Where I stand on key bills as the 2012 session wraps up

The AJC’s Capitol correspondents compiled a list of some of the most prominent bills yet to be settled in this year’s legislative session, which will end by midnight today. I haven’t written about most of them but, for the record, here’s where I stand on each (I’m not going to link to each one, but you can search for the text of any bill that interests you here):

  • SB 469 (outlawing picketing outside private residences): The changes proposed by the House, which broaden the bill to cover anyone’s residence rather than just those of business leaders dealing with labor unions, strike me as constitutional and desirable — a protest outside one’s home isn’t a negotiation tactic, just pure intimidation. I support it as amended by the House Judiciary Committee.
  • HB 954 (limiting elective abortions to the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy, rather than the current 26): Anti-abortion activists say the bill has been gutted; pro-abortion-rights activists still oppose it anyway. What’s the point of passing it at this juncture, except to have something to tout in an election year? As it stands now, I see no good reason to pass it.
  • HB 1176 (criminal justice reform): Georgia has to get a handle on prison costs. Using alternative sentences for the likes of nonviolent drug offenders is a sensible step. I support it.
  • SB 458 (tweaks to last year’s illegal-immigration bill): The big change from the bill’s original text is the removal of a provision to ban all illegal immigrants from attending the state’s public colleges. That would have changed current Board of Regents policy, which is to bar them only from colleges which have had to turn away qualified, legally present Georgia residents. Allowing illegal immigrants merely to attend a public college which has open spots does not strike me as enough of a state subsidy to fight about, so I prefer the Regents’ policy. Absent that provision, I support the bill.
  • HB 347 (changing unemployment benefits and taxes): The question is not whether to raise unemployment taxes. The federal government already imposed a tax increase on employers as a condition of its loan to the state to cover a shortfall in the trust fund that pays jobless benefits. And it’s an undesirable one, because it treats employers the same whether they have a history of laying off employees or not. HB 347 would head off the worst of the federal tax increases, which grow each year until the debt is repaid, by paying it off sooner, and it does so by re-linking the tax burden to a company’s use of the benefits system. As for the benefits changes: They only affect new claimants, and the biggest changes would not kick in until unemployment has started easing anyway. It’s unfortunate that the state is in a position to have to pass a bill like this one, but that position can’t be wished away. This bill is better than the alternative, and I support it.
  • HB 811 (ensuring that state fees are spent for their intended purpose): Well, that was the original intent of the bill, anyway. The Senate essentially gutted it by adding a requirement that the state’s reserves hit $1 billion before the changes kick in. If Georgia Republicans don’t like their growing reputation for increasing “fees” to avoid raising “taxes,” they ought not be in the business of blurring the distinction between the two (a “fee” ought to cover the cost of providing a particular service and nothing more; “taxes” are general revenues to be spent at the Legislature’s discretion). They shouldn’t be able to shed that reputation so easily. Unless the original House language is restored, I oppose this bill.
  • HB 861 (requiring drug testing for welfare recipients): The state has an interest in ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent for their intended purpose. I say pass it.
  • SB 448 (limiting the recovery of bad loans made to developers when the loan is sold to a third party; the news story says HB 448 but that’s a different bill): Call it the developer-bailout bill. There are some legitimate concerns for some small-business owners, but they’re not the ones whose problems would be addressed by this bill; well-connected developers are more likely to benefit. There are constitutional questions about whether this bill could be applied retroactively. The substitute text proposed by the House Banking Committee is not enough of an improvement. It’s a bad bill and ought to be defeated by the full House.
  • SB 321/HB 872 (restricting metal recyclers to fight metal theft): I understand the recyclers aren’t the criminals here and that a requirement that they wait 14 days and then mail payments to sellers may be burdensome. That said, the recyclers can probably pass along their compliance costs to their customers. Metal theft is enough of a problem that I think it’s worth a try.

That’s a lot of fodder for discussion — no one should feel the need to go off-topic today.

– By Kyle Wingfield

117 comments Add your comment

Billy

March 29th, 2012
11:07 am

Um Kyle-your supported Newt. Why would anyone care how you feel on these issues?

Don't Tread

March 29th, 2012
11:10 am

You support HB 861?? Uh oh, that will get ‘em lit up for sure. But I think it’s a good idea too. If I have to pass a drug test to get a job to pay for welfare in the first place, the recipient should have to pass one to get the money.

