Archive for the ‘Political’ category

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

August 30, 2011

Yet another ridiculous article that was posted today:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testing-poor-could-unconstitutional-081205581.html

Kudos to Florida for stepping it up.  Since the invention of welfare there should have been mandatory drug testing.  While we’re at it, why not require they apply for at least one job a week, so long as you’re of sound mind and body.  I’ve been drug tested to GO TO WORK for my income, why should they receive income for free without one?  This unconstitutional argument is worthless.  If it really is an “illegal search”, then why is it legal for employers to do so?  This is a slippery slope, because if it is ruled unconstitutional then ALL drug tests must be seen the same way.  If I’m an employer, and I don’t want a crackhead operating machinery, it should be my right to ensure that doesn’t happen.  And whoever did the research on drug use has a very tough sell, at least in my world.  They stated:

70% of illegal drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.

Only 2 out of 40 (5%) welfare applicants tested in Florida came up positive.

Using this logic, we SHOULD be funding illegal drugs.  It looks like those not on drugs are sitting on their asses while those shooting up heroin or smoking crack are upstanding tax-paying members of society.

The argument that it costs more to do the drug testing is also terrible.  This is based on a sample of 40 people.  We have no idea if this was a nice area, and that 38 of those people were recently laid off from a respectable job.  For something of this magnitude, I suggest the sample size should be no less than 1,000 to get a real figure.  Also, I have no problem paying a little more in taxes knowing that those receiving my dollars deserve it.  As of right now, every taxpayer in America is funding the importation and production of extremely dangerous illegal drugs.  Drugs follow the same rules of economics as anything else.  If people keep using them, the producers will make more to meet the demand.  So there is a direct connection between our tax dollars and crack dealer incomes (untaxed, I might add).

There’s also the intangible called the cost to society.  It’s a known fact that drug users commit more crimes than those who don’t use drugs.  Did they factor in the cost of the broken door and broken window that the pharmacies have to replace?  Or the broken bones that an innocent person has to have snapped back into place after being robbed and assaulted?  How about the cost to put them in prison and pay for their food and cable TV while they continue to receive their checks?

Here is an excerpt from the article, referring to “Chandler v Miller”, which indicates drug testing is unconstitutional as it is considered a search:

“Drug testing welfare applicants does not seem to meet the Chandler test since there is no particular safety reason to be concerned about drug use by welfare recipients. In 2003, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Michigan’s drug testing of welfare applicants as a Fourth Amendment violation.”

With the risk of repeating myself, did I not just indicate the dangers of drug use?  I’m not even going to bother researching this topic, because it’s as well-known as the fact that humans need oxygen to breathe.  If you want proof, go look it up yourself.  Maybe the supreme court should consider doing the same.

Pakistan Should Tread Lightly

August 15, 2011

On May 2nd, Osama Bin Laden was killed in the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan by a team of Navy SEALs (that doesn’t exist).  During the mission, a U.S. Blackhawk helicopter malfunction and was subsequently blown up to minimize technological theft.  Pakistan is now claiming they intend to provide details of the stealth skin of the helicopter to China, according to an anonymous intelligence expert.

So the real question is, why are we giving large sums of money to a Country who harbors terrorists, and gives out our technology to other nations?  According to the Belfer Center at Harvard and the Department of Defense, we have given Pakistan a combined $17.82 billion since the 9/11 attacks.  We’ve also been increasing, on average, our military aid to them over the past several years.  Why are we helping them beef up their military?  What we should be doing with that money is building some nifty fighter jets, drones, and long-range missiles.  We could then tell Pakistan that if they so much as irritate us for any reason that we’ll leave their nation in a smoldering pile of ash.  This would also help create domestic jobs and help with the manufacturing sector.  That’s certainly a win-win scenario.  Of course, our Government will do the usual – nothing – and we’ll continue to fund these glorious nations.  It’s always possible that we’ll have actual real leaders running our nation one day, and some of these abhorrent policies may change.

There are some people who don’t believe in using money for the military, but given the aforementioned options, what is the better choice?  The 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is just around the corner, and we’ll bring it in with another large donation to the Country that protected the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history.  And every taxpayer in the U.S. has now officially funded terrorism.  If that doesn’t make you feel warm and fuzzy, I don’t know what will.

