in freedom I don't care for the rock stars but I have no desire to intrude on their lives and I admire that they found a way to be successful. I hope success for you to and every American. I would love to see everyone get off of welfare but it won't happen because some folks see it as an acceptable way to live. Pitiful.

Ezoner : NO not every company drug tests , U-HAUL Dont drug test Prior to hiring only if theres an accident with equipment .
Generac Does Not Drug test prior to hiring .

Theres a big difference from a private company wanting to drug test on there property To Your Federal Government wanting to Test an Entire group of people based on income level !
who have done nothing wrong .

Let's drug test the four time married Rush Limbaugh. He makes one million dollars a week to trash talk. Of course, he admits using Viagra, and has been convicted as a drug addict. So let's test him.

You're welcome, RoCoChick. Somethings are just so obvious there just isn't anything else to say....

or would you prefer...which came first: the chicken or the egg?

people who are so affected by society's inequality tend to numb themselves from the pain. It doesn't matter much how you like it or not. I am not promoting drug use. I'm promoting treating all people, regardless of income, like people and not second class, less-than-human or otherwise not worthy of our time. Why is everyone SO active to hurt instead of help others???? I shake my head at the insensitivity of those who think, for some ill-gotten reason, that they are better because they have money in a bank account or "things"....

BTW, the quick test strip tox screens for urinalisis cost less than $.50 if bought in large bulk quantities. RC jail easily goes thru 100 or more in a day.

How about doing away with welfare completely I am in favor of that. No food stamps, no medicare, no SS, no government grants of any kind, no more free ride for anyone. We talk about the poor in this country and if you have been anywhere else you would realize that we do not have poor people. We should so that there is at least a visible tale of caution to witness. Any time you subsidize bad behavior you get more of it. Not having a job is bad behavior. We are doing these people no favors we are only creating and for years have created a dependent class to the point that there is no shame even in getting government help. Let anyone be hungry for a while and they may get their priorities straight.

Oh Yeah.. Great Idea! Lets make another Big Government Office to have, low income women, & children pee in a cup! Do you realize how much money these Tox screens cost, the cost of hiring "professionals" (NOT) to check the results, & the cost of salaries to pay the hired guns to run these new government agencies... all to catch a few Drug addicts with kids & throw em out in the streets. This is nothing more than Big Government, trying to make itself bigger on out tax dime. Will we ever learn from the past. Any Politician or taxpayer who thinks this is a good idea has never been on the skids, out in the cold. Because if they had (with their eyes opened).. they'd know the only people this is going to hurt the most are little kids. Pathetic, is what we've become.. Lets not rein in government waste, fraud, & abuse (i.e. Pork Barrel spending), lets not stop making government bigger, & use what we have efficiently.. lets not send another penny to another country to aide them until our own people are aided off the streets. This is also about "More Control". Politicians can make all the excuses they want, but the majority of us know they couldn't balance a budget if they really wanted to.. which they don't..

Testing for welfare benefits has worked really well here in florida. We have spent $170 million and so far we have saved $60 thousand. Rick Scott's buddies in the drug testing labs have done even better. 98% of welfare recipients have passed the drug test. Let it go!

NoLeftist -- Banning 'Happy Meals', like what has happened in California, is the same type of ridiculous law making that I am talking about. Are you really suggesting that we take the same road as California and start doing things their way? I mean, why do so many people always push the 'They got their way on something I didn't like, I should get my way now' argument.

Too many people get fired up about an issue, all because they have an emotional reaction to it. Most of the time, the emotion is anger. Yet, too often they begin to justify doing anything to make them feel a little better.

Yes, there are people in this world that use drugs. Often, these people are considered of lesser character. So too is the feeling toward welfare recipients. Thus, welfare recipients must be drug users. Therefor, we should do everything that we can to stop feeding their habit.

That is the basic line of thinking among many of the people in favor of this type of legislation. Yet, what people fail to realize is that we are just spending more and more to catch drug users. We already have a legal system, healthcare system, and community organizations that work everyday to address this issue.

But, because someone on 'welfare' may be using drugs, lets test everyone.

The government can forbid EVERYONE from buying happy meals because that's not too much government intrusion into people's lives, but can't require a drug test from individuals if they want free taxpayer money because that's too much intrusion into peoples' lives.

Got it.

Ezoner -- I see your point. And yes, that point has already been raised a couple of times. However, I believe that many people are failing to see that what happens between individuals and what government does are quite different.

It is widely know that if a person works for a beverage manufacturer, they can be terminated for drinking the beverages of a competitor. From the employer's stand point, this makes sense because they are paying them with wages from their product sales and do not want their marketing efforts undermined by an employee. Also, employee's of said companies agree not to drink the competitor's beverage in exchange for the opportunity to work for the company.

Where this scenario makes sense falls apart when trying to extend that philosophy to government. Should the government start requiring its people to consume the products that it has deemed better. Of course not.

Nor should the government start utilizing the same drug testing measures that many companies in the private sector have simply because it is a common practice. When we start granting the government powers because an idea is popular, we increase the chance that we will destroy our freedom.

I can see why people would support this measure. I too think that people that are relying on the government for help shouldn't be using drugs. Doing so is just prolonging their problem while often adding more trouble to their lives.

However, I also realize that drug testing the entire demographic will just result in an over utilization of government resources. The vast majority of people receiving welfare can't afford to buy drugs with the aid that they receive. They are too busy trying to overcome their situation.

Ok -- not sure if anyone posted this, so if I repeat, sorry -- People on unemployement are actively looking for work -- right? Any job -- again - any job you get requires a drug test, I have not been hired without a drug test. So if you must pass a drug test to work, it makes sense to pass a drug test to get you unemployment check.

Its working people. They have everyone focusing on stuff that they could care less about. The issue is the do f_c*$@g nothing congress and a President who is trying to herd a bunch of cats. As long as we talk about idiot things, their shortcomings will stay out of the headlines!!! Bring back the GLASS & STEAGELL act. And by the way, were the IRAQIS going to pay us back for this war? I mean occupation?

