I need time to process this letter before I can comment. IRAs are "entitlements"??? and once again, I thought the extension of tax cuts were for everyone, not just the wealthy???

I need time to process this letter before I can comment. IRAs are "entitlements"??? and once again, I thought the extension of tax cuts were for everyone, not just the wealthy???

Here we go again with the surplus myth. First, there wasn't a surplus. It really is simple to figure out. Total debt increased every year under Clinton. What is so hard about that? Second, Clinton's budgets were coming from a Republican-controlled Congress, so it is quite ironic when the left praises Clinton's budget while in the same breath crying about the GOP blowing up the deficits and debt.

As for the tax cuts, I love how the left incessantly whines and moans about the Bush tax cuts for the evil rich ruining the economy while ignoring the fact that the cuts for the hated top 2% are about 15% of the total cuts. And, by the way, can someone tell me when tax cuts became an "entitlement"? Tax revenues, before the recession, were above the 20, 40, and 60 year averages as a percentage of GDP. And, yes, I know the comeback from the left will be that Bush, completely on his own, caused the recession. From 2004 to 2006, there was the largest two-year revenue increase in forty years. Capital gains revenue more than doubled after being slashed to 15% and 5%.

Spending is the biggest reason for the deficits and debt. Not the Bush tax cuts. No doubt Bush and the GOP Congress of his term helped in running up the tab, but it was overwhelmingly because of spending, not tax cuts (which are not spending, as much as the left wants to pretend that it is). Lastly, the Bush tax cuts were PROGRESSIVE, so I will never understand the left's issue with them other than envy of those better off.

There's CraigWallace trying to rewrite history again.
Justify your statement CW.

written by CraigWallace, February 21, 2011 - 07:43 AM Here we go again with the [Clinton] surplus myth. First, there wasn't a surplus

I have been saying the same thing for months and months on this blog. But this myth is part of the liberal canon and therefore it is holy writ not to be gainsaid.

Meanwhile, Obama and his minions have been borrowing and spending with reckless abandon. No mention at all about this in this letter, with its shopworn thesis being: "It's all George Bush's fault; Republicans are evil; and Democrats are the picture of sober probity."

Deke, please tell me what is false in my post. What part do you want justified?

I think that Mr. Manes has said it all, and no GKnight the tax extensions were not about all Americans just the rich, thats why the shameless Republicans held unemployed American citizens unemployment benefits hostage during the worst economy since that Great Depression!

IRA's, income tax reductions for dividends and capital gains have always been about putting more money into wealthy citizens pocketbooks. Even GKnight and CraigWallace are full of it or you two know little or nothing about the tax structure of this country. Turn Fox News Off!

Craig provide links to your allegations from crediable news sources such as NYT, AP, Ruters, BBC.

Quipman, my facts about capital gains revenue are correct. They were cut, and revenue more than doubled. What is it that you dispute about that? It is quite comical that Fox News somehow makes it's way into this conversation. What is the left's obsession with Fox? That little fact about capital gains revenue comes from any number of places, including the IRS, the CBO, the White House, and on and on.

Deke, I'll be happy to. Just tell me specifically what you want, please.

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

The least delusional piece I could find quickly that supports CW's position is this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...qLx61MRY6w

A last comment, for the moment: Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Really, really, really, they don't. Please stop saying this; it's not true and makes you look goofy to anybody who actually researches the issue. Economists are essentially 100% in agreement on this, starting with Art Laffer, who engineered Reagan's tax cuts: http://www.time.com/time/magaz...27,00.html

Quip: I just went back and checked, the tax cuts were extended for all Americans, not just the rich. My source was NPR.

Now, please explain to me how, if I save MY MONEY in an IRA... that is an entitlement?

Obama And Republicans Agree On Tax Cut Extension
by NPR Staff and Wires
December 6, 2010


Monday night, Obama announced agreement with Republicans to extend tax cuts for all Americans

What wrecked the budget were the Bush tax cuts, enacted with feckless unconcern for the national debt, and two wars paid for on borrowed money.