Would Mr. Obama Like Some Cheese With His Whine?

August 11, 2011

Enough already.  Barry Hussein Obama has been complaining about his inherited problems since the day he took office.  It’s been 2 1/2 years, and he’s accomplished zilch.  As a matter of fact, Mickey Mouse, Jack the Ripper, or my left shoe would have done a better job thus far.  He’s STILL complaining, but I can’t seem to understand what he’s complaining about.  Here is some info regarding what he “inherited” when Bush handed Barry the torch on January 20th, 2009:

1) Unemployment was 7.8%*.  I can’t remember the last time it dropped below 9%.
2) The U.S. had a AAA credit rating.  The recent downgrade is the nation’s first.  EVER.
3) Under W total US debt increased from 5.807T to 10.025T in 8 years (or a shade over $500B per year).
4) Since Barry took over, he has increased the total US debt by 3.537T in 2 years (or 1.77T per year), exclusive of the damage done so far in 2011.  Based on current estimates of the national debt being 14.6T, this means Barry overspent more in 2 1/2 years than W did in 8 years.
5) The GDP/Debt ratio when Barry took over was 69.6%, up from 56.6% 8 years earlier (or an increase of 1.625% per year).
6) Since Barry’s reign began, he has increased this ratio to 93.4% as of the end of 2010.  That’s an increase of 23.8%, or 11.9% per year.  Once again, the damage from 2011 thus far is excluded**.

If I messed up this badly, I’d be sent packing before the end of the day.  If I even attempted to complain about my inherited problems (which is clearly unsubstantiated drivel), my boss would have booted me out the door prior to the end of my rant.  Leaders don’t whine, they solve.  Period.  This country has a lot of pretty big problems right now.  And this whiner is what we’re stuck with for the next year and change?

*Bureau of Labor Statistics
**Office of Management and Budget

Debt Deal Reached. Clap. Yawn. Laugh.

August 11, 2011

So our phenomenal leadership in this Country has passed a debt deal in the 11th hour. Yippee. This deal is about as powerful as Superman after a 3-course Kryptonite meal. Our Nation is facing bankruptcy in the face, and this is the best they can come up with? To put this in perspective, I did a little digging:

The Federal Government spends $3.629 Trillion a year (based on actual figures from the CBO for 2010). Of course this figure continues to rise, but I’ll use conservative numbers here. This amounts to a shade under $10 billion a day. The first year in this fantastic deal will present us with…wait for it… $21 billion in savings! This is equal to 2.1 days worth of expenditures. This, of course, does not include the $2.1 trillion (or 95.4% of their 2011 budget) that they need to borrow in the short-term to make their payments.

The median household income in 2009 was $49,777 per the U.S. Census. This amounts to $136 a day, gross. Let’s assume a 15% effective tax rate, which leaves our theoretical household with about $116 to actually spend. This means when faced with bankruptcy, that $244 a YEAR (or 67 cents a day) in savings should be sufficient to stave off the blood-thirsty banks. I’d also like to point out that this is based on theoretical discretionary spending. So our hypothetical family was thinking of maybe spending a weekend at the NJ shore that would cost $244, but by not going they have saved money! This is excellent math. Did I also mention that the family had to borrow $47,487 (95.4% of their income) to pay their bills for the year?

I am now a self-proclaimed millionaire because I decided not to buy that million dollar home.

The best part is that this whopping $244 isn’t even a reduction. It’s a “reduction of an increase”. For those that are mathematically challenged, this is called the first derivative in calculus. If our theoretical family decides next year to buy an Elantra for $18,000 instead of a Sonata for $20,000, they SAVED $2,000. Congratulations. I wish I could use this same mathematical methodology to figure out my personal budget.

A better solution: 20% across the board cut to all government programs. That’s about $700 billion. Not much, but it’s a start. I’d also require all Congressmen to take a 25% pay cut, and the President to take a 50% pay cut until the budget is balanced. A little added incentive.

The only tidbit of usefulness that came out of this tireless charade is that some attention has finally been paid to the debt problem, and hopefully going forward our “leaders” will not be able to keep spending like a 13 year old girl in a mall with daddy’s credit card without at least having to put up a fight.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.