Exactly zdog. Funny indeed, but what makes it so funny is that its the truth. Every Saturday Night Live 'Weekend Update' skit EVER has had a funny person make people laugh by pointing out truthful AND funny things.

The Daily show is funny, but just because they guy delivering it is funny, doesn't make the points any less valid.

Watching the Daily Show like it is reliable news. That's funny. (I DO NOT watch FOX news, don't even start).

The problem with just testing for drugs is that it only deals with a sliver of the problem. Programs like welfare, WIC, unemployement are doomed to fail because of appropriate structure and the resources to monitor. Ideally, some of these programs should have a time limit for persons to be on. When the time is up, a person should argue their case of why they should be on, not the state arguing why they should be off. Abuse is rapant in all aspects. Not just drugs. The only reason why drug users are under fire is that it is tangible, illegal, easy to measure, and against the social norms of society. In reality, more money should be allocated to persons able to better monitor recipients. If someone is not following the rules, aid should be cut immediatly (maybe give them a warning). Then they could petetion ot get aid back. Although this will catch a few rule breakers, it still doesnt address the issue-that of aid not going to where it was intended. If someone is spening aid on something undesignate, or ON SOMEONE not designated, they should lose their aid. If someone is having indivduals reside with them against what is designated-aid should be cut. Personally, drug testing is a good start-and it's not as costly as people think. Urine test strips are bought in bulk for reasonably cheap. If their is any question about abuse, a more comprehensive blood anaylis can be done. I think they should also make individuals be responisble for submitting reciepts for all purchases. SHow the state where the money is going. There are obivious trends like either buying numerous things of one item (baby formula, soda, etc....) that can be battered with-items more than a familty could go thru. When you place the responisbilty on the individual, they will appreciated what they have more.

hypocritacally agree or logically disagree with the program;), either way, this is a class bit from The Daily Show regarding Florida's program that highlights the sillyness with those little things called facts. FYI 916WI they reference the cost to FL taxpayers

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-fe...

bella....You're an offended taxpayer? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in another story you mentioned moving out of the country. Did you decide to stay here in Wisconsin?

JasonTH....Florida lost a ton of money on the testing? Please quote your source for this. I thought it was right around a break even point. Thx.

JasonTh - you are absolutely right. This is all about money to be made for private companies. And the GOP gets to pretend that they are being righteous in the process. Such a ridiculous game. As a tax payer, I am offended that they are even proposing this.

"singling out this particular group of people for drug testing was unconstitutional with absolutely no cause."

This Says it All !!!

Florida did this... and lost a ton of money on the testing.

Who got rich on this policy? A drug testing company that lobbied the FL government.

It's good for business.

Excellent post wiggle

Investa: I understand the tax revenues from alcohol. Does that make it ok for people to spend taxpayer money on it??

Being third from the bottom of taxing is a "significant revenue" for WI? Give me a break! Why not due one step better, raise the tax on beer to what the tax is on cigarettes, then take that HUGE amount and fund welfare, remove the tax payer. Let the majority of WI pay for themselves and their stool buddies!!
WI has one of the lowest tax on booze, yet it's nationally known as "the drunk capital of the US" I wonder why? Raise alcohol tax or do the testing to remove the tiny 8% off welfare, which do you think will generate more money for the special interest pay offs?
Oh never mind - just go crack open another beer!

Wisconsin's alcohol taxes are no joke. We pay abot 85 cents per liter of booze, up to 14 cents per liter of wine, and over 6 cents per gallon of beer. This is a significant revenue for the state. Of course there is also the sales tax AND the income taxes on the profits paid by the distillers AND by the distibutors AND by the liquor store 'sellers'.

Yes booze is regulated, so is xanex, morphine, any opiate. But these drugs are highly abused. People on them do illegal things to obtain them when the pharmacy says 'you gotta wait another two weeks to refill'! How do you catch them? or is everyone just trying to get the small percent that take the others...... I can't even list them because they are ALL illegal when abused, which happens 80% of the time! What a waste to do very little.

Thats a good explanation of why one is defined as legal and one is defined as illegal. The reason you say we need this legislation is as a deterrent to people using drugs. I assume its more to deter people from using taxpayer money on drugs, and I just can't wrap my head around why its ok to use taxpayer money to buy alcohol if you are on welfare, even though that drug is responsible for more problems where abuse is involved, whether that abuse be physical, emotional, financial or any other problem caused by abusing a drug that a majority of people consume responsibly. I appreciate the chat tho:)

There is really nothing "wrong with this 'drug test for welfare idea'". Once we see the details on the legislation, the definitions used in the legislation, and the punishment for violations in the legislation, only then will we be able to say what's wrong with it, and what's right with it.
Hopefully Wisconsin will pursue this legislation and open discussions to the public. Just like prohibition, there is a viable comprise out there somewhere.

"alcohol is heavily taxed"
=
Your joking right? In WI booze is highly taxed? Cigarettes are highly taxed, booze is CHEAP!
article Dec '08 states-
Wisconsin has the third lowest tax on beer and liquor in the nation behind Missouri and Wyoming. While Wisconsin taxes 6.5 cents per gallon of beer, neighboring states charge almost three times that amount.

This would be the first time in nearly 40 years that Wisconsin’s alcohol tax is increased
How many GALLONS would someone have to buy to make six and a half CENTS a high tax?

Here's another problem, the men. What about the thousands of WOMEN on welfare that have a man living with them. What if the women passes the test and the man is the one spending it on drugs, be it crack, coke, heroin, booze, pills. All drugs that can be considered illegal depending how you obtain/use them. How do you stop that?
There is SOOO much wrong with this 'drug test for welfare idea'!!
There will still be MASSIVE welfare money spent on drugs, how do you stop it?

Our society chooses (or should I say ‘tolerates’) some vices, and rejects others. Alcohol is regulated - age requirements, usage limits (not while driving, not in public, etc…). Most importantly, alcohol is heavily taxed and profits from it's sale are taxed as income and, thus, has found support in our society. We went thru all of this 80-some years ago, and this is the compromise that resulted. Don’t expect this legislation to challenge that compromise.
Now pot, etc... is a different story - no compromise has been found yet and it's sale is not taxed. Money spent on pot, etc... is not usualy claimed as income and thereby avoids income taxes also.