I’ll have to agree with SB 469 – picketing a private residence is an attempt at intimidation.

Tommy Maddox

March 29th, 2012
11:18 am

Um Billy – you support Obama. Why would anyone care how you feel about Kyle?

JF McNamara

March 29th, 2012
11:23 am

Kyle the centrist. Who knew? I agree on just about every point.

HB 861 is probably going to backfire, but I don’t disagree with it in principle. Are you going to starve someone’s kids because they might spend $20 on marijuana?

I would need to read the bill to see the structure, but I’ve always thought that would be a problem with passage of these types of bills. I’m not investing the time in that though.

Pizzaman

March 29th, 2012
11:24 am

As a Union member for over 40 years I’ve never heard of or seen any Union picket a private residence. And let’s not forget, in it’s original form it only applied to “business” owner homes and only restricted Union members. A typical republican anti-union move.

It hasn’t been call welfare since the Clinton administration tightened the rules on who qualified, required job training, added job search assistance and limited the time someone could spend on it. Now you want to add a drug text that the recipiant has to pay for. Just another republican tax.

Ivan

March 29th, 2012
11:29 am

“That’s a lot of fodder for discussion — no one should feel the need to go off-topic today.”

Never underestimate the power of the interwebz.

Kyle Wingfield

March 29th, 2012
11:32 am

Pizzaman: It happened just last month in New Jersey. And last September. That’s just in about 10 seconds of Googling.

As I said in the OP, I support this version of the bill, not the more narrowly tailored original version.

1961_Xer

March 29th, 2012
11:34 am

SB-458 – I am anti illegal alien. I haven’t read the bill, but I see no problem with them attending GA colleges IF they are not displacing a legal resident and IF they are paying out-of-state tuition

HB-861 – This…. like all of the “tough on crime” bills that filled our prisons with drug users… sounds like a good idea. In practice, though, there is no reason to believe that all or most welfare recipients are on drugs. I am generally against random drug testing of mostly innocent people. Even if a welfare recipient is found with a trace of marijuana (for example) in their system, there is no indication that it was paid for with welfare money. I am mostly concerned that children of welfare recipients will be punished for the sins of their parents. Mom takes a toke on a dube a month ago, and now they are cut off.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what Kyle said.

carlosgvv

March 29th, 2012
11:38 am

Gosh darn it Kyle!!! I agree with you on every one of those bills. Am I turning into a Republican???

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 29th, 2012
11:41 am

“As a Union member for over 40 years I’ve never heard of or seen any Union picket a private residence.”

Guess you don’t live in NY, NJ or CT, Pizzaman.

And really? You’re going to hang your hat on what they call welfare now? Instead of deflecting away from the issue, why don’t you tell us why you feel drug users should be getting state subsistence in the first place?

JF McNamara

March 29th, 2012
11:50 am

@carlosgvv,

It’s like always. Both sides talk a lot of tough talk, but reason and common sense generally pravail at the end of the day.

Brosephus

March 29th, 2012
11:51 am

I can agree with you, probably not with the same reasoning on most of your decisions. Two that kinda stick out though are SB 469 and HB 861 as they both appear to be walking the line to running afoul of the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution respectively.

SB 469 sounds good and reasonable, but if someone’s protesting a business that happens to be a home-based business, where does that leave them to protest? If they are on public property and not violating someone’s private property rights, isn’t that close to stepping on their right to assemble? I see the point of disturbing someone in their home, and I agree with that. I’m just not sold on how that would not violate the 1st.

HB 861 also appears to violate the 4th Amendment right to unreasonable searches. If I have no history of using drugs, why should I have to undergo a drug test for public benefits? Welfare was revamped back in the 90’s with Clinton and his GOP Congress that ensured that people had to be working and limited the time that people could receive public assistance. They can apply for extensions, but they’re not guaranteed to get that extension, and from my understanding, that extension is based on the individual circumstances. I would much rather see legislation geared towards improving the economy for everyone, therefore lessening the need for public assistance as opposed to targeting someone who happens to need a bit of help.