No. During the Bush years, spending was out of control. That's what produced the budget deficits and led to the national debt.

Did I miss somewhere on here that someone said tax cuts entirely pay for themselves? And, AGAIN, tax cuts are NOT SPENDING so why do Dems think that they need to be paid for?

Spock, what year did the TOTAL DEBT drop under Clinton? I'd love to agree with you and Deke and Quipman because if you are correct that we were in a surplus then it would be to the GOP's credit since they controlled the purse strings at the time. But, sorry, if the debt increases, that is not running a surplus.

@CW: From the Factcheck link, which I do recommend you read before you critique it: "Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."

Clinton's annual budgets were balanced, but this was not enough to wipe the debt that started to skyrocket under Reagan and has continued since. Personally, I blame Nixon for waving away Bretton Woods and the link, however tenuous, to reality through the gold standard.

Spock, I very clearly wrote (and even capitalized it, and will again) TOTAL DEBT. Total debt NEVER dropped under Clinton. It is that simple. What you are quoting says as much... " it decreases by the amount of any surplus". When did it decrease? Again, even if it did (and it clearly didn't), you are doing nothing but building up the GOP that you hate so much. They controlled the money.

CW, you're right. Clinton was not able to erase all the red ink that had been handed to him. As far as who controls the budget, while other hands get on it, the initial draft is the president's job.

I mean this honestly, though I know it's going to sound like an ad hominem attack: It is not clear to me how you can get complete sentences out with all the cognitive dissonance in your head. "Clinton didn't do it -- and if he did WE did it! Nyah-nyah-nyah!" Sheesh.

Spock, economically speaking, I think that Clinton and a GOP-controlled Congress was the best I've seen in my lifetime (born 1975). Yes, I give Clinton credit. I can say that with no problem. The left seems unable, however, to give the GOP it's due credit. I have never defended Bush's spending, I have never defended the GOP's spending under Bush, and I never will. My first post on here was to point out that there was not a surplus under Clinton, and that tax cuts are not the driving force behind deficits and the debt. It is spending. I see on these pages quite often that the right (which I'm actually still not "officially" a part of since I'm still a registered Dem) didn't care about deficits and debt when Bush was in office. I don't believe that to be true. I think that was a big reason that the GOP got hammered in the 2006/2008 elections. Heritage.com is, no doubt, a right-wing website, and they called Bush out on his runaway spending quite often. Obama is spending too much, and making Bush's spending look like nothing...much like Bush made his predecessors' spending look like nothing.

We've lost the terminology. Why do we have to "pay" for a tax cut? Don't you "pay" for a program?

The letter writer is clueless. Common, Milton, an IRA is NOT an entitlement. The tax cuts didn't destroy the budget. It was the spending that destroyed the budget and led to the debt.

Look no further than the state of PA. Spending under Fast Eddie increased 40% in his 8 years. The revenues did not keep up. As a result, we now have a budget deficit.

CW: Much more understandable post, thanks, and apologies for the harsh words at the end of my last note. I completely agree that the budget needs to be reigned in, and I think we both agree that the Clinton administration's budgets as implemented -- meaning as proposed by Clinton and amended by a Republican Congress -- are the most balanced post-Reagan budgets we've seen.

wrt capital gains rates, CBO thinks the cuts made no difference. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165 Your comment about them made me think you were headed down the "tax cuts pay for themselves" road.

We're conflating two issues: What services do we want as a society? How do we want to pay for them? It's the balance between these that matter; mixing them up leads up to saying things like "Tax cuts don't matter; spending reductions do." At the end of the day it's the BALANCE that matters.

Nobody wants to get off the gravy train but nobody wants to pay for it, either.

We spend roughly the same amount of money on our military as all the rest of the world combined, but neither the right nor the left will attack that seriously lest they be painted as soft on security. The lack of any sort of national health safety net leads to a demonstrable loss of competitive advantage, as very other country with national health care has a better rate of small business creation and repeated studies have found that people in the US are (rightly) afraid to go out on their own because one illness could bankrupt their family. Meanwhile, we see income inequalities skyrocket to where Egypt is a more financially balanced country than we are. From a purely Machiavellian perspective I think the haves should be a little more concerned about the have nots; as the old saying goes, any country is only three meals away from a revolution.