Here's a question, what about the thousands that take pain pills? Most abuse them, which is illegal, but if they have a script.......
what about the thousands that take xanax? Very addictive, haven't met one person on xanax that doesn't take more than prescribed and when the monthly allotment is gone, guess what, THEY GO BUY SOME MORE. So that's ok right?
What plan do you have to 'weed' those drug abusers out? They are infact taking money and buying legal drugs illegally?

So it's ok if people who collect taxpayer money abuse alcohol, in fact you justify the usage in an attempt to escape reality, but anyone who wants to smoke a joint should not qualify?? Why is it ok to escape reality with a 12 pack but not a joint?? You do understand how many more problems are created by alcohol than all illegal drugs combined yes??

Alchohol would not be considered a 'drug' under this legislation - nor would caffine, nicotine, etc... I understand that many people oppose the use of alchohol (or caffine, nicotine, etc...). The legislation would have no problem spelling-out the drugs that would be considered 'drugs'. If I were on welfare, I would do some heavy alcohol consumption to wash away my troubles and escape reality.
I was under the impression that drugs could be detected for 30 days after their use. I'm not about research this because it doesn't affect me, so I'll take your word on the 24-hr thing.

I'm on the wrong page for thinking alcohol is a legal drug?? Please explain...

Investa: I appreciate the civil response. I think you're missing my point. This legislation won't bust anyone for legal drugs(theyre legal, they shouldnt). Do you think this legislation is designed to keep people from buying drugs, or to keep people from buying drugs with taxpayer money?? If you think its the former then you should do some research on how impossible it is to deter people from using drugs and how easy it is to pass a test with 24 hours notice. If it's the latter then I want to know what you think we should do to those who are on welfare and abuse alcohol?? You are aware that alcohol is a drug and even though legal, is abused by welfare recipients?? I hope you are also aware that legal alcohol is way cheaper and way more readily available than black market drugs, yes??

Nevermind the fact that illegal 'drug' USERS are ALWAYS lumped togethor regardless of the drug consumed and theyre ALWAYS labeled as ABUSERS, even though nothing could be further from the truth.

If you are refering to alcohol as a legal drug then you are on the wrong page completely.

tthompson - The proposed legislation might not 'catch' people using the legal drug that you mention - no law is perfect. But if you have a prescription for that drug, then this legislation would not hold that drug against you.

Well said vato. Alcohol is OBVIOUSLY a bigger danger to society yet no one cares what welfare recipients are abusing that drug. Why not?? If illegal drugs would eliminate 2-5% of welfare recipients from receiving aid, what would prohibiting them from alcohol eliminate?? 10%?? 20%?? 30%??

Youve cleared nothing up. You've simply reiterated you're belief in what smaller government is. Obviously your image of an ideal smaller government isn't possible. Had I known we were discussing this in hypotheticals instead of real world facts I'd have maybe started a little different.

The government will not be getting out of the welfare game ever. You support drug testing its recipients which in my mind equals advocating intrusion into those peoples lives. Intruding into peoples lives and dictating what they do with THEIR money is NOT smaller government. I have a feeling that if Obama tried passing some kind of health care that told you what to do with your money you would see the intrusion point. NIMBY but whatever in my neighbors backyard is hypocrisy.

tthompson.....I'm totally in favor of getting rid of the taxpayer supported programs, the government run agencies that administer and maintain the programs, and all of the drug testing that would go along with qualifying these people for "free" taxpayer money. How's that for smaller government and less government intrusion? Anything else I can clear up for you?

investa: maybe youd actually be ok telling me how we deter those who receive state aid from abusing legal drugs, since one legal drug is abused by more than all other drugs combined??

It's ok too if you don't want to have an actual convo about this, which is my guess, let me know I'd be more than happy to have a juvenile exchange of posts with you.

Blank, uninformed, and blatantly ignorant comments do nothing to support your cause. But that does raise a good question...who the heck do you think operates the stop and go lights now??

A government operated stop-and-go light would be a government intrusion into one's life if tthompson has any say on the matter. Get real.

Are you or are you not in favor or the drug testing program?? How do you NOT see that as an intrusion into someones personal life?? You see it as a justified intrusion, but it's an intrusion all the same.

Why won't you answer my question on how we combat the abuse of legal drugs, since theyre abused more than all other drugs combined?? Surely we could save a lot more money if people who abused alcohol were not eligible for assistance??

tthompson........Did you read anything I wrote? Show me one place where I "advocated for intrusion" when private organizations are involved. When taxpayer dollars aren't involved, I could care less if organizations like the United Way threw bags of money at the drug addicts--regardless of whether or not the drugs were legal or illegal......Understand now??

Seriously man...did you stop reading after the first sentence?? THIS was the point..'To me, arguing that in this case the smaller government only refers to the cost savings and completely ignoring the fact that uncle sam is sticking his nose into what people do with THEIR money is complete hypocrisy'

I dont care if the cost is public/private or greater/less. The hypocrisy is in the fact that you want a smaller govt at the same time you advocate for intrusion(whether public/privately financed) into what people do in their personal lives.

tthompson......You misinterpreted what I meant. What I meant was pull government out of the equation entirely. I did not mean shift taxpayer dollars from public to private at all. Take the hundreds of millions spent on those programs and decrease the taxpayers burden respectively. The taxpayers could then choose whether or not they wish to donate that savings to a non-profit such as United Way, Salvation Army, etc.......That idea should clear up both of the questions you asked....no?

well sir I guess the key fact to that would be in that I believe it is an intrusion into the privacy of ones home regardless of whether it's public or private, which is the hypocrisy. Smaller government can be taken as less cost, less rules/regulation, or both. To me, arguing that in this case the smaller government only refers to the cost savings and completely ignoring the fact that uncle sam is sticking his nose into what people do with THEIR money is complete hypocrisy. Its so over the hypocrite line that it borders on ignorant, or at the least certainly not thought out beyond the cost factor(which has proven not to even be effective).

