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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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.
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
Yep – that testing is gonna makes us all rich.
http://www.newser.com/story/127011/only-2-failed-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html
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..
gm
March 29th, 2012
2:31 pm
Kyle
They only affect new claimants HB347
I tell you what Kyle lose your job and see how important the bill is for new people receiving unemployment, which barely keep lights and food on the table.
This is the selfish nonsense I dispise in the I am for self rep party, it only matters until it happens to you, are we sure these people are Americans?
gm
March 29th, 2012
2:37 pm
JohnnyReb
Should we do that to people who receive free money from Fema, SSI, Va, Medicaid, I mean its all gov money.
What about the people who paid for welfare for 30 years and lose their job and need help? should we treat them like dogs to? I have said it over, over the rep party is satan best work”””
Intown
March 29th, 2012
2:38 pm
@Kyle: I agree HB 386 was not worthwhile, but probably for different reasons. Did you study the energy tax credit provisions?
@@
March 29th, 2012
2:48 pm
no one should feel the need to go off-topic today.
I feel so constricted.
Sho ’nuff alota fodder. O.K…..
SB 469: A Husqvarna 356BT makes more sense. That big boy’ll toss any unwanted debris into the street. No enforcement or prosecution costs either.
A double-doody tool.
schnirt
Steve
March 29th, 2012
2:49 pm
I agree with some your ideas, Kyle, but asking me to pay for welfare recipient drug tests? Silly, expensive, and waste of time.
Dusty
March 29th, 2012
2:53 pm
gm
Did it ever occur to you that people who lose their jobs might try some solutions that do not involve government help? Did you ever hear of “pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps”?
It is usually done by independent people who want to stay that way. They take any job available. They cut expenses. They rent out a room. They take temporary or part time jobs. They ask their family if they could spare a few. They move in with their family. They shop at GoodWill and lower level groceries. They do minor repairs to car & home. They do without cable TV. They take aspirin and chest rubs for a cold and other aches and pains. If their church has a food bank, they offter to help there to repay the free groceries they receive. They have a yard sale and unload.
It has been done, gm. It is still possible to be independent if you give it a try. Unemployment is not a death certificate.
Kyle Wingfield
March 29th, 2012
3:00 pm
Gm: I challenge you to name even one of the reductions in question. Then, we’ll talk about it.
JohnnyReb
March 29th, 2012
3:21 pm
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?
______________________________
LBJ’s Great Society started more than 40 years ago. What it has done is create multi-generations of families dependent on the government for their existence. It has reduced their self-worth to less than zero. Too many men are in jail. Fatherless families are the norm which contributes to multiple social problems. Democrats have this group right where they want them – dependent on them, so they vote Democratic.
Look no further than a famous Chinese proverb for the answer – Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. However, the man has to want to learn to fish. I’m not sure enough welfare recipients want to learn.
Until those dependent on welfare ditch Democrats because they have made them slaves, I prefer my tax dollars not go them.
gm
March 29th, 2012
3:22 pm
Kyle Wingfield
Taking unemployment from 26 weeks to 21 may not seem a lot but to someone who has been out of work, it may be the difference of a child getting the nex meal.
Dusty
Please get off your high horse and join the human race every body may not have family to help or live off, what about people that do not have a home or car, and have lost their life savings?
I mean you act like these people did not earn this money, employers paid in to this for their employees, I know fox news may not report this but every body that is on welfare on unemployment are not lazy, its amazing welfare has been around for over 50 years and now since Obama is President their is a problem, wow, America the beautiful .
JohnnyReb
March 29th, 2012
3:27 pm
gm
March 29th, 2012
2:37 pm
JohnnyReb
Should we do that to people who receive free money from Fema, SSI, Va, Medicaid, I mean its all gov money.
What about the people who paid for welfare for 30 years and lose their job and need help? should we treat them like dogs to? I have said it over, over the rep party is satan best work”””
__________________
gm – please see my 3:21 to the wetone. I don’t know if you consider yourself a Liberal, but you have the symptoms. That being, taking a statement to the extreme to try and disprove it.
I believe you fully know my post on welfare recipients is directed at those who won’t help themselves. Quite a bit of difference from the examples you list.
gm
March 29th, 2012
3:37 pm
Democrats have this group right where they want them – dependent on them, so they vote Democratic.