Hillbilly D

March 29th, 2012
11:54 am

SB 469-I’m for this, as long as it applies equally to everyone. A man’s, or woman’s, home is their castle. If you go intruding on someone’s home (and that includes being in front of it), don’t be surprised when bad things happen.

SB 458This falls into wink, wink, nudge, nudge territory.

HB 347This might not be necessary if the short sighted people hadn’t stop collecting the state taxes in good times. You’re always going to have your 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine. To think otherwise is naive.

HB 811The original intent of this bill is good but it’s been gutted so as to make it meaningless. It’s just one where they can point to doing something, when they’re actually doing nothing.

HB 861Might be good in theory but who is going to pay for it and how much is it going to cost? Is everybody going to be tested or only certain people?

SB 448If anybody needed a reminder, this one shows you who actually runs the state. Been that way for 50 or 60 years, though.

SB 321/HB 872I’m not really familiar with the ins and outs of this one. Does it apply to all sales or just large ones? If somebody sells $5-10 worth of stuff, odds are they didn’t steal it. The way most pawn shops operate (of course there are a few bad apples) and co-operate with local law enforcement seems to work pretty well, in most cases. Perhaps, a similar statute could be adapted for metal recyclers.

Wade Hampton

March 29th, 2012
12:10 pm

Billy @ 11:07 summed it up.
.
Please sir…May I have another….is Kyle’s take on life.
.
Not unlike any other Romney/Newt/Obama supporter.
.
Sad.
.
In my day, we would have sent these metro/federo-sexuals off to a european boarding school……………………………..one way.

Cutty

March 29th, 2012
12:12 pm

HB 861- Why stop at welfare recipients. GISCA makes anyone receiving a public benefit verify your residency. Why not make anyone receiving a public benefit, including the legislature, submit to a drug test?

Intown

March 29th, 2012
12:13 pm

How do you feel about HB 386?

ragnar danneskjold

March 29th, 2012
12:15 pm

I like HB 954, otherwise agree with your assessments Kyle.

Kyle Wingfield

March 29th, 2012
12:18 pm

Intown: I had lots to say about it last week before it passed. I don’t think it’s bad, just not really worthwhile. Better to do some real reform that lowers income-tax rates.

Hillbilly D

March 29th, 2012
12:20 pm

HB 386

Summary
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Titles 48, 2, 28, 33, 36, 46, and 50 of the O.C.G.A., relating respectively, to revenue and taxation, agriculture, the General Assembly, insurance, local government, public utilities, and state government, so as to provide for comprehensive revision of the revenue structure of the State of Georgia; to implement the recommendations of the 2010 Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgians as provided for and required by Chapter 12 of the Title 28 of the O.C.G.A.; to repeal Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 28, relating to fiscal bills generally; to amend certain titles of the O.C.G.A. so as to correct certain cross-references and make conforming changes; and for other purposes.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/386

If you can make heads or tails out of that, you’re a smarter man than me but my gut feeling is that it’s the usual increase/shift masquerading as reform.

HDB

March 29th, 2012
12:26 pm

Brosephus
March 29th, 2012
11:51 am

I’m agreeing with your viewpoint here……but let’s add this:
HB861 also can run against the 5th Amendment…the right AGAINST self-incrimination. Plus, as Hillbilly D has said…who’s paying for it?? If you make the recipient pay, there will be constitutional issues in play here!!

dahreese

March 29th, 2012
12:31 pm

If you treat labor workers right in the first place, they’re not going to picket at all especially in front of your house.

Additionally, if you’re a Wall Street crook of any shape, form or fashion, including those in Conngress who helped cause the Wall Street collapse, you deserve to have your house picketed.

getalife

March 29th, 2012
12:34 pm

The newt is a laughing stock so kyle has zero credibility.

Brosephus

March 29th, 2012
12:43 pm

HDB

I’m operating on the assumption that anybody who’s guilty of using drugs would forego the application altogether to avoid detection. I’m also probably a bit biased because of limitations of the 4th in my line of work. Seems that, if you suspect someone of using TANF money to buy drugs, you’d get a warrant to allow for the search for drug use. If I remember correctly, getting bio-samples, such as DNA, hair, and urine, have been held up as a form of a personal search. That’s why officers have to obtain a warrant to get samples. I have not seen the legal standing that allows this type of legislation to get around that. I may be missing something somewhere, but I don’t see the legality of laws such as these. Even drug testing on the job has limitations.

that's goofy

March 29th, 2012
12:43 pm

HB 861 (requiring drug testing for welfare recipients): The state has an interest in ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent for their intended purpose. I say pass it.

make it apply to all state employees including elected officials.