I believe the letter-writer is saying that the taxes deferred by IRAs constitute a benefit only available to the relatively well-to-do.

I think the letter-writer is also saying that Brooks is focusing only on cutting expenses, while we need to attend to the income side of our balance sheet as well.

I know far too little to say whether tax cuts pay for themselves. A number I've often seen is that they only pay 40-50%. While you can no doubt pull up many links of "experts" saying tax cuts are ruining the economy, I can do the same for those saying they drive the economy. Overall, my opinion of course differs from yours, in that I do think they help. I'm guessing this will be a debate that goes on as long as we exist. As for capital gains, they did more than double after the Bush tax cuts. If the cuts had nothing to do with it, then I'm even more perplexed as to the outcry over them. And I thought nothing of your "harsh words". What's a good debate without a few of them? In the end, I have no doubt that the reason we all argue is that we want to see a better country, we just don't agree on how to go about it.

@CW: I don't think you will find many economists who think that tax cuts pay for themselves; the question, as the Time article discusses somewhat, is what side o the Laffer Curve a tax structure exists. At a 90% tax rate you have a good chance that a reduction will actually increase revenues by reducing the load on businesses. When you have a tax structure so skewed that Exxon and BP paid no tax last year, not so much.

I'm not offering any outcry on capital gains, just saying that the CBO doesn't think they had anything to do with the revenue gains that followed, pointing instead to a number of other economic factors.

Spock, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was that there are many economists that believe tax cuts are good for the economy. I tend to agree with that. When the top rate was 90%, tax revenue was still about the same as a percentage of GDP as it is now. So I do not think that taxing the hell out of the rich is the be all-end all answer to the debt (and I don't think you are suggesting that, either). As for Exxon, BP, I'm with you that there are WAY too many loopholes that let huge companies (and, yes, individuals), get away from taxes.

You 2 have had a very intelligent discussion....

but I still want Quipman to come back and address whether the tax cuts were extended to all Americans or only the rich...

Since I took the time to cut-n-paste something from NPR, proving me right and him wrong, the least he could do is man-up & come back and admit it. (after what he said)

This writer doesn't understand the difference between entitlements and tax policy. They are not one in the same. Would he like a flat tax starting with the first dollar earned? Would that be egalitarian enough for him?

@Cenz: The writer is responding to David Brooks' piece, in which he focused only on expenses. The writer would like to consider the income side of the equation as well. The differences and relationships between entitlements and tax policy seem somewhat immaterial to the broader point of the letter.

Spock, Couldn't disagree more that the difference is immaterial. In that case I'd hate to have him as my accountant. But to address your point of his "broader point" being about income; don't you find it interesting that the highest tax revenue years in the history of this nation were 2006 and 2007 while expenditures in the same period far outpaced the revenue?

Cenz and Spock - The word "entitlement" has taken new meaning in this country. Look at the letter writer's own use of that word. I believe that is what is happening across the country in Calyfornya, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

For example, school districts were getting hefty amounts of money from the state over the past 8 years. Those increases turned into an entitlement. With a huge budget deficit, that well has dried up. The school districts are having difficulty with their budgets. Tensions are rising. Cuts will or are being made in those areas. Quite frankly, school district knew the handwriting was on the wall last summer. I know. I attended a school board meeting and the business manager starting talking about the coming year. I'm not talking this year, but the forthcoming budgets for next year.

We're at this stage where the squeaky wheel will get the grease. Who will whine loudest will get the payola.

I'm not saying the point is in general irrelevant; I'm saying that this was not the point of the letter. As far as 2006-7 are concerned, it seems like life on credit:

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/10530-Total-Federal-Tax-Revenue-and-Spending-in-Inflation-Adjusted-Dollars.html

Not a model for anyone who believes that we should get to a balanced budget (which I do).

Sadly Ironman you are right. Life has devolved into everyone fighting to be subsidized by someone else.