So what does this say about the millions of Rep who receive food stamps? and who have the same social issues as people on the right, you can not brush everybody with same brush.
JohnnyReb
March 29th, 2012
3:38 pm
gm – one more comment on your “I have said it over, over the rep party is satan best work”””
Very sanctimonious considering Liberals have manuvered the government to use force for taking a man’s hard earned wages from him to give to someone who won’t help themselves. All in the name of good intentions. Liberals are like that, they hold themselves morally superior for their intentions with complete disregard for the damage they do. If there are “Pearlie Gates,” I look forward to being there to hear St Peter tell Liberals as he turns them South that the road to Hell is Truly paved with good intentions.
JohnnyReb
March 29th, 2012
3:42 pm
gm
March 29th, 2012
3:37 pm
Democrats have this group right where they want them – dependent on them, so they vote Democratic.
So what does this say about the millions of Rep who receive food stamps? and who have the same social issues as people on the right, you can not brush everybody with same brush.
________________________
Another Liberal tactic. The subject is Welfare, you turn to Food Stamps. With that stated, I am sure there must be a few completely dependent on welfare republicans. If they are, they are brave souls to vote Republican knowing our drive is to take away the government check.
Jefferson
March 29th, 2012
3:49 pm
“Let’s give it a try” = meddling without facts or ideas.
Michael H. Smith
March 29th, 2012
4:03 pm
I would love to hear the case these litigants have against HB861, though, I’ve very serious doubts any RIGHTS have been violated, since government assistance is a “PRIVILEGE” and not an individual RIGHT. Furthermore, all PRIVILEGES” are conditional based on the grantor’s, as in this case, the State’s prerogative.
“If you want the privilege of using our taxpayer money or other taxpayer provided benefits, then you will have to play by our taxpayer rules.”
I have no problem with that prerogative, nor will the Constitution that doesn’t protect State granted PRIVILEGES as though they are individual rights.
Dusty
March 29th, 2012
4:23 pm
gm,
You should get off your “welfare train” that everybody should hop on because they lost their job. etc, etc.,etc.
Independent people do not wish to be dependents. They are the smart ones who want to manage without a crutch. They can manage but it is not easy. But they will certainly get a job faster than one who has someone supporting them.
There are certainly tragic people who do need help. But able bodied people who lose a job should not necessarily be on welfare. They should only receive it as a last ditch rescue.
YOu don’t seem to realize that this country is already deep in debt and every cent “given” from the government makes it more in debt. Government funds are your tax money and mine and should not be given out like Christmas candy. It is not there to give. We have already spent more than we have! It is called DEBT!!
Real Athens
March 29th, 2012
4:34 pm
“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney, Vice President, U.S.A., 2000-2008
MarkV
March 29th, 2012
4:35 pm
Dusty @2:53 pm and @4:23 pm
Dusty,
I wish you would explain more clearly what you are arguing for or against. What you wrote are all fine notions. But why not be more specific. Are you saying there should not be unemployment benefits?
Michael H. Smith
March 29th, 2012
4:37 pm
…every cent “given” from the government makes it more in debt?
…every cent “borrowed” that is “given” from the government makes “us, our children and their children more in debt”.
Our debt is also partly responsible for the high prices we now pay for things like gas: Since oil is valued on our dollar. And, fewer jobs can be created as a result of our inflated currency which is directly tied to, and primarily caused by, our debt.
We have already spent more than we have! It is called DEBT!!
Nah, by now it is, we’re closer to just being called Greece!
Steve
March 29th, 2012
4:39 pm
Every dollar given to folks on unemployment goes back into the economy when they buy food, pay rent. You take all that away, you tank the economy.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 29th, 2012
4:44 pm
““Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney, Vice President, U.S.A., 2000-2008″
Debunked multiple times, Real Athens.
He was speaking about re-election chances, not about what debt and deficits mean to the country.
Try to keep up, will ‘ya?
Michael H. Smith
March 29th, 2012
4:49 pm
The problem with the unemployment dollars is their negative economic trajectory. Ground is constantly being lost, even if at a slower lower rate of decline, it still is definitely not economic ground being gained.
The Safety Net must remain just that: A net to prevent an unrecoverable fall from occurring not a hammock for pleasant hibernation until the economic climate feels just right to awaken after a long slumber.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 29th, 2012
4:52 pm
“Every dollar given to folks on unemployment goes back into the economy when they buy food, pay rent. You take all that away, you tank the economy.”