Ayn Rant

March 29th, 2012
12:48 pm

Are any of the bills really needed? Will any one of them improve the state economy and reduce the 9% unemployment rate?

Fifty or so state legislatures and the federal congress have been grinding out legislation every year for a hundred or more years. I read an estimate that 40,000 new laws took effect at the beginning of this year alone. Of course, none of the legislative bodies clean up after themselves by rescinding out-of-date laws. They invite the lawyers to play games with hundreds of thousands of inconsistent laws, and trust the courts to make some sense of the mess.

Is not the sheer volume of laws on the books the primary reason why our economy is overburdened with regulations and restrictions, and why civil justice is too slow to be effective? Wouldn’t it be better if the state legislature focused on sorting and cleaning the mountain of laws already passed rather than devising and quarreling over new laws?

Hillbilly D

March 29th, 2012
12:49 pm

Even drug testing on the job has limitations.

I worked with a guy who failed every employer drug test he ever took, by his own admission. They sent him to be evaluated and every time it came back, he didn’t have “a problem”. They finally fired him for smoking in the parking lot. At that same place, the testing was random, but the people who were known users (often in management) were never tested. The whole thing was a joke.

If the employer thinks somebody is a user, they ought to turn their evidence over to the law and let them handle it.

I also have a problem with the pre-employment screenings. If you say yes, you’re basically waiving your rights but if you say no, you have no chance at the job. There’s got to be a better way.

JohnnyReb

March 29th, 2012
12:52 pm

SB 458 – the big question is, why is there even discussion of letting illegal immigrants attend schools?

If they are illegal, they should be deported. Not allowed to go to our colleges with the only question being how much tuition they pay.

The bill is a shinning example of WHY we have an illegal immigrant problem. They know we don’t enforce the laws we have, which means the so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” is just more BS.

Aquagirl

March 29th, 2012
12:53 pm

I’d like to see a cost analysis of HB 861 (drug testing for welfare.) How much money will it cost vs. how much money we will supposedly save? Let’s stop pretending this is about saving money, and admit it’s a feel-good measure.

Ironically we’re reforming the criminal justice system in the same session because the feel-good get tough on drugs measures have proved too expensive. You’d think we’d learn. But then again, this is Georgia we’re talking about.

JohnnyReb

March 29th, 2012
1:00 pm

My guess is welfare recipient drug testing can be accomplished on-the-spot for comparatively small money. Pee in a cup; put the test drops in. Negatives receive their checks. Positives don’t get a check until a more in-depth check completes.

Even if the cost is not cheap, it will be worth it until the time the percentage of positives does not justify the expense.

Real Athens

March 29th, 2012
1:01 pm

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It says nothing about when, where or how. No honest, fair or responsible titan of industry need fear a union.

You would abridge the First Amendment so it restricts “the people” but not yourself — as a member of the press and an opinion writer.

You are a disgrace to the Fourth Estate. Fink is howling from above.

From the Associated Press today. It kind of ties it all together, like a rug in a room.

“Conservatives, particularly those with college educations, have become dramatically more skeptical of science over the past four decades, according to a study published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review. Fewer than 35 percent of conservatives say they have a “great deal” of trust in the scientific community now, compared to nearly half in 1974.

“The scientific community … has been concerned about this growing distrust in the public with science. And what I found in the study is basically that’s really not the problem. The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups—conservatives and people who frequently attend church,” says the study’s author, University of North Carolina postdoctoral fellow Gordon Gauchat.

In fact, in 1974, people who identified as conservatives were among the most confident in science as an institution, with liberals trailing slightly behind, and moderates bringing up the rear. Liberals have remained fairly steady in their opinion of the scientific community over the interim, while conservative trust in science has plummeted.”