You also missed my question before regarding how we weed out those who abuse legal drugs, since from merely a cost perspective and the fact that more people abuse legal drugs than all others combined, that would eliminate a larger percentage, right??

Bond - good luck getting legislation like that passed - it's a bit over the top.

Anyone who receives a pay check, and ALL of our elected officials should have to take a MANDATORY drug test including their aides....!

Sorry not part of the tea party. Take the kids away from them. There are lots of people who don't have or can't have kids that would love to adopt a child. But in the United States they would rather the kids be with their biological parent no matter what the circumstances. There are plenty of people that can not or don't have kids that would love to adopt them. Most of the kids with drug user parents are worse off than if they were taken away.

tthompson.....Your comment, "So to you less gov't is privatizing govt implemented programs?? I'm not sure if that's ignorant, hypocritical or both..." is confusing.......How can you consider moving the responsibility and the cost of providing for these people out of the hands of government while also advocating for smaller government hypocrisy? The two things are one in the same........

What a waste of money! The numbers are known.

My tax money is going for all these democratic entitlement programs, anyone who uses it should be tested!

We wonder why we have a deficit problem under Republicans, when they are more than willing to spend more money to drug test people than what would be saved, just to deny poor people any kind of help.

sarah: Excellent...to use another Ryan Braun quote regarding this situation and the one he dealt with would be that its 'b.s.'!!

RoCoChick: I totally understand why they would implement drug testing on welfare recipients as a deterrent. That is a silly shortsighted thought since I could pass a drug test in about an hour, as could anyone who knows how to find google. My question to you is, do you think something should be done regarding the drug that gets abused my more welfare recipients than all other drugs combined, or can just ignore that drug because it's legal??

916WI: So to you less gov't is privatizing govt implemented programs?? I'm not sure if that's ignorant, hypocritical or both...

Yes,yes...Big Brother is watching.Next we will have cameras in our homes watching our every move. Better run the water so they don't hear you talking about them.Run,run...the sky is falling ! Good grief Charlie Brown ! Thank God it will all be over on 12-22-12.

So many comments to address...

First, being against giving the government the ability to invade the privacy of others is why I am against this type of legislation. There are other reasons that I am against this also. However, it is not because I have some personal interest in keeping myself from being exposed as a drug user; like some here have suggested.

Secondly, it is quite sad how so many people will fall for the boogeyman argument. This is yet another case of law makers looking for the right type of person to justify their overreach. This same type of thing was done with the Patriot Act and more recently the military spending bill.

In both cases, the boogeymen are 'terrorist'. Yet, like many things that can go wrong, these definitions are left open to interpretation. As a result, anyone can be labelled a terrorist and even those who aren't can be spied on in an unprecedented way. But, many people believe this won't happen to them because they aren't a 'terrorist'.

I wish people could just imaging how this type of legislation can be extended once it becomes seen as more of the norm. I mean, most of the arguments in favor of this extension of government power are centered around the 'I have to, so should they' mentality.

If we begin allowing the government to drug test this group, what is to stop them from doing it to others. Why shouldn't the government extend such requirements to parents enrolling kids in school, or people getting a drivers license, or even allowing people to vote. These all become easier to do once the government gets a start at it.

And, even though you may feel that it will be no consequence anyway, because you don't use drugs, this can still effect you. If the government is able to drug screen everyone, and thus deny them the ability to do things as a result, what is to stop a group from coming into power and abusing this information.

It is very possible, given the nature of power, that at some point this information may be abused. Perhaps those that use birth-control have their ability to vote suspended. Is it unfathomable that there are people in this world that would seize any opportunity to be king?

In a country that was established on the principal that people should not live their lives under the tyranny of another who rejects that all people have liberties that should not be denied. They felt so strongly about this issue, that they amended our constitution to include a Bill of Rights; because they knew that one day people may forget what had been fought for.

Inveta I am guessing you need the government to regulate your life I don't . Don't forget to vote for your corporately owned positions this fall

whythink....As I said before, most conservatives would definitely be for the "smaller government" approach of of defunding/eliminating these taxpayer funded/publicly administered programs all together. Maintaining programs such as these should be handled by private organizations....an easy way to avoid all the problems discussed along with this article--don't you think??

Opinionsforfree - we can't wait until you leave either .... don't let the door hit ya ...

tthompson - It's all about the 'deterrent'. A large portion of those recieving govt aid that use illegal drugs would stop using illegal drugs. Those that didn't stop, and get caught, would have to face whatever consequences are laid-out in the legislation.

I see alot of GOP members getting kicked out of office for this. It's a form of profiles and I think there something inthe construction about iggelal seraph and seizure. If there is no reason or cause to test/search them I think. This might fall into those guidelines soon they will be testing for energy drinks and Starbucks while their at it they should ban gun ownership as well for people on assistance. Wansn't the GOP to blame for the mess our economy is in right now. I ant wait to get out of this country

It's already been ruled unconstitutional. It doesn't save any money. It wouldn't even be revenue neutral. It has been, and would be, a net loss. Doesn't seem like something that fiscally responsible conservatives would support. But then again, nothing gets them more excited than sticking it to the poor in any way they can.

'Those that work do have to take drug tests'

Not all workers do, and MOST CERTAINLY not even close to all the publicly employed workers do

Why discriminate? Let's test anyone that claims a tax deduction (you know, corporations are "People"), anyone who enrolls someone in public school, anyone who rides public transportation.
.
We must ask the question, why only welfare recepients? Why not anyone receiving a government benefit? Why not ALL of us?
.
This is great, more SMALLER government from the republicans.

RoCoChick & 916: What do you suggest we do with those on state aid who abuse legal drugs?? How do we expose those peoples?? I mean afterall, if you want to fix a problem, which is apparently people using state aid to abuse drugs, it's not really fair to eliminate the legal ones is it?? You do know legal drugs get abused way more frequently by those who receive state aid right??

Thanks for the useless cliche sassy-one, it adds so much to the blog - NOT. I'm guessing a lot of bloggers don't understand the Bill of Rights at all, but that doesn't stop them from using it eroneously in a discussion.

some people can't see the forest for the trees...

