People On Welfare Less Likely To Do Drugs Than Those With Jobs
We’ve learned a lot of really important things since Florida started drug testing those who applied for welfare benefits. We’ve learned that drug testing is for the sake of children. We’ve learned the state cares very little for the constitution. We’ve also learned that politicians don’t think they should have the same standards applied to themselves, despite the fact that they are receiving taxpayer dollars, too.
Oh, and we learned that hardly any recipients were actually doing drugs.
Now, Florida lawmakers are standing by their decision, despite the fact that it’s costing the state far more money to actually do the testing than it is saving in not providing benefits. But it’s totally worth it, because this wasn’t about money, it was about helping people. The New York Times reports, “‘We had to stop allowing tax dollars for anybody to buy drugs with,’ said State Representative Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year. Taxpayer savings also come in deterring those drug users who would otherwise apply for cash assistance but now think twice because of the law, some argued.”
Oh, so it was about making people stop doing drugs? Well then, maybe the state of Florida believes everyone should undergo mandatory drug testing in that case? After all, as John Cole writes, “Just to put this in perspective, only 2.6% of the applicants used drugs, while the DOJ estimates that from 8-10.2 percent of the workforce is on drugs. In other words, far from being lazy shiftless drug addicts, they are, as a whole, cleaner than the general workforce. Which may seem odd to you, but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. DRUGS COST MONEY. PEOPLE ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE DON’T HAVE… MONEY. This is not rocket surgery.”
So, if Florida really believes it’s the state’s job to deter drug users, it’s time for a new bill. Pee cups for everyone. –Care2
Catholic Bishops’ Double Message
I identify entirely with my friend and colleague Melinda Hennenberger’s excellent take on the Vatican’s crackdown on American nuns. Indeed, I also liked what one commenter on her piece had to say: “The American Bishops should be washing the feet of American nuns and sisters!” Actually, all of us who are Catholic should honor the nuns. The Church would be lost without them. I hope to have more to say on this unfortunate Vatican statement next week.
It’s especially odd that a criticism of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for apparently placing too much emphasis on Catholic social teaching came in the same week that the Bishops offered strong criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget (without mentioning Ryan by name). A letter signed by Bishop Stephen E. Blaire on behalf of his fellow prelates called on Congress to “protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises.” He also said: “Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”
There is a real struggle going on in the Church right now between conservatives, who seem intent on making President Obama a target and downplaying the Church’s social mission, and more progressive Catholics, who think the Church should be placing even more emphasis on social justice and issue more emphatic rejections of budget cuts along the lines of Bishop Blaire’s letter. Conservatives have had the upper hand over the last few months, but Bishop Blaire’s statement can be seen in part as a response to the pushback from Catholic liberals who wondered where the Bishops have been in the ongoing budget fight. (Blaire, it should be said, has a strong social justice commitment of his own.)
My hunch is that the attack on the nuns will bring a lot more blowback from progressive Catholics. Up to now, Catholic conservatives have been especially aggressive in pushing the Bishops’ Conference to the right. The Bishops will now be getting a lot more pressure from Catholics on the other side. I think conservatives will ultimately regret targeting the sisters. The nuns have a great many friends in the Church. –Washington Post Opinion
Justice Scalia, Your Racism Is Showing
It’s impossible to have a debate about federalism and the relationship between the federal government and the states without, to some degree, harkening back to the ultimate issue of federalism in this country’s history, slavery. Yet that is exactly what proponents of Arizona’s controversial anti-immigrant law managed to pull off during oral argument before the Supreme Court, and by every indication the conservative wing of the court was more than happy to enable that historical whitewash.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli had not yet even started his argument when Chief Justice Roberts made it clear what the court would not be discussing. The court would not be discussing racial profiling, despite the fact that racial profiling is at the center of the political dispute surrounding the bill and that racial profiling and the impact of the federalism arguments go hand in hand.
“I just want to make clear what this law is not about,” Roberts said. “No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” At this point Verrilli had an opening to explain to the court that yes, your honors, the issue of race and racial profiling, while not immediately briefed before the court, informs the very heart of the Arizona bill and therefore the very spirit of this argument before the Court. I won’t armchair quarterback here except to say that Verrilli appeared to make the same mistake here as in the health care arguments, and that is assuming that most of the justices exist in a world of law and not of Fox News politics.
For a case that wasn’t about race, the justices spent the remainder of the arguments talking about immigrants in the most racially charged and unflattering manner possible. Justice Scalia referenced the “invasion” of undocumented immigrants, comparing them to a roving band of armed thieves. Scalia even threw a bone to the nativists suggesting what the Obama administration was really looking for was a ruling that would allow the US to “enforce our laws in a way that pleases Mexico.”
When Verrilli did muster up the courage to suggest that Arizona’s Latino population was implicitly, if not explicitly targeted in the law, it was obvious that Scalia had never considered the possibility that many of the state’s Latinos are there lawfully. “Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here? Surely you’re not concerned about harassing them.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Justice Scalia in all his unbridled racist glory.
Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, which means there is a possibility the justices could split 4-4 on their decision. If that were the case then the 9th Circuit ruling striking the 4 provisions on appeal would stand. But there’s not a guarantee that will happen. Former prosecutor Justice Sonia Sotomayor was sympathetic to the state’s case and to the arguments that an overwhelmed local law enforcement should have the ability to act. She could very well side with the neo-Confederate wing of the court on this one.
A decision on the case is not expected until late June. –Care2
We’ve learned a lot of really important things since Florida started drug testing those who applied for welfare benefits. We’ve learned that drug testing is for the sake of children. We’ve learned the state cares very little for the constitution. We’ve also learned that politicians don’t think they should have the same standards applied to themselves, despite the fact that they are receiving taxpayer dollars, too.