So you’re saying we take money we don’t have, run up debt we cannot pay back (or do not have a plan in which to pay it back), and keep our economy afloat?
That’s the best you’ve got?
What’s your plan to pay off the debt, Steve?
Just saying..
March 29th, 2012
5:12 pm
Good sensible choices, Kyle. And thanks for informing voters.
Linda
March 29th, 2012
5:13 pm
Steve@4:39, If you learned that in a college economics class, you should demand a refund.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
March 29th, 2012
5:16 pm
We’ve beat this subject to death so what about obozo and the #killZimmerman crowd?
Civility and fairness, eh?
Just saying..
March 29th, 2012
5:23 pm
“The toughness of anonymity is legendary. I’m sure you shoot people all the time.”
Fun-ney!
Linda
March 29th, 2012
5:27 pm
gm@2:32 & 2:37, As a black man, you don’t seem to know much about black history & the Republican party. Would you take the word of another black man, born in Georgia, a retired colonel, a member of congress & headed to become president or vice-president of the US?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohQnixLNrXE
The Republican party wants to make people independent OF govt. & the Democratic party wants to make people dependent ON govt. Republicans believe in equality of opportunity & Democrats believe in equal outcomes. It’s a difference between economic freedom & economic dependence, a fancy name for slavery. It’s a difference between a safety net & generational welfare.
Eric
March 29th, 2012
5:27 pm
Trying to prevent picketing is against freedom of speech (wherever the locale), and requiring a drug test in order to receive unemployment benefits goes against “innocent until proven guilty,” thus adding an unwarranted level of “red tape” to the majority of those who truly need help. Find some other way to address the drug issue.
Dusty
March 29th, 2012
5:38 pm
MarkV 4:35
I do hope that people will aim for NO unemployment benefits. Benefits do not encourage greater efforts at securing employment. Did you not like my help yourself list? Probably not….too practical.
Also I would encourage citizens not lawmakers to take care of some of their own problems instead of making new laws about them. Our legislators seem to be seriously trying hard to cure every problem with these “fiddle faddle” laws. That is their job but I would hope they would not be exposed to so much extraneous material. What are your feelings on today’s subject?
And yes, I am still stuck on the ‘DEBT’ or as Michael H. Smith aptly called us “Greece”.
Linda
March 29th, 2012
5:38 pm
I Report@5:16, There was an insightful article written today by a black liberal FOX News contributor (a regular). (I bet liberals don’t know there’s liberals on FOX.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307613183789698.html?KEYWORDS=Juan+Williams
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
March 29th, 2012
5:51 pm
Are you going to starve someone’s kids because they might spend $20 on marijuana?
———————-
Are you going to starve your own kids so you can keep smoking marijuana?
Seems really irresponsible.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
March 29th, 2012
5:53 pm
Real Athens: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”
—————–
Do you agree?
Rafe Hollister
March 29th, 2012
6:03 pm
Kyle, I agree with you on all of these but other than the recycling reform law, the others seem to me just something to do, because they are there and getting paid. Yeah, some of them help out, but are not going to change the way we live.
The recycling thing is important, as in rural areas metal theft has become a big problem. In my hometown someone stole the telephone lines, climbed the poles, and pulled down over a mile of line. We were without phones for two or three days. My friends that farm say that theft of $300 dollars of copper from a $100K irrigation rig, may cost them 5-10,000 dollars to repair. It is a very common theft. The recyclers have been remiss for years by not asking questions and just buying rolls of wire, obviously too much to be scrap from a construction site. They pay cash and the PD can not locate the crooks. Take photos of every sale, including the seller, and mail checks.
Linda
March 29th, 2012
6:15 pm
Deficits don’t matter to a president who added less to the debt in a year than Obama does in one month, as much over his 8-year term than Obama does in one year.
Daniel
March 29th, 2012
6:23 pm
I don’t like SB 248. I never really understood the flap about illegal residents enrolling in college; most Georgia schools already have international students anyway, and it’s not like someone who’s working their way through school is some sort of menace to society. Get them a student visa, make them pay out-of-state tuition, and everyone wins.