Spock - I'm all for a balanced budget at the federal level. Ya know, it's gotten so bad that nobody talks or mentions it anymore.

Cenz - Yep. We are living in that society right now.

Wow, we're almost in agreement. The only wrench I'd throw into our lovefest is that a society made up of paupers and billionaires would be unpleasant and violent, and appears to be the society were headed towards.

Spock, Just wondering how to forestall this bifurcated society. Do you tax the rich till there are rich no more or do you give refuge to those yearning to breathe free?

I just love how the wealthy always claim things are better when THEY have more money. It's even more wryly amusing when the not-so-wealthy start spouting the same lines, and coming up with all sorts of twisted logic to justify the position.

I will agree with Ironman that terminology has been distorted by all sides in this debate. "paying for tax cuts" is bizarro-speak. So is calling programs that people paid into, and now want to collect on, "entitlements", while making it a dirty word in the process. We can find numberous other examples in the preceding posts.

Yeah, there is waste in government spending. It is also true that everyone is too lazy or stupid to pinpoint it. It's much easier, and much rabble rousing to say "20% cuts on EVERYTHING!". We need cuts that make sense, do the least harm possible to citizens. Which means the cutters have to do their homework.

It is also true that the percent of income that the wealthy pay has been steadily decreasing during the last 50 years, and they are still whining. The only setback in this steady march occurred under Clinton, who managed to stop adding to the deficit by the end of his term. The wealthy still managed to do well in the 1990's, and the budget was coming into balance. One has to think the increased taxes he placed on people making over a mill a year played a role.

With a high unemployment rate, the Romans knew that if you didn't provide something for people to do they were likely to find something to do that involved perhaps ripping you to shreds; hence, bread and circuses at the Colosseum. We're in a bad place. We have what amounts to a global credit bubble (blown up following the end of Bretton Woods), an emerging resource crisis (energy is going to get more expensive in general and oil in particular is likely to jump in the next five years), and various environmental issues that are likely to become more obvious and onerous in years to come. Sadly, the last two points aren't treated as factual issues in the political realm (although our military, unencumbered by dogma, thinks they're both serious problems and has written a number of reports about them).

Anyway, what to do?

First, while markets are really smart in the short term, they're really stupid about the long term; they send signals at the very last minute. They also forget quickly; the oil shocks of 1973-74 and 1980 were very strong signals, but North Shore and North Slope oil came online and we were right back to party time. We need to make it clear to the market that energy costs are and will continue to rise. At this point you can cue the libertarian policy crowd, who will say that the government has no right to interfere in the market. I will then counter that we should then suspend all work on shared infrastructure -- air, rail, highway systems; electrical and gas energy transport; clean water, etc, etc. The libertarians will then excitedly say "EXACTLY! YES!" and sane people then stop listening to them. My point is that existing policy already shapes the information in the market; people fly instead of going by train not only because air is almost always faster but also because we subsidize air travel. The hard part: how do we encourage people to use less energy for transport and in their homes without regressive results?

Second, people on the right talk about the golden age of America being the 1950's, but none of their policies are aimed at recreating that era. Strong unions created a middle class of people who made stuff; subsequently we decided that the making of stuff was beneath us and we sent it off to China to be done by near-slave labor in an environment with nearly no environmental controls, and now we wonder why the toys and food from that country are laden with lead and we have no middle class jobs in this country.

Third, I have to go back to work. :-)

Spock & Cenz - As my father would say, the petrones versus the plebians. He would refer to the Caste system. I don't want to get into a class warfare discussion. We've done that repeatedly in these blogs. Right now, we are looking at winners and losers. Why can't we all be winners?

Ironman, it's hard to not get into a class war discussion we're talking about the budget the welfare of the population (in the original Constitutional sense) and when the income and wealth stats in the country are trending the way they are. As Warren Buffett said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11...every.html

*t is also true that the percent of people paying zero federal income taxes, or making money off of them, has been steadily increasing, and they are still whining.

