GOP Jobs Bill Slashes Benefits, Allows States To Drug-Test The Unemployed

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives unveiled legislation Friday that would cut 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits.

Republicans have not cited any data suggesting that drug use contributes to joblessness or that there is an elevated rate of drug abuse among the unemployed. Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said the measure is inspired by lawmakers' conversations with businesses in their districts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gop-jobs-bill-unemployment-benefits-drug-test_n_1139325.html?ref=unemployment

what would the businesses know about the unemployed? THEY ARENT HIRING, hence the unemployed. So how would they know if anyone on unemployment was taking drugs???

Furthermore, this theory was already tested in Fla, only 2% of those tested were positive for drugs...the state had to reimburse the other 98% for the cost of the test because if the test comes back clean they have to give the money back. It ended up costing the state MORE money than they saved from discovering the measly 2% that were in fact using drugs....

It's not only stupid it dehumanizing... First, we lose our jobs through no fault of our own and then we are accused of using drugs!? That's craziness!

So money is goin to be spent on drug testing while programs are being cut. It does not make sense.

Also, Marian you are correct how much more do the unemployed and underemployed have to endure?

I am not sure what to do or think. I am not giving up but I have to say the news here and in many places is not good.

I sure hope opportunities open up for us soon. As always, one of the things I am grateful for is this site to talk and know that people understand.

J

That is their answer. I have to laugh its just so insane.

Hunterforjobs I go between being ready to almost cry and then actually laughing at the insanity....when I laugh I sometimes start to wonder what in the heck am I laughing for. But, for me laughing is a release.

J

While I understand that the media talking points have perverted said plan to just plain silly, the intent of the requirement is to look for a way to legally allow individuals suspected of doing drugs to be tested (and if proven to be drug abusers removed from the UE system) so that our tax dollars are not wasted on supporting drug habits.

If that is a problem please explain why and leave the spin out of it.

tristen303 wrote:While I understand that the media talking points have perverted said plan to just plain silly, the intent of the requirement is to look for a way to legally allow individuals suspected of doing drugs to be tested (and if proven to be drug abusers removed from the UE system) so that our tax dollars are not wasted on supporting drug habits.

If that is a problem please explain why and leave the spin out of it.

No problem with that, Tristen, as long as we can drug (and alcohol) screen the people we send to