@Hillbilly D on SB 321/HB 872
The law’s targeted at people who are bringing in hundreds or thousands of pound of scrap, not anyone looking for a $5 recycling deposit. Abandoned properties (especially big commercial/industrial places) are really attractive targets; they aren’t well secured, and prices for copper and aluminum are pretty high, so it’s easy to go in and strip copper wiring, siding, etc.
The idea is if you show up with a trailer carrying 2 tons of scrap metal, you should have to show that you obtained it legally (most salvage/transport services have some sort of title transfer process anyway, so it shouldn’t be a big deal).
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
March 29th, 2012
6:27 pm
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
Kinda like this blog.
MarkV
March 29th, 2012
6:28 pm
Dusty @ 5:38 pm
Dusty,
You still have not answered my question. “Aiming for NO unemployment benefits” is not a solution. Had you written that you were AGAINST unemployment benefits, I would simply answer that you wanted to turn time back about 80 years, and reject everything that every developed country in the world has found human and necessary.
But I suspect that you would argue that the unemployment benefits should be given only to the real hardship cases. And that is where the core of the problem is. It is easy for people on this blog and elsewhere to pontificate about that. But you hit the nail on the head when you wrote earlier today, “I am glad I am not a legislator.” Because they are the people who have to write the laws that should differentiate between those who are in a real need, and those who just want to game the system. And that is much more difficult than to write the simplistic comments seen here.
Daniel
March 29th, 2012
6:29 pm
@Rafe
That sucks. I didn’t even think about farm equipment (yeah, I’m a city kid). But seriously, how many legitimate industries still prefer cash on delivery? Most businesses mail a check in 30-60 days.
MarkV
March 29th, 2012
6:49 pm
Dusty,
I hope Kyle will not object too much if we continue our conversation from yesterday.
When I wrote that I doubted you could answer some basic questions about the national debt, I did not have in mind the exact status of it which, in my view, is one of the less interesting facts. We can easily agree that it is enormous – as a simple number it is so big that is difficult to imagine – and for most people it is like thinking of distances between stars. On the other hand, I would argue that it is not “sky is falling enormous.” There are ways how to “humanize” it to make it more comprehensible. But more about that later.
I think that the national debt is an interesting and sometime even fascinating subject. The first interesting item here, in my view, is the simple fact that you always bring it up as a major point against the President, and why. Because the national debt is not something that you can “feel” in your life directly. I do not deny that it affects us, indirectly. But other things affect us more directly. The gas price when you are at the gas pump, tax rate when you are paying taxes, inflation if you see prices in the store go up, etc. But the national debt concerns you because …? I submit that it is because you heard that argument from other people. It is not your personal experience, it is what you heard or read. And the people you heard it from have their own agendas. We all do that, of course, but I think it gives an interesting perspective when a major item of your criticism is something you do not know much about, only heard about it, heard it a bad thing and therefore you use it.
So next time, if you are game, let’s explore some of the other interesting things about the national debt, and your understanding of them, shall we?
gm
March 29th, 2012
7:34 pm
Linda
West could not find his way to the black community if you gave him a map,
black communtiy is the same as the white community just because you have the same skin color does not mean they are looking out for your interest, example say Newt”””
Hillbilly D
March 29th, 2012
8:01 pm
Daniel @ 6:23
I know the law is aimed at the big transactions. My response was actually more of a question. Is there a transaction amount cut-off? If not I can see how it’d be a big hassle for the businesses. If it is limited to a certain amount and above, I don’t have a real problem with it. It’s the unintended consequences that I wonder about.
I worked in construction years ago, and it’s actually pretty easy to look at a large amount of wire (or other materials) and tell if it’s scrap or not. An electrician for instance, isn’t going to throw away half rolls of wire. He’s going to be selling his scraps, which probably will be an assortment of pieces a foot or two long, or less.
I worked in plumbing and we sold scrap copper all the time but you’d never see a piece thrown away that was over a foot long.
This isn’t a new problem, it comes up every few years when the economy gets bad and copper and other metals go up in price.
Real Athens
March 29th, 2012
8:04 pm
Tiberius @4:44
Ha? Debunked by who? Dick Cheney in his own memoir. You can keep up with what Cheney said at multiple places on the web.
Keep up? Don’t revise.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
March 29th, 2012
8:21 pm
Real Athens agrees with Reagan and Cheney that deficits don’t matter.
Americans disagreed in 2010 and likely will again in November.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 29th, 2012
8:34 pm
Drug testing for corporate welfare recipients too? Didn’t think so.