Germancaveguy.......I understand the point you are trying to make, I just completely disagree with it. Investa basically covered it with his/her comment. No person is being forced to take a drug test and there is no "right" to welfare payments from the state. Put the two together and your position holds no water. You brought up the 4th amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. It it unreasonable to expect those collecting "free" taxpayer dollars not to be spending money on illegal drugs??
Your last comment "Carrying such an opinion shows that you either feel that people that qualify for state assistance don't have the same rights as those who are working (and are some how a lesser form of citizen), or that the bill of rights isn't worth protecting in this case." makes absolutely no sense to me.
Those that work do have to take drug tests, while those that collect free money from the state currently do not. How does this situation "show that I feel that people that qualify for state assistance don't have the same rights as those who are working (and are some how a lesser form of citizen)"? As far as the Bill of Rights not being worth protecting is concerned, please quote the passage where the Bill of Rights makes state welfare payments provided by taxpayer dollars to people who buy and use illegal drugs an inalienable right. Maybe I'm wrong, it's been a while since I read them, but I'm pretty sure I would have remembered that one:)

RIGHT-ON investa. germancaveguy has no right taking my tax money to feed his nasty habit. My tax dollars are best infused into the general budget, not shot-up HIS veins.

germancaveguy - A few points where you went wrong are: Recieving welfare, etc. is not a right - I'm not sure how you were lead to believe it is. The recipient is 'intruding' on the government in this case - just the opposite as what you seem to think.
Nobody would be forced to take a drug test - contrary to your assertion. Only if that person wants assistance would they be subject to such a test. Just like nobody has to take a drivers test unless they want a drivers liscense.
Finally, a drug test requirement would be a deterrent more than anything else.
For you to be so far off-track on this subject I have to assume that you are a junky on welfare and fear losing your free ride.

germancaveguy: That was a very good way of putting it . Some people cant seem to separate Private Employers and the Federal Government and Constitutional Rights . I know people mean well by supporting this.....but is truly is the wrong way to go , They are not thinking of the long term ramifications . It appears its easy for some to give up or control RIGHTS of others .

took 3 minutes to read? and still no comprehension

916WI -- Perhaps you should reexamine what I wrote. I think you are confusing my argument with your own justifications for seeing laws like this enacted.

It is a travesty that people feel that the bill of rights is something that will always be a part of our lives regardless of what takes place. Unlike an employer, when we allow the government to intrude on our privacy, we are giving it yet more control over our lives; regardless of what the reasoning may be.

Each and every time our society lets a group of law makers create a law that whittles away at the constitution, our society becomes less free. This is not, and should not, ever be a partisan issue.

What I find to be of concern with your line of reasoning is that you feel this type of legislation is the correct thing to be pursuing. Carrying such an opinion shows that you either feel that people that qualify for state assistance don't have the same rights as those who are working (and are some how a lesser form of citizen), or that the bill of rights isn't worth protecting in this case.

Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

germancaveguy......No one is forcing anyone to take a drug test. If those that qualify choose not to take the free money from the taxpayers, then there is no drug test necessary......People in the working world are forced to take drug tests just to have the opportunity to WORK for companies in our community. The liberals expect us to feel like the rights of those collecting money from the state and it's taxpayers for doing absolutely nothing are being horrifically violated when drug testing comes into play? Too funny!

Thanks for the good post, germancaveguy. Very informative, easy to read and an excellent link. Again, facts were involved, this will rile up the small minded haters.

germancaveguy - I've never read such a long post that said so very little - there's 3 minutes I wish I could have back.

Many of these comments are almost unbelievable. Too many people speak as if they 'know' what is really happening with the whole 'welfare' situation. Unfortunately, this amount of ignorance creates an environment where the thought of blanket testing a demographic for drugs is seen as a good idea.

Of course a politician like Romney supports this. Why wouldn't a multimillionaire support an idea that pits poor people against even poorer people. Sometimes it's as if some of these people think it is fun to see whether or not they can sway public opinion in favor of striping others of their constitutional rights.

Requiring that someone take a drug test to receive income based aid is not the same as an employer requiring a person to submit to a drug screen. Nor is a person refusing to submit to a drug test an admission of drug use. It's sad that many in our society cannot differentiate between the two.

First, regarding drug testing, nobody is forcing any person to take a job with any given company. People always have the choice to refuse to work for an employer that feels that an employee's right to privacy is something which can be taken away. In the case of a 'welfare recipient', they shouldn't have to choose between privacy and hunger simply because a group within our society thinks this intrusion is no big deal.

Secondly, refusing to submit to a drug test does not make a person a drug user. This idea that a person cannot exercise their 4th amendment right without being guilty is what is wrong with politics these days. We have too many defenders of the constitution that only do so when it is convenient for them to do so.

To anyone here that still supports bashing 'welfare recipients' and striping them of their rights and dignity; take a look at one of the yearly reports that our state puts out regarding these people. It may be a surprise at how many of these people there really are and how many of them are responsible, WORKING individuals.

http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/p...

Mooshoe......another incredibly useless and totally stupid comment coming from you. Not really that surprising. It's not a matter of taking the food out of the mouths of "poor children", but rather a case of putting the responsibility of caring for the children, back on those who decided to have them. The taxpayers shouldn't have to be forced to cover the costs of these parents who had kids, but did not have the means to raise them. If the liberals are supporting the idea of these people collecting free money from the taxpayers, then they shouldn't be surprised that conservatives want regulation regarding drug use. I also think that there should be some type of community service or community work programs that should be a requirement in order to receive money from the state's taxpayers......

Great idea - Wisconsin needs to start doing this. Where implemented, it has been a great success. Taxpayers shouldn't have to buy drugs for users.

Sarah......I know a couple of liberals. I would give the kid a ride to one of their houses so they could put their money where their mouths are:)

Very true, westorbust. We know why politicians propose this type of thing. However, to the mindless proponents of these type of hateful, destructive proposals who are potential voters, FACTS mean nothing. They appear to be unable to digest the FACTS. I do not know why this is, the only answer I have involves the word stupidity.

