Wisconsin Congresswoman: mandatory drug tests for anyone claiming $150K in itemized tax-deductions


#21

Well, she’s obviously a lot more clever than you. I guess everyone here on boing boing is too.


#22

Leave rich people alooooooooooone!


#23

She’s trying to point out a double-standard.

[Some states] (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/) require drug tests in order for people to claim Welfare, despite those tests showing that welfare recipients have a lower (and, in most cases, much lower) rate of drug use than the average population.

So, if it’s okay to say, “We should test these poor people to make sure that they’re not spending the money the Government is giving them on drugs” when you’re giving them barely enough money to live on (if that), why shouldn’t the same standard be applied when they’re rich people, and you’re giving them far more money in tax breaks than any Welfare recipient could possibly hope to get from the Government?


#24

Same here in the UK… Where the government spends 1.6billion on madcap schemes that ‘save’ 0.6billion in denied benefits. Net result is we’re 1billion down and have caused misery to the vulnerable who just have knock-on costs elsewhere (eg evictions and emergency housing costs) that cost the taxpayer far more money…

The right calls that a win for the taxpayer, even though doing nothing would have left everyone better off… sigh


#25

Can we also get some cavity searches in customs when they get back from their jaunt to the south of France? There just has to be some illegally imported caviar in there somewhere…


#26

Honestly, with or without making a point about double standards, drug testing wealthy tax benefit recipients and the boards of corporate welfare guzzling companies would likely be a huge tax boost for the government.


#27

Correct.

I’d have a lot more sympathy for policies like drug-testing-welfare-recipients if a provision was included that the drug testing program would end if the bean counters can show that the money being spent on the tests exceeds the size of the problem the test is meant to correct. In this case, it sounds like that’s true.


#28

I’m going to have you piss right here and now, sir.

The amount of drugs in your system is impairing your greater contribution to society.

A guard has been assigned to watch you expel waste so as to ensure that you do not adulterate the results.


#29

As a middle class income earner I’m feeling left out. I say drug tests for all!


#30

I just had an evil idea:

  • Set up a cart outside the testing lab facility where they collect the samples.
  • Sell overpriced bagels made with poppyseed flour.
  • Hilarity ensues

#31

Seems appropriate:


#32

I’m not sure how much better it is for US citizens, but Europeans heading to the US on holiday already get treated like drug dealers when they reach customs.


#33

Drug tests for everyone!

Booooo!

Very well. No drug tests for anyone!

Booooo!

Hmmm. Drug tests for some, miniature American flags for others.

Yaaaay!


#34

The first time I went to see The Rocky Horror Picture Show there were a couple of cops–a man and a woman–frisking everyone who went in.

Before the movie started a guy got up and yelled, “Who got searched on their way in?” Everyone cheered. He then yelled, “Who went back for a second feel?”


#35

Reminds me of this…


#36

Not even though - because (who woulda thunk it!) taking away welfare benefits from the most desperately dysfunctional actually causes greater costs elsewhere, because housed fed and addicted people are better off than homeless hungry and addicted people.

Now, if the outcome of failing a drug test was “we’re not going to just cut you a single check anymore - instead we’ll give you a much smaller spending money check along with food stamps that are good only for groceries, and we’ll pay your rent directly.” - yes, the adminsitrative overhead would be a bit higher but it would help identify the people who actually need the assistance managing their money - then we could talk about fiscal responsibility.


#37

I understand where you are going with this, but where is the personal responsibility? If I fail to pay my mortgage the bank doesn’t say that’s okay we will setup an auto draft so you don’t have to worry about it.


#38

T[quote=“bcsizemo, post:37, topic:79996”]
I understand where you are going with this, but where is the personal responsibility? If I fail to pay my mortgage the bank doesn’t say that’s okay we will setup an auto draft so you don’t have to worry about it.
[/quote]

Totally beside the point, is where personal responsibility is.

Your bank doesn’t care about your wellbeing. It also doesn’t care about your personal responsibility. Your bank cares about getting paid, and it will f*** you up if it has to. The bank would send someone to break your nose and threaten your kids after a missed payment if it was allowed, but it’s not.

The welfare authorities don’t care about getting paid - they care (or are supposed to) about achieving a basic level of welfare for you with the payments they make. They also don’t care about your personal responsibility except insofar as they can take advantage of it to achieve that welfare, by having you handle your budget.

Which is why, if you demonstrate you’re not capable of personal responsibility right now (due to addictions or cognitive impairment or mental illness or whatever), they have to take over and have to do the personal responsibility part for you.

It’s just a question of whether they will do it in an efficient way (paying your rent instead of giving you the money to do so) or a ridiculously inefficient way (ensuring you become homeless, then paying to house you in shelters and emergency wards).


#39

Ah, but making people take drug tests is a demeaning and invasive practice. This alone discourages some people from taking the “handouts” and puts the rest of them in their places by humiliating them.

Gah. (I hope it’s obvious that this is sarcasm. I’ve unfortunately heard this from people, although not in these exact words, of course.)

I am glad, however, to hear something from a Wisconsin politician that doesn’t make me question living here. Congresswoman Moore doesn’t represent my district, unfortunately, but some of my friends do live in her district. I’m glad to see someone other than Walker or Ryan in the news, at the very least.


#40

Oh, I agree. It’s totally unclever to make rich people who derive benefits from being on the public dole to submit to the same objectionable, demeaning, degrading standards as the poor to get their funds. Only poor people should be treated like this, not the rich who contribute so much to our standard of living. Like private helicopters… and yogurt shops… and Bloomingdales… who could possibly live without a Bloomingdales nearby. Madness!

Let’s stick to humiliating those nasty poor and let the rich go about living their lives in their quiet, dignified, unpretentious ways.