CW is right -- all those welfare moms like GE and Exxon are milking -- err, what? http://abcnews.go.com/Business...d=10300167

Spock, I've already agreed with you above that the loopholes for corporations are ridiculous. But, I wonder, why do you think it is wrong for them to make money off of taxes, but it is perfectly fine for the millions of "welfare moms" that do the same thing? It is repeated over and over on these pages that the rich are not paying their "fair share", but noone cares about "fair share" when it comes to those paying nothing/making money off of federal income taxes.

Craig has a decent point about people who pay no federal tax. I have said before that I think everyone with employment income ought to pay at least some token tax, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that they have a stake in the system as something other than reciptient. Do away with the earned income tax credit, a kind of "reverse income tax".

However, my statement that Craig paraphrased still stands, and it is most likely a much larger amount of cash that the wealthy no longer have to put back into the system. Adn they whine constantly, and spend large amounts lobbying.

In essence, they demand that those with less shoulder more of the burden.

*t takes a lot of welfare moms to equal a single bank bailout....

*t takes a lot of welfare moms to equal a single bank bailout....

Yes but when you consider that the bailouts were a one-time thing & welfare mothers have siphoned off of workers for more than 4 decades then you see that the collective welfare moms are costing us far more than the bank bailout.

Now add everyone else on welfare (including all the children), throw in SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, all the fraud in SSI disability, the unchecked fraud in Medicare, then all the waste in all of these programs & you have a number with far more zero's than any bank bailout.

The solution to helping the needy while protecting taxpayers is simple:

drug testing all recipients

everyone must work (if you can't find a job, you perform community service or fill a position in gov't to save taxpayer's $$$ on public employee salaries)

no additional cash or benefits for having children (bet we'll see the birth rate drop drastically among bad parents which will save society a ton in many different ways not to mention spare a lot of innocent children from suffering)

no eligibility for welfare without a work history (like the way UC is set up, if you didn't earn you don't collect)

That would be a great start. It would preserve funding for the true needy while clearing the rolls of the drug dealers, generational welfare families, con artists, etc.

Agriculture bills have been corporate bailouts for about five decades. How many big league stadiums have been built with private funds? CATO -- CATO, mind you -- offers that in 2006 the federal government spent $92B on corporate subsidies. The S&L bailout was about $500B. Google the 1872 Mining Act. What is the nation's digital television spectrum worth? What have broadcasters paid for it? Recall the $1 TRILLION that the Pentagon admitted it had lost back in 2003? Wal-Mart got $37M from the government to upgrade the highway to their plant in Bentonville, Ark.

Welfare moms have a lot of work to do to catch up with corporate America.

Nice try Spock but you're just throwing out a few extreme examples & erroneously basing an entire argument around them. In the year 2000, we spent more than $208 B just in Medicaid alone. Plus another $50 B in cash bennies for welfare so just 2 major welfare programs alone account for over a quarter TRILLION per year.

In other words, just SOME of our welfare costs more in a decade than the 3 major bailouts in all of US history combined. So again, nice try, but your argument is just a straw man.

But even if we did outspend on corporate welfare over social welfare, 2 wrongs don't make a right so your argument would still be irrelevant.

Well, at least I _have_ examples. I'm not saying there isn't welfare fraud but they have to catch up with $1T ADMITTEDLY LOST money to be a bigger issue. Your idea of drug testing is OK in theory but I suspect in practice it would prove expensive and unworkable. I like workfare rather than welfare but there are some practical issues there as well.

BTW, I think it's really cute how you vote yourself up when you check the thread.

Spock - No. You're completely wrong.

I've been through two drug tests in my life. Both of them were 10 point test. Meaning, they are testing for the 10 illegal drugs.

First, it was a condition of hiring at my company. Makes sense to me. Second, we had a customer. I had to enter their facility for one week. There was my second drug test. I consider it for safety reasons. How much? Maybe $100 each.

Common, we are not breaking the bank here.

It would be workable. Take the first test. Test positive. Take a second test. If positive, gonzo. It will clean up the rolls real quick.

Negative, there are NO practical issues.