There is 0 data that the stereo type of drug dependent welfare mothers or fathers are bankrupting public assistance programs. 0 data. In fact, as already mentioned, where implemented, it has been a failure. Just like voter ID legislation to address non-existant problems and making sure we can all put a handgun down are shorts legally, it's a ruse to appease a voting block, and to draw attention away from the fact that they the Tea party "revolution" was a complete and total failure, not to mention an embarrassing part of American history. Crooks and liars are crooks and liars no matter what they call themselves.

"We challenged it in Michigan. We challenged it in Florida. Both of those cases found that singling out this particular group of people for drug testing was unconstitutional with absolutely no cause."

UncleJesse......I'm sure that all of the bleeding heart libs would step up and offer to feed and clothe the children of these welfare absorbing drug abusers--that is, as long as they found someone elses money to do it with.......:)

I think what most people dont understand is most of the people dont get cash from the State its Food Stamps on a card . can it be abused ? yes absolutely . but by taking it away where are these peoples children going to get there next meal ?

why stop there.....get tested for your tax returns.....test positive lose your return ......
lets test every one , why put limits on it . Just like Nazi Germany , we are seperating people in the USA not bringing them together . Is any one thinking of the children these poor folk have ? even if these people are making bad choices ?.....this is like they test me for jobs and its not fair mentality , just like lil kids . You actually think you will save money ? ....the gov will not lower your taxes , it will just go elsewhere ....When people should have fought for rights against drug testing as a invasion of privacy they laid down and didnt do nothing ......people dont think things all the way through , this is not a good idea . This will not help any one .

even as statistics have largely proved both notions untrue."
from rick_raff "Yeah I did read it. I stand by my assertion."
Once again the uniformed making completely ignortant statements and proving they have no ability for critical or analytical thinking.

If drug testing makes the people who use drugs paranoid I'd say money well spent compared to other gubbermint waste. Even at 2% the message is out there that sooner of later you may get caught.

Your tax dollars at work, no wonder why the deficit is out of control. How much did it cost wisconsin for the Id voter law? It's sickening.

Dwight. Not so simple. Federal and state laws are not one in the same. This is why legal growers and dispensaries in California and Colorado can still be raided by the federal government and D.E.A. if they choose to. Since welfare is a federal program, I'd wager even those with medical marijuana prescriptions would be caught in the crossfire and forced to choose between their medication and their benefits. Again, everyone could theoretically pass their tests even if they are using, and I will reiterate that the only drug with an l.d.50 of more than 2/3 days is marijuana. All other hard illicit drugs are out of your system on an average of 3 days or less. Cheap amd quickly administered tests wouldn't require anything more than binge drinking water 6-8 hours before the test and 24 hours of non cocaine/heroin/methamphetamine use. Feasibly all we are going to catch are the extremely addicted, the stupid, and those that have used marijuana as long as 3-4 weeks before the test is administered. This goes for those who took drags off a joint provided by a friend Two weeks prior on a Saturday night

If you have a prescription, you're safe. Pretty simple.

how will this work in states where medical mary-jane is legal?

This program cost the state of Florida over $200,000 last year, even after kicking off the 2% that were caught with it from public assistance. Maybe we should think this through before we go making an emotional decision without data to back it up. In such a tight fiscal environment, do we want to spend this money when the savings are not realized? By the way, The Daily Show suggested that we test all elected officials as well since they are also receiving tax money. I think that is an excellent idea.

Lol the last sentence meant to say thosenot backing this as a bad idea. I also apologize for typos.. I'm on a phone and my fingers are fat...I'm also feeling a bit lazy. Also apologies for back to back posts

Realsense.
Sarcasm doesn't convey well I'm text.
If its not there...care to elaborate how it makes total sense? Its just great that tye supporters of this have the smallest answers and obviously little to no thought put into the actual following through of what this is proposing. If I felt this could actually work, or even save money...or reap any kind of benefit outweighing the cost of this, I would back it. How about a logical stance; treat these benefits as we do unemployment (without infinite extensions of course). Or take this money and put it into a program that helps match people with and train for jobs they can handle. Its hard to believe 1) this could work as intended and 2) that this money can't be better spent makingpeoples lives better rathee than taking something away. After all these comments its obvious there's no voice strong enough to justify implementing this, while those calling this a bad idea can at least state and back their claims. The simple answers of those in favor are certainly not convincing or persuasive, to say the least.

I am all for them being drug tested. It makes total sense.

I guess we are darned if we do and darned if we don't. I am all for drug testing those on assistance and kicking off those that fail a drug test, but on the other side, if we take away their drug money I would not be surprised if the crime rate in thefts and muggings go through the roof from these people trying to find ways to get money for their drugs. A job would be a good way but if they cannot pass a drug test, no respectable place of employment is going to hire them. So it seems that employers are already "kicking out the drug users". Why should the assistance programs have to support these people with our tax money when American business's won't? I say cut them off and use the extra money to pay our law enforcement for the extra work they will have. But in the long run, as in down the road, maybe there will be less and less young people using drugs because they see what is happening to the now generation. Like I said, I think it is a good idea to cut them off. I totally support it.

And has no one even read my post from earlier today and realized that drug tests are just that-a test. I know plenty of ways people can cheat a test...be it high school, college, or peeing in a cup....
what makes you think the tssting will yield accurate results or be reliable and, well, true.
?

I stand by my myriad of questions(or new problems?)that I proposed stemming from this welfare "solution". Rickraff and the other supporters of this idea....what answers do YOU have? I'd love to hear an articulated explanation as to how this could possibly save us a single penny-even when you simply take the number of potential dollars saved, added to the amount spent to drug test everyone in the program a single time at a cost of 50$ a pieceThis would only cover the cost of the test itself.I'd bet the tests cost more than that so I feel 50$ is fair. I won't even bother to throw a ballpark figure out as to how much would be additionally spent on the hourly wage of employees paid to administer the test, file paperwork, follow up, and then allow or restrict welfare benefits. How much money do you think this will save if I even allow you a generous 10% reduction in current welfare recipients? I eagerly await your projection.