Oh, and we learned that hardly any recipients were actually doing drugs.
Now, Florida lawmakers are standing by their decision, despite the fact that it’s costing the state far more money to actually do the testing than it is saving in not providing benefits. But it’s totally worth it, because this wasn’t about money, it was about helping people. The New York Times reports, “‘We had to stop allowing tax dollars for anybody to buy drugs with,’ said State Representative Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year. Taxpayer savings also come in deterring those drug users who would otherwise apply for cash assistance but now think twice because of the law, some argued.”
Oh, so it was about making people stop doing drugs? Well then, maybe the state of Florida believes everyone should undergo mandatory drug testing in that case? After all, as John Cole writes, “Just to put this in perspective, only 2.6% of the applicants used drugs, while the DOJ estimates that from 8-10.2 percent of the workforce is on drugs. In other words, far from being lazy shiftless drug addicts, they are, as a whole, cleaner than the general workforce. Which may seem odd to you, but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. DRUGS COST MONEY. PEOPLE ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE DON’T HAVE… MONEY. This is not rocket surgery.”
So, if Florida really believes it’s the state’s job to deter drug users, it’s time for a new bill. Pee cups for everyone. –Care2
<><><>*<><><>
Catholic Bishops’ Double Message
I identify entirely with my friend and colleague Melinda Hennenberger’s excellent take on the Vatican’s crackdown on American nuns. Indeed, I also liked what one commenter on her piece had to say: “The American Bishops should be washing the feet of American nuns and sisters!” Actually, all of us who are Catholic should honor the nuns. The Church would be lost without them. I hope to have more to say on this unfortunate Vatican statement next week.
It’s especially odd that a criticism of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for apparently placing too much emphasis on Catholic social teaching came in the same week that the Bishops offered strong criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget (without mentioning Ryan by name). A letter signed by Bishop Stephen E. Blaire on behalf of his fellow prelates called on Congress to “protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises.” He also said: “Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”
There is a real struggle going on in the Church right now between conservatives, who seem intent on making President Obama a target and downplaying the Church’s social mission, and more progressive Catholics, who think the Church should be placing even more emphasis on social justice and issue more emphatic rejections of budget cuts along the lines of Bishop Blaire’s letter. Conservatives have had the upper hand over the last few months, but Bishop Blaire’s statement can be seen in part as a response to the pushback from Catholic liberals who wondered where the Bishops have been in the ongoing budget fight. (Blaire, it should be said, has a strong social justice commitment of his own.)
My hunch is that the attack on the nuns will bring a lot more blowback from progressive Catholics. Up to now, Catholic conservatives have been especially aggressive in pushing the Bishops’ Conference to the right. The Bishops will now be getting a lot more pressure from Catholics on the other side. I think conservatives will ultimately regret targeting the sisters. The nuns have a great many friends in the Church. –Washington Post Opinion
<><><>*<><><>
Justice Scalia, Your Racism Is Showing
It’s impossible to have a debate about federalism and the relationship between the federal government and the states without, to some degree, harkening back to the ultimate issue of federalism in this country’s history, slavery. Yet that is exactly what proponents of Arizona’s controversial anti-immigrant law managed to pull off during oral argument before the Supreme Court, and by every indication the conservative wing of the court was more than happy to enable that historical whitewash.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli had not yet even started his argument when Chief Justice Roberts made it clear what the court would not be discussing. The court would not be discussing racial profiling, despite the fact that racial profiling is at the center of the political dispute surrounding the bill and that racial profiling and the impact of the federalism arguments go hand in hand.
“I just want to make clear what this law is not about,” Roberts said. “No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” At this point Verrilli had an opening to explain to the court that yes, your honors, the issue of race and racial profiling, while not immediately briefed before the court, informs the very heart of the Arizona bill and therefore the very spirit of this argument before the Court. I won’t armchair quarterback here except to say that Verrilli appeared to make the same mistake here as in the health care arguments, and that is assuming that most of the justices exist in a world of law and not of Fox News politics.
For a case that wasn’t about race, the justices spent the remainder of the arguments talking about immigrants in the most racially charged and unflattering manner possible. Justice Scalia referenced the “invasion” of undocumented immigrants, comparing them to a roving band of armed thieves. Scalia even threw a bone to the nativists suggesting what the Obama administration was really looking for was a ruling that would allow the US to “enforce our laws in a way that pleases Mexico.”
When Verrilli did muster up the courage to suggest that Arizona’s Latino population was implicitly, if not explicitly targeted in the law, it was obvious that Scalia had never considered the possibility that many of the state’s Latinos are there lawfully. “Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here? Surely you’re not concerned about harassing them.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Justice Scalia in all his unbridled racist glory.
Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, which means there is a possibility the justices could split 4-4 on their decision. If that were the case then the 9th Circuit ruling striking the 4 provisions on appeal would stand. But there’s not a guarantee that will happen. Former prosecutor Justice Sonia Sotomayor was sympathetic to the state’s case and to the arguments that an overwhelmed local law enforcement should have the ability to act. She could very well side with the neo-Confederate wing of the court on this one.
A decision on the case is not expected until late June. –Care2
<><><>*<><><>
Pelosi: Amend The First Amendment
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday [April 19th] endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.
The First Amendment says in part: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
Television networks, newspapers, publishing houses, movie studios and think tanks, as well as political action committees, are usually organized as, or elements of, corporations.
Pelosi said the Democrats’ effort to amend the Constitution is part of a three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads, and “reducing the roll of money in campaigns” (which some Democrats have said can be done through taxpayer funding of campaigns). –Vision To America
No comments:
Post a Comment