As a sidebar, what is so wrong with drug testing? There are allot of casual users out there. I'm sick and tired of paying for those bums. Yes. They are bums. There are real people who need healthcare, food stamps, etc.

Get rid of the trash.

Ironman, I can only imagine your apoplexy when the drug testing budget ends up being tens of billions of dollars and forces out drugs users only taking tens of millions of dollars out of the system.

Anybody have any numbers on actual audited welfare fraud? This thread started by saying "Perhaps we should look at income as well as expenses" and now we're in the gutter whining about imaginary welfare fraud. Again. Real numbers or it didn't happen! :-)

Wow, lots of back and forth. But for those of you that think that cutting spending does not have the same effect as raising revenues in terms of easing the deficit, you do not understand the concept of deficit versus the debt.

The deficit is the amount of money we do not have to pay for what we are committed to spend. We then borrow to cover this, raising the debt we owe. Got it now?

So increasing revenues say by closing tax loopholes, creidits and the like has the same effect as spending less. The surplus that really did exist at the end of Clinton's term (if you dispute this you are unable to do math) meant that revenues were greater than the spending and would have been useful to retire debt if we so desired.

The simple secret to Clinton's success was that he worked both sides of the DEFICIT equation. He cut spending and raised taxes, mostly on wealthy folks. Who still prospered more so than the other 'envious' classes during those years.

The tax commission produced all sorts of possible solutions to the deficit and debt problem, but little of it has been taken up.

Ironman, in case I wasn't clear in my example: Let's say we have 20M welfare recipients. Let's accept your $100/test cost base. 20 million tests x $100 = $2B. Now, let's say one quarter of them test positive once. That's $.5B. Let's say one quarter of them are dumb enough to fail out. That's 2.5M people you have kicked off the welfare rolls. Wonderful! But how much were they pulling from the system? If it's not >$2.5B, you've been on a fool's errand; you're not saving us any money.

Spock - There's more tied up in the $100 in the paperwork. I'm sure its much less than a "C" note.

Go back to PghGirls412 post at 8:06 p.m. I agree with her numbers. We spend $2 billion on drug test. Welfare programs are $250 billion a year. You can do the math. Based upon your reasoning, I would need 1%. Yes. 1%.

Here's the interactive chart for the $3.7 trillion budget. I'd take it a step further. Any benefit would be cut. Any handout. Any give me.

I'll take that bet any day.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

These are for 10 panel test, like I mentioned above for the two tests that I had to take for employment.

How about $39 for a drug test?

http://www.infocubic.net/products/drug_screening.htm

$48 for these people.

http://www.employmentdrugtesting.com/services.html

Go read: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-r...ligibility

Excerpt: "In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients “could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”[18] Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well."

So, while it would feed the right's fantasy of punishing various imaginary malefactors, testing wouldn't save money and is unconstitutional. Not that constitutionality is ever a serious concern to the right; cf the PATRIOT Act.

I spent 20 years in a military uniform, an earned an ENTITLEMENT called TRICARE. Its health insurance for military retirees, and for all intents and purposes, its free. I also have a pension, a defined benefits pension, that will pass on to my wife should I predecease her. And what's the first thing ObamaCare did? Since I don't spend enough on health care premiums, I and other retirees were facing a 1000 dollar fine/assessment/redistribution of wealth. My pension and my health care are a promise made to me by the United States of America. Anybody out there think that my entitlements should be taken away? No COLA for two years and an increase in the insurance premium I pay on my pension so my wife has an income when I croak. Same crap, different day. Use up the military, and throw us on the scrap heap. I could care less what political party is in power, as they are all hypocrites.

Well, at least I _have_ examples.

Yes, 3 or 4 whole examples over the span of 140-odd years is so impressive & not at all anecdotal.

And I love how you use Michigan's failure with drug testing welfare recipients as some sort fo standard. Let's see, on one hand we have the state of Michigan which may well be THE most economically depressed state in the nation, full of unemployment, foreclosures & general failure on all levels of government.