They are rare, moo. This proposal is mean spirited and impractical. It is simply pandering for votes from those who are more comfortable blaming society's woes on a tiny group. It is easier for them to do this blame thing, they don't have put any effort into thinking.

It is impratical in that it costs far more to implement this simplistic program than it would save. Also, there is the human aspect of this, there are those who would take food out of a child's mouth because the mother smoked a little weed. This is an evil, mean spirited plan.

"Romney, in an interview this month in Georgia, supported the idea. "People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they're not using those benefits to pay for drugs,"

Of course the politicians who receive government benefits, such as wages, insurance, retirement etc. should be included in this drug testing program.

stupid idea.. somehow I think walker would support it though..

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/a...
.
Naturally, it's going to end up costing the taxpayers more than it saves, but that's today's Republican Party in a nutshell.

Let's drug test everyone!! Except corporations of course because they're free people.

Making sure that taxpayer dollars don't end up in the hands of drug dealers is an excellent idea. This should be expanded to ALL recipients of taxpayer money, including government employees.

I've had to take and pass drug tests for employment, so in that respect, I can easily see why someone looking for assistance should, as well. If you have nothing to hide and you are looking for financial help in the form of federal/state assistance, which affects all our pocketbooks in the long run, why would you object?

Rick_Raff...did you not read the article? from the 4th prgh. "perception that people on public assistance are misusing the funds and that cutting off their benefits would save money for tight state budgets — even as statistics have largely proved both notions untrue."
This stereotype of the poor is being perpetuated by the right so they don't come off as the cold hearted, greeedy SOB's that they are, when they try to eliminate any safety nets for he poor. The power mongers in this country have done an exellent job of painting anyone who is not well off as only being in that position due to their own sloth. The actual poor in America now used to be middle class and due to their jobs being shipped over seas by the likes of Bain Capital, they are now working at 1/2 the salary they used to make but still have the same expenses they had when they were making a living wage. So now the right say these people are living beyond their means, ignoring the fact that their means was pulled out from under them. So I guess the American dream is a thing of the past, because if you were fortunate enough to have provided for your family and have a little discretioary money, you are now expected to give that up, so sell your homes, sell your car because you are now a sloth and don't deserve those things.

Was the CEO of Spectrum Brands drug tested when they were handed $4 million in state welfare? Was Greg Piefer of SHINE drug tested when he picked up $9 million dollars worth of free stuff from Janesville taxpayers? Will the owners and execs of ANGI have their urine checked before they collect wealth redistribution tax credits? Like RichE95 said about the beggar on the street. The Christian thing to do is refuse to give them money and handouts but direct them to a place like a bank and loan where they first can get help in managing their business and money. End the entitlement mentality.

What about the people who aren't subject to testing at work?? Why can't we compare those who receive state aid to those peoples??

What is your thoughts on legal drugs that are abused by state aid recipienets?? Should we limit those options as well?? I mean after all, those drugs are used by more than ALL OTHER DRUGS COMBINED

This is the next logical step. In one county with low income housing in Illinois, if you are caught with drugs in the home, you will be evicted in 24 hours. This rule has been around for years. If the taxpayer is subject to drug testing at their place of employment, then the people on public assistance shouldn't mind. I would give them three strikes.

Right on no_fascist. This is obviously not legislation to 'fix' a problem as much as it is to make those who recieve state aid look worse than they are.

I think prior to any votes being taken, all of these potential pieces of legislation should include a provision that would require every talk show host (Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck come to mind) and every cellphone user to be randomly tested for drugs as well. After all, we are giving a handout to all of these government sponsored welfare recipients -- the use of our federally licensed and regulated radio frequency spectrum.

by the way 96% of of Florida welfare recipients pass the drug test that the Rethuglicans thought were so necessary for rooting our fraud. Waste, it's their middle name when it strokes their ideological tendencies.

Maybe the government should require the same drug and alcohol tests for any hedge fund manager or similar high end rich guy who is getting away with paying 15% taxes on their income? How about anyone with two homes to deduct?

This thing is a witch hunt on people who simply have low incomes. The question of screening to make sure that those welfare are at least trying to get work if they can may be legit. Forced drug testing is not.

Gov't hypocrisy at its finest.

Ask yourselves, and be honest, what drug do you think is abused most frequently by those who collect state aid??

My guess is it's the same as the rest of society. Why no legislation to limit the availability of that drug?? Oh yeah, freedoms...

If mooshoo this this is bad idea-its probably a great idea that should be implemented immediately!

If you give money to someone holding a bottle begging in the street: what do you think they will do with the money? The Christian thing to do is refuse to give them money but direct them to a place where they first can get help in managing their life and money. The person now has a chance to turn around their life.

I think the issue is more about welfare, and less about drugs.
Hey, Ive got an idea. I'll have 4 kids and live off the government/taxpayers. Believe it or not, it works 100% of the time.
My biggest problem with government and laws is this;
When do I get to have MY say? When do I get to VOTE on whether or not this should even go into effect?
In my mind, the ideal society is run by society. Those that wish to vote would have the ability to do so on a federal,state and local level, nearly every other week. This includes things that have been voted on already, after a grace period(in case there are unseen or undesirable ramifications)
Rather than sit here on a forum and complain about this issue, why can't WE VOTE ON IT? Wasn't that the whole idea when we established this country? When do WE get to VOTE on when/if/where we go to war, if we're the ones going? How long unemployment benefits are given for? Extensions for them? And what about healthcare? And who is to say you can't have differences? If you choose to, you can pay increased taxes, but get increased benefits with healthcare, better or longer unemployment should the need arise,and better public services(free bus passes, free parking on ramps, small things of that nature)
The idea that I have to sit here in a "free country" while a bunch of pompous rich you know whats make all the rules I have to follow....well that just really sours my milk.
If we go to war, WE should get a say in it. If we give aid to a country 15,000 miles away while we have homeless and uninsured at home, WE should get to VOTE ON THIS.