Mitt Zombie

March 29th, 2012
1:04 pm

I agree with most of Kyle’s positions and respect his well thought out rationales, with the exception of HB861. Florida is finding such a low testing failure rate that the programs costs are such that no savings takes place and in fact when total costs are considered it only adds total costs to the State.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

I believe that this bill and the dozens like it being proposed in GOP leaning states country wide are reactionary attempts to mollify those that believe the majority of aide recipients are living the “Life of Riley” texting on their iPhones while driving their Cadillacs to redeem foodstamps for Chateaubriand and Remy Martin’s Louis XIII brandy. The bill may make a few people feel like they have accomplished something, but in my opinion all that results is a further intrusion into our civil liberties.

Voice of Reason

March 29th, 2012
1:06 pm

I’ve heard the similar drug testing effort in Florida wound up being a wash. Money saved by not paying out benefits offset the money spent for the tests. If that is the case, I’m all for it.

Voice of Reason

March 29th, 2012
1:08 pm

Mitt Zombie,

Since when are our civil liberties tied into receiving tax payer funded welfare? You are not guaranteed free stuff.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 29th, 2012
1:09 pm

“or the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble,”

You missed the key word, Real Athens.

You start making a stink at MY house because of what you perceive I might have done wrong, you’d better be on the curb and damned quiet or I’ll be making some noise you won’t like, law be damned.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 29th, 2012
1:11 pm

I’m a firm believer that your civil liberties should be severely restricted once you become a ward of the state in any capacity.

Real Athens

March 29th, 2012
1:12 pm

I didn’t miss anything.

The toughness of anonymity is legendary. I’m sure you shoot people all the time.

Real Athens

March 29th, 2012
1:13 pm

When you become a “ward of the state” is when you need your civil liberties the most. You have it backwards.

Brosephus

March 29th, 2012
1:13 pm

Even if the cost is not cheap, it will be worth it until the time the percentage of positives does not justify the expense.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-03-18/drug-testing-welfare-applicants/53620604/1

Arizona was the first state to impose a testing program. In 2009, it began testing new welfare recipients when there was a “reasonable cause” to suspect illicit drug use. So how many of the 87,000 people subjected to the program have tested positive since then?

USATODAY OPINION

About Editorials/Debate

Opinions expressed in USA TODAY’s editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY’s news staff.

Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board’s point of view.

Just one….

If savings are the goal, Arizona’s program is a bust. Disqualifying the single drug abuser saved the state $560 — out of the $200 million in benefits paid out since testing started. An additional $200,000, or one-tenth of 1%, was saved when 1,633 people failed to return their drug use questionaires.

And Florida? For four months last year, before being stopped by a court, Florida tested all adult welfare applicants (but not people already in the program) and charged them the $30 to $40 cost of the test. About 2.7% tested positive. More significantly, roughly 2,000 — one-third of applicants — failed to take the test. But there’s no telling how many feared failing the test and how many couldn’t afford the fee. The cost is repaid if the test is passed, but welfare applicants might struggle to muster $30.

It doesn’t seem like anybody’s recouping the costs to test. Georgia already has major issues with it’s budget. Why create another budget issue by putting money into drug tests when a better use of money would be to work towards job creation?

Brosephus

March 29th, 2012
1:15 pm

paron that hack job at cut-n-paste…

Hillbilly D

March 29th, 2012
1:17 pm

I’ll be making some noise you won’t like, law be damned.

You’re starting to sound like people in my neck of the woods, now. :lol:

JohnnyReb

March 29th, 2012
1:18 pm

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

March 29th, 2012
1:11 pm

I’m a firm believer that your civil liberties should be severely restricted once you become a ward of the state in any capacity.
___________________________

If I was in charge, a person would not recieve a welfare check in the mail. They would pick them up at state supervised work site. People who could not find a job would be put to work doing such things as cutting the grass on the sides of roads, picking up trash, cleaning the ditches to aid storm water run off, etc. Women would be cleaning Rest Stop areas, the bathrooms, etc. The elderly but not infirmed could be free greeters at WalMart. Stuffing envelopes at the local courthouse, etc.

No free lunch would have new meaning. Personally, I’m tired of carrying so many with my tax dollars.

Aquagirl

March 29th, 2012
1:24 pm

Why create another budget issue by putting money into drug tests when a better use of money would be to work towards job creation?

As I said, we’re talking about Georgia. When limited government and less spending are on one side, and yayhoo nuttery is on the other, our fake conservatives will always favor the latter.