On the other hand, employers (both public & private sectors) have successfully used drug testing for decades to make hiring & retention decisions; many vocational schools make passing a drug test an entrance requirement; the government requires people to pass a drug test in oder to hold various types of licenses & certifications, including CDL's; and those are just a few examples.

Clearly drug testing is purposefully implemented in many aspects of our society to ensure public safety & competence yet for some reason welfare recipients shopuld be a special class exempt from the same basic standards of society as the hard-working taxpayers, many teachers & healthcare professionals, the law enforcement & public safety workers who put their lives on the line for us, etc. Your position on this issue is a complete joke!

Annnnd you still have no examples. At least you didn't vote yourself up this time.

Please review the definition of the word "example" since you seem to be confused as to it's meaning.

Pgh Girl:
I agree with you in principal, however, if a drug test were to be a condition of receiving welfare/WIC/Access cards and other such handouts, what would we do with the folks who failed the test and received no welfare payments? This is just a fanciful thought, but don't you suppose many would become incarcerated for crimes committed? In one way of thinking that's welfare at its worst. Lamentably, six generations of folks know no other way but welfare and public assistance. I'd like to see the chain broken, as I'm certain you would, but how? Are these slackers employable? There must truly be a percentage who really cannot work. I don't have the answers; I'm not that brilliant. I fear drug testing would simply create yet another level of expensive government spent on a socio-economic demographic of our society that has long ago been forgotten. I do see your point, though. It seems an obscenity that one would be paid to sit at home and smoke dope. (Hope my reference isn't too dated. I don't use drugs, and I'm really not up to speed on the latest and most proper way to describe drug use.)

PghGirl: I'm sorry, I should have been more accurate. You offer no data, no examples, no evidence of any kind whatever, just a rant on an unspecified number of welfare cheats. How many are there? What does it cost to flush them out? Retail stores accept a certain amount of "shrinkage", meaning "losses to shoplifting," because while they would love to get to zero the cost of getting there is far higher than the losses themselves. I'd like to make a decision informed by data rather than just belief.

Also, pghgirl, you seem to be conflating my position with my reporting on an issue. In principle I'm not opposed to drug testing for welfare recipients, but wanted to bring to your attention the legal fact that it has been found unconstitutional. Not by me -- by the courts. And other evidence seems to suggest that it would not be feasible on the scale you're promoting, leading in many cases to rapidly diminishing returns.

Wop, I agree with what you're saying in principle but in practice it appears to work. Consider people who lose their jobs for any reason they are at-fault (failed drug test, absenteeism, stealing,etc). They're generally denied UC & not eligible for welfare, having earned money through work.

So they're essentially without a safety net of any sort from the gov't. This happens to millions of Americans each year yet the vast majority manage to support themselves in the short-term, find other employment & stay out of prison.

Since these standards are good enough for hundreds of millions of Americans, they should apply equally to welfare recipients. Fail a drug test, don't do your community service, turn down a job, you're cut off.

And if a person is of such an entitlement mindset as to be unemployable, then I say let them live on the streets. I'd rather support them in prison somewhere instead of via welfare check because at least they'd be less of a burden on society & not enjoy themselves as much.

Locking people up -- great idea! That's cheap, and would us maintain our world leadership in the area: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...53738.html

Drug screening will not solve any problems unless you want to create work for lawyers. In my experience (queue derision-I can take it!) most users (note I did not say all) of Medicaid benefits have substance problems of one sort or another and they all have an excuse that will fall on sympathetic ears (the oft used ones in preemployment are the "poppy seed" and "second hand smoke"). Many are already on legally acquired medications (ativan, vicodin, hycotuss, etc)that will show up on a drug panel. Remember we are often talking about the unhealthiest segment of society. This is by lot or by choices they have made. Would a "lifestyle audit" before benefits begin be better? Maybe a "workhouse" where room, board, transportaton and healthcare is given till a family can get back on their feet. Could a place like Mayview Hospital be repurposed as such? If not, do we accept the fact (and cover the cost)that not all those on welfare need it in order to ensure that those who need help get help?

written by Ironman, February 21, 2011 - 03:09 PM

Ironman wrote: "Right now, we are looking at winners and losers. Why can't we all be winners?"