Test those poor people! Make em pay somehow?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
March 29th, 2012
8:41 pm
What point would there be in drug testing Solyndra et al? They’ve already lost the money.
Linda
March 29th, 2012
8:43 pm
gm@7:34, The black community? What is the black community? There is NO white community.
The black community is nothing more than a mind set. West escaped it. He succeeded, despite the black community telling him that he could not & trying every way to prevent him from doing so.
Of all the vile comments made in America today about classes & racism, the MOST vile comments are made by blacks against blacks who have succeeded, understood what their leadership was all about, lifted themselves out of poverty, became educated, achieved the American Dream & who support conservative principles of self-reliance.
West, along with Condi Rice, Herman Cain, etc. are just as black today as when they were born. They see the Democratic platform for exactly what it is: slavery, succession, segregation & socialism, the 4 S’s.
Calista scares me
March 29th, 2012
9:10 pm
The Truth: I have personally heard these two comments from GOP Tea Party Members
“How hard can it be, Black people do it?” on learning how to use a computer
“I only let White people get near the front row at graduations” from an usher at a college graduation.
Yeah, race has nothing to do with it……..
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
March 29th, 2012
9:18 pm
Calista, that sounds just like “typical white people”…oops, those were Obozo’s words.
Obozo: Racist.
Linda
March 29th, 2012
9:19 pm
Calista@9:10, Your hearing, your credibility & capitalization efficiency are all in question.
tiberius your lightning rod of hate!
March 29th, 2012
9:33 pm
Real Athens, the discussion goings on when Cheney made that remark was one regarding the President’s reelection campaign, not budgeting. Therefore, the remark wasn’t one of a fiscal nature as libs like you continue to use when trying to change the subject, but tether one of a political nature.
Your use of it in budgetary discussions is incorrect and disingenuous.
Pay attention and learn next time.
Michael H. Smith
March 29th, 2012
9:59 pm
No reason to drug test corporations to receive government assistance or government taxation. Just get rid of both and throw Union – bailouts – Welfare into boot: Problem solved
Dusty
March 29th, 2012
10:23 pm
MarkV,
I enjoy your thoughts but it does seem as though you might be writing a psychology paper of sorts. Maybe you like all sides of a question, Whatever! Blogs are certainly a whirlpool of many thoughts so you might as well look among them for the answers you seek.
Then there’s the NATIONAL DEBT!! There are many things in life which I cannot see, feel or hear. The national debt is one of them. But I know it is there and my children know it is there also. When I put money in the bank, it disappears and I know not where it goes directly. But I have a deposit slip which is the only reality that I have money in the bank. When I write a check which is just a slip of paper, I have no view of its passage through the bank to pay someone else. Now banking is done almost always by computers which adds an even more invisibility to “my money”. But I am sure that those processes and my money are there.
Thus it is with the national debt. It has been demonstrated over and over that this country has a huge debt. It is a nebulous thing in imagination but it is a real thing for the country. Money has been exchanged in many ways we do not see but it still adds to debt.
—
President Obama seems to feel as you do that the debt is not a real thing. He promotes things( stimulus, loans) that enlarge the debt and it has grown considerably during his term (as reported by his own administration). I have seen no signs of any conservation. This is confirmed by the growth of the debt (still confirmed by his own advisors).
Now, the unemployed….I was raised in an independent family and I never saw examples of “living off of others or the government”. There were hard times but my family never changed. I still haven’t either. Therefore I would hope that government assistance is requested only in dire situations. Just being laid off is not the worst thing that can happen. It may be if it continues but the individual is the one who must make the first and strongest efffort to work again.
Our government gives us freedom but it cannot be the family, the feeder, the doctor and supporter of every citizen. If support means more than freedom to someone, then they should seek a country with communism, not turn America into a comforting loss of freedom. I want to stay free.
Excuse the length. G’nite.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 29th, 2012
10:28 pm
To repeat, Comrade, the discussion goings on when Cheney made that remark was one regarding the President’s reelection campaign, not budgeting. Therefore, the remark wasn’t one of a fiscal nature as libs like you continue to use when trying to change the subject, but tether one of a political nature.
Your use of it in budgetary discussions is incorrect and disingenuous.
Pay attention and learn next time.
