Looks like Kasha is calling the bluff of some critics of her proposal to drug test welfare recipients. She's proposed adding elected officials to the mandatory drug testing requirements.
Pretty gusty, but does this stamp "ridiculous" on the bill and stall it from moving forward.
I personally don't see a need for this, and am leery of scapegoating people who get government aid. Welfare reform in the 1990s basically ended major abuse of the system and forced recipients to look for work, go to school and get help they need.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
LOL!!! And people take her seriously. A so-called "fiscal conservative" wants to use state money on useless things, especially in this climate. Will she complain about frivolous state spending after this? Remember the complaints she had about furniture in the Capitol?
Again, I know I'm just jealous, but this is "brimming" with hypocrisy.
Why shouldn't politicians have to be drug tested? I'm sure none of them are drug users, right?? I bet none of them are adulterers either!
I think it speaks volumes that she is willing to put herself under the same laws as she is wanting to place others under.
Bottom line is, if you have nothing to hide, you should have no reason to object.
As for the useless spending comment, my guess is the program would pay for itself very quickly by denying welfare to people who test positive.
Obviously the first poster still has a grudge against Kasha. It's an obvious personal grudge, not just a dislike of her ideas.
What's the matter hun, did your boyfriend in High School have a crush on her or something. Did she not invite you to the big sleepover when you were 13?
"I personnel don't see a need for this"
You personnel don't see a need for proof reading either. :)
Whoops
If Kasha came out next week and said the State should pay for the drug testing of State prison inmates because they receive state money, her supporters would agree with her. What about students at state colleges? Public school students and their parents? Teachers? Any Kansan that receives a state tax refund? Such a slippery slope...
"Bottom line is, if you have nothing to hide, you should have no reason to object."
I have nothing in my house to hide, but I don't want the cops kicking in my door.
And I've never met Mrs. Margolis, for that matter.
We can have a smoking ban dictating to private establishments what they can do in their own property and it's ok to the people who support it, but when someone proposes an idea that would keep drug adicts off of the welfare payrolls, thats just going to far. I don't think the idea of drug testing welfare recipients is all that bad. I also think that the whole testing elected officials business is not to much to ask. I don't want drug addicts on our tax funded welfare, and I sure as heck don't want drug addicts in a position of power able to legislate the country into a mess. Drug testing would deter people from doing drugs if they were dependant on welfare. I know nothing is 100%, but this would be a positive step in the right direction. Unless you are a Manny Pacquiao fan.
If being a politician is a job (which it is in my opinion) then they should be drug tested like every other job. I see no difference. What worries me is that they have a problem with it.
About the same for welfare recipients. It is their job to raise a family. And, if they are to be paid for it, like any other job, they should be tested as well.
So you all are saying its ok to drug test the poor but not the wealthier classes???? Since when did class have anything to do with who uses drugs and who doesn't? I don't think politicians should be protesting this, unless of course they have something to hide.
IF "poor" people can afford drugs they can afford taking a drug test.
One of the best Quotes I have heard - not sue who?
"Well you would think that after seeing some of the things that go on in the Statehouse. Those people would have to be on drugs!"
The Skinny:
Testing politicans for drugs: Waste of taxpayer money. Not to menton its as dumb as having an HR manager drug test herself for her own employment, DUH?
Testing welfare recips: Waste of taxpayer money. 1) There shouldn't be welfare. 2) The hard drugs arent that detectable anyway and true druggies know that. 3) Marijuana is likely to be the only thing detectable and its harmless anyway. 3) If they fail 3 times they lose welfare. If they fail 3 times they obviously don't care anyway, but wait isn't the welfare really for the kids anyway so who really gets hurt here???
Hard drugs aren't detectable? You are full of crap. All drugs are detectable depending on which type of test is performed. Secondly, testing politicians is not a waste of money. Wouldn't you feel safer knowing your representatives were drug free? I agree about the children. Maybe they should be taken away from them if they test dirty three times.
Like it was said before...the Kasha supporters have their blinders on and are making comments in support of things that go against their tenets.
How does drug testing people who work for us going against out tenets? Politicians are supposed to work for the taxpayers, and welfare recipients are paid by taxpayers even though they don't have to work for it. Shouldn't employers be able to know their employees are drug free and making good decisions?
A good start would be the limitation of food stamps. For instance, tobacco cannot be purchased. Neither can items that are not consumed. How about limiting soda pop, cookies and chips?
Should we drug test businesses that our local, state, and federal government bends over for. They "get" money too.
Post a Comment