I didn’t know Florida’s law was tied up in court. I guess we can add the legal expense to the idiotic waste of money.

Hillbilly D

March 29th, 2012
1:24 pm

Actually, I read that WalMart is doing away with their greeters.

Real Athens

March 29th, 2012
1:27 pm

“No free lunch would have new meaning. Personally, I’m tired of carrying so many with my tax dollars.”

Like the entire Pentagon? Oil and Agriculture subsidies.

Trusslady

March 29th, 2012
1:29 pm

Brosephus

March 29th, 2012
1:36 pm

http://www.ehow.com/info_8076972_qualifies-welfare-georgia.html

If you receive TANF in Georgia, you cannot sit idly by and accept benefits. All adult recipients in Georgia have a work requirement. The work requirement includes the participation of the recipient in work activities and training for a minimum of 30 hours per week. Parents with young children are not excluded from the requirement, and unless the child is under 1 year of age, the recipient must meet the minimum work requirement. In addition, welfare assistance is only available for 48 months in a lifetime. While the limit can be extended for certain hardships, being unable to find work will not suffice as justification.

If somebody’s receiving TANF, they are ALREADY working. Contrary to popular belief, they are not sitting on their collective butts while receiving benefits. Will you conservatives who believe otherwise actually give your conservative congress from the 90’s a bit of credit in crafting legislation that did away with your worries almost 20 years ago.

Aquagirl

March 29th, 2012
1:38 pm

If I was in charge, a person would not recieve a welfare check in the mail. They would pick them up at state supervised work site. People who could not find a job would be put to work blah blah blah

That’s quite an elaborate fantasy there, JohnnyReb. Bitter much?

But if you want to engage in vengeful, angry behavior, please use your own money. If drug testing doesn’t save money the only advantage is stoking angry folks. If you want tax dollars for that purpose, what makes you any different from the other people looking for a handout?

Brosephus

March 29th, 2012
1:43 pm

If you want it directly from Georgia Dept of Human Services….

Income: An assistance unit’s countable, net income must be below certain established limits that are adjusted for the number of persons in the AU. A family must meet the financial criteria to receive TANF. For example, a family of three (mother and two children) must have a gross income below $784 a month and countable assets of less than $1,000.

Lifetime Limits: Receipt of cash assistance is limited to 48 months in a lifetime. The limit may be extended if it is determined that an extension is justified due to certain hardships, including domestic violence and physical or mental incapacity.

Paternity: The AU must cooperate in the establishment of paternity. The paternity of a child must be established at application and whenever a child is added to an active case.

Work Requirement: All adult recipients have a work requirement, and are required to participate in work activities and training for at least 30 hours weekly. These work activities help recipients gain the experience needed to find a job and become self-sufficient.

Cooperation with Office of Child Support Services is a requirement for receiving TANF benefits.

Note: A family receiving TANF for ten months might not receive increased cash assistance for the birth of additional children.

A person has to be working, the paternity has to be established being worked towards establishment, and you can’t always keep having kids just to get more money. Instead of negatively targeting the working poor, why not work towards bringing better jobs to Georgia?

Logical Dude

March 29th, 2012
1:52 pm

If you are for 861, then why not expand it to ALL people receive ANY kind of state aid? Heck, any business with a tax break would require it’s employees to undergo a drug test. It’ll be a boon for the state’s revenue!
Why only limit it to the most unfortunate of people who are applying for assistance?
Seems terribly one-sided and unfair to me. It should cover anyone / any business receiving state aid.

(yes, that is sarcasm)

Dusty

March 29th, 2012
2:21 pm

I am glad I am not a legislator. How far we have gone from a basic consitution meant for free people.

Now we have to figure who is going to protest or not in front of our homes. Decisions have to be made on the best way to receive welfare instead of the best ways to get off of welfare.. Schools decide on whether to keep unlawful illegal people as students. Businesses must be told how to handle cheats whether in salvage or any other business. The whole thing smacks of a nanny government at many levels. Or worse, a police state.

I wish our legisaltors could say “Take care of it yourself and we will wipe out this mess of junk laws that we work on for nothing.” And they would be right. Freedom oozes out the door as we build more and more barricades to the constitution we fought for and earned.

I know. I’m just dreaming and REAL life is more law. But we ARE going to miss freedom! Oh yes..