Dusty
March 29th, 2012
10:47 pm
I don’t speak to “Comrades”. Go cut your sugar cane, Fidel.
td
March 29th, 2012
10:49 pm
Finn, Drug test anyone receiving any money from the government. If test is positive then either fire them, cut the contract or cut them off.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 29th, 2012
10:49 pm
Comrade, you apparently do not know your history and like to rely on DNC talking points.
I suggest you do some homework, son. Like the rest of the intelligent ones on this site do on a regular basis.
td
March 29th, 2012
10:56 pm
Comrade, What is opinion on the US House of Reps voting 414-0 against Obama’s budget? Not one single Dem wanted their name on his budget (not even the CBC).
MarkV
March 29th, 2012
10:57 pm
Dusty,
Thank you for your answer.
Good Night.
Atlanta Mom
March 29th, 2012
11:30 pm
You don’t see any reason to pass the abortion bill as currenty stated? Well Kyle, I dont see any reason to pass the bill at all. Did you bother to notice the medical testimony? Oh no. I don’t want to confuse you with facts. You just vote your gut. No reason to actually consider reality.
Atlanta Mom
March 29th, 2012
11:35 pm
I understand people who are opposed to abortion because they believe that a real being exists at conception. I don’t agree, but I understand. But this BS about, fetus feel pain at 20 weeks, even though there is NO medical evidence, it’s beyond the pale.
Comrade B@@b
March 30th, 2012
7:38 am
Comrade Dusty – if you don’t speak to “comrades,” how and why is it that you spoke to me?
Comrade Tiberius – words words words blah blah blah
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 30th, 2012
7:53 am
Comrade, people who fail to learn from history are destined to be swallowed up by it.
Obviously, you have no desire to learn.
Might I suggest Bookman’s blog? We try to deal with reality over here.
howard
March 30th, 2012
8:10 am
The Georgia GOP controlled legislature continued the national GOP war on women during this session.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 30th, 2012
8:32 am
Hyperbole aside, howard (as there is no national GOP war on women), the abortion changes really don’t mean a thing as there is little difference between 20 weeks and 26 weeks to someone carrying a child, and at least they compromised on the un-viable fetus issue.
As Kyle says, an election issue (for both sides) more than anything else.
Kyle Wingfield
March 30th, 2012
10:25 am
gm: I owe you an answer from yesterday. I tried to give you one then, but the WordPress app on my iPad stopped working (on Twitter, people call this kind of thing #firstworldproblems) so I wasn’t even able to get back on the blog at all until this morning.
But I was able to ask Sen. Fran Millar, who carried the bill in the Senate, about the weeks. He said the average duration for an unemployed person in Georgia, even with the UE rate above 9 percent, is 14 weeks. So, with benefits not changing for current claimants, the length of benefits for new claimants remaining at 20 weeks for now, and hiring picking up, it is unlikely that many Georgians will be affected by this change. And it’s worth noting that this change does not affect federal UI benefits, which still extend to almost two years.
The alternative proposal, from the Labor Department, was to cut the weekly amount of benefits given to a max of $300 from a max of $330. I’d say it’s better for jobless people to continue getting the same amount of money for, in most cases, the same number of weeks than to get less money and in theory be able to get that amount for more weeks — even though, in practice, most of them won’t remain out of work that long.
Now, you may say the better answer would be to put the burden of repaying the debt entirely on the employer. If so, I think you’re ignoring the fact that making it more expensive to hire someone is only going to make it harder for people out of work to get a job. And in any case, Millar said that, after the passage of his bill, 72 percent of the burden will fall on the employer — if we take account of the federally imposed tax I referred to in the OP as well as the 50 percent surcharge on employers that the Labor Department imposed only after Millar dropped his bill. (Some people don’t count the latter as part of the effect of this bill, because that provision of the bill became moot once Labor made that change, but Millar argues — rightly, in my view — that the surcharge wouldn’t have been imposed without his proposal, and that his bill requires Labor to keep it in place, whereas absent the bill Labor could decide to remove it.)
So, I think the facts are pretty well on the side of HB 347.
Kyle is just a typist
March 30th, 2012
6:07 pm
Can someone tell this right-wing typist masquerading as a columnist that no one is “pro-abortion” — if you believe a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, then viagra swilling, conservative, male legislators who lack a uterus are probably the last people on earth who should have a say about this.
Oh well, as Truman said about Jack, that’s not writing, that’s typing.