This is why I don't consider myself republican.I don't consider myself a democrat.
I wouldn't even consider myself a liberal.
Radical?
Sure.

I just wonder how much this would cost and how the logistics would be worked out to impliment a program like this and how often the test would occur. Sounds to me like there is a lot that has to be worked out before this can even be put into action.

Mandatory drug and alcohol tests for elected officials should be the first thing on the table.

"The five percent, or the four percent, or whatever that percentage is that is on drugs..." In other words - we don't know how many people in this/these programs are using drugs, but we know that some of them are. So, you won't get your check until you submit to the test.

Sounds like you must prove yourself innocent, instead of the govt. proving that you are guilty.

No matter what the take is, someone somewhere will be trying to defraud the govt. out of something, while the guy/gal behind the curtain (aka govt.) will be trying to defraud the people out of something. Which is it that you (people) want to see? The amount of effort/time/money/court costs spent to those who use illegal drugs off the govt. dole? Or the amount of effort/time/money spent on REALLY reforming how govt. assistance works?

Drug testing for those on govt. assistance, as an effort to eliminate the use of tax dollars on illegal drugs, is like giving someone who is HIV positive a zinc tablet to get rid of the virus. The zinc tablet is not gonna get rid of that pesky virus.

Years and years of corupt politicians, now they want you to believe that the problem rests in the drug crazed welfare recipients. Not the revesal of the Glass and Steagal Act, not from the Commodities Act of 2000, not from NAFTA all by the way compliments of Clinton. Sad truth is most do not even realize it. The dumbing of America. Bring on more reality shows!!!

All public servants should also be tested. Including the Police, firemen, and all the politicians.

And how much money,exactly, does it cost to employ people to conduct these tests, and how much is it per test? What's the frequency of these tests?How long of a ban on welfare benefits will it have? A blanket effect? Different times for different drugs? Are they going to try and use the outcomes of the tests to press charges or launch investigations? Will positive tests be enough to get Social Services involved? And if so, how much more money will that cost? This seems to make more problems than solutions....

Not saying that this observation in necessarily legit or relevant...but for those who can't afford a few hundred dollars a month for medications, is it a crime that they substitute it with marijuana? This seems more like a "watch the birdie in the sky" while we do things on the ground. The lost cause of the drug war is looking in every nook and cranny now aren't they?
I'm not sure how I feel about this in general.
I dislike the idea of my money going to someone that sits on their butt, and disliked more is that money being spent on drugs. But this seems like the start of trying to gain momentum for just trying to drug test everyone for anything. How about putting some more money towards insurance for people that are working and paying taxes so people that dont work can maintain just that. As someone who works full time without benefits and supports two children(with a fiance,mind you), I am a little ticked off that there's money everywhere for people without jobs, yet if I get sick I refrain from going to the doctor unless im passing out or on my deathbed. It sickens me. What about the working class with no healthcare? Maybe you should try and fix that before you start testing everyone.

Food for thought;
The only widely used drug that will show up on a drug test past roughly 3 days is marijuana. It is fat soluble. Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin,Methamphetamine...these are all water soluble and are generally out of your system in 2-3 days.
Also, what kind of tests are we talking? The cheap 50$ litmus tests(think a water PH test strip) are notorious for false negatives, and the ability to cheat them. And are these tests monitored? Anyone know how easy it is to pass a drug test? As easy as taping a hotel shampoo bottle full of urine, or food colored water to your leg with a hand warmer. for about 3$ you can pass a majority of tests. There is no realistic way this will get the benefit they desire. It's just a foot in the door, and a way to slowly get mandatory drug testing and privacy invasion into other facets of our lives. Don't we have better things to worry about/spend money on? LIKE GETTING PEOPLE HEALTHCARE?!

"You're absolutely right--we should completely defund/eliminate all of these government sponsored welfare programs."
So you all want childen to starve because their parents are low lifes? What baby should be held responsible for their parents actions?
Welfare needs to be revamped but if you 'eliminate' it, the deaths of hundreds of children and babies will cause backlash from human rights organizations!

For proponents of small government, they sure want to add jobs.

No facist.....You're absolutely right--we should completely defund/eliminate all of these government sponsored welfare programs. That would definitely play into the "limited government" perspective. Aside from short term unemployment assistance initially paid for by the people who would be allowed to tap into it for a limited time, let people take responsibility for their own lives and for the decisions that they have made. That sounds extremely "Christian" to me....how about you?

Rick_Raff - nowhere in my post did I state I was against this. My concern is that the definition of government assistance maybe different when implemented than what it is today. The change in this definition could affect more than just those that are on the govt. dole today. For example, those getting assistance in the form of food stamps is obviously someone currently on govt. assistance. But, what about those that are collecting their social security/medicaid? Also, for those that are fully supportive of smaller govt., and more individual liberties, why implement another requirement to obtain govt. assistance? Why not go the easier route and eliminate, or downsize the govt. assistance program? Wouldn't that be even cheaper than giving each recipient a drug test? Hence my concern about the drug testing company/lobbying firms that maybe in support of these requirements. My take on the matter is that it doesn't matter if the person in office has a D or R after their name, all that person in office is concerned about is taking YOUR money, and spending it in a way that THEY see fit. D or R has no relevance on your individual liberties, etc.

Illegal search of a person, no way. If it ever passed it would cost tons of money. The state would end up paying for treatment in addition to the aid they already get. Better to put a lifetime limit in dollars on the programs, or a time limit on how long it can be collected. Unemployment is not forever, aid should not be endless either.

I wonder how much govt. money will be awarded to the drug testing equipment manufacturers/drug testing companies/pharmaceutical companies who are lobbying for these requirements, by our politicians, if/when drug testing will be required for any and all govt. assistance. How much will it cost to drug test every one of those who are on public assistance? What is public assistance? Food stamps, student loans, those who claim the EIC on their income taxes, those who deduct their home mortgage interest on their taxes? How broad of a definition will out politicians give "govt. assistance" in order to drug test those that are benefiting from said govt. asst?

I say politicians have to pass a drug test before they take office and that they have unannounced drug tests every few months.