It's because the HAVEs want more and more. They keep getting more and more and since they have more, they can afford to buy politicians who will develop policy to allow them to get still more and more. The Have-Nots have no way of stopping this. Further, the Haves have convinced many of the Have-Nots (Teabaggers) that they can one day be part of the Haves, if they just keep putting more and more of the same kind of bought-and-paid-for politicians into office. It will never happen, of course, because the Haves are interested only in getting MORE and MORE. The Have-Nots in this country simply don't matter.

Cenz, I realize that this will create a new field for slimeball lawyers but it shouldn't. Hardworking Americans & taxpayers are held to this standard every day in every industry, for jobs both private & public sector. Welfare recipients should not be a protected class excused from the basic responsibilities that the rest of us must shoulder.

We are enabling these people, plain & simple. And frankly, I find your reasoning kind of offensive. The poor (as a collective whole) are not a helpless group incapable of living as decent human beings. If we set standards MOST of them will meet those standards, some will exceed them. Those who refuse to do so will be a minority & they certainly don't deserve to live off of the taxpayers.

Part of the problem is that we have shipped enormous number of jobs overseas, most of them exactly the kind of jobs that folks on welfare would otherwise take. We're now addicted to slave labor operating without any environmental controls (or costs), so we get cheap toys contaminated with lead. Bring those jobs back and I agree with you. Forcing the overseas folks to compete on an equal footing (fair labor practices, similar environmental protections) would help.

But you still haven't addressed the issue of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients being ruled illegal in court, which would seem a bit of an impediment.

But you still haven't addressed the issue of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients being ruled illegal in court,

Yes, I have. Drug testing is an accepted condition of employment, of admission to many vocational, training & education programs & of professional licensure including commercial drivers licenses, etc. It is quite obviously legal.

So any ruling deeming it illegal for welfare recipients clearly ignores all precedent & also creates a protected class of people who are both more free & less accountable than every worker, student, driver, etc. in the country. As such, the ruling is bs & should easily be overturned by any court who looked at the facts of the matter.

In other words, if it's illegal for welfare recipients to be drug tested, then it must also be deemed illegal for employers, schools, etc. (both public & private). Take your pick.

Pghgirl, since you evidently didn't follow the link I sent, I'll copy at length for your convenience:

"Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions:

Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.[16]

At the time Michigan’s drug testing scheme was struck down, the 49 other states had rejected such a program for a variety of fiscal and practical reasons: at least 21 states concluded that such a program “may be unlawful”; 17 states cited cost concerns; 11 states had not considered drug testing at all; and 11 gave a variety of practical/operational reasons.[17]

In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients “could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”[18] Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.

Some states’ constitutions actually offer greater privacy protection to individuals than does the U.S. Constitution. It is very possible that random drug testing schemes for welfare recipients will run afoul of these state-specific protections as well."

You can offer whatever logic you like, but the courts have a different interpretation.

Spock, you just don't get the obvious here: It's the policy utilized by the state of Michigan that was objectionable here, not the action itself.

Drug testing is NOT unconstitutional & is legal in every other aspect of society. This ruling is irrelevant unless someone proposes a law worded exactly the same as Michigan's.

Until a high court rules that: employers can't require drug testing for hiring & retention; schools can't require passing a drug test for admission; etc. then drug testing is legal & becauser it is legal the gov't could implement such a program if it wanted to.

Generally, one case doesn't set precedent, plus the decision is not all-encompassing or broad enough to effectively close the matter. Not even close.

"Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well."

All 50 states have decided, after considering the issue, to not implement drug testing of welfare recipients, for a variety of fiscal and practical reasons.

Now, you can wish for this to happen in some alternate universe that you control, but in this one, in reality, ALL 50 STATES have considered your idea and ALL 50 STATES have decided to not pursue it.

Oh -- and thanks again for your helpful voting up of your posts and down of those who disagree with you. Hope it's good for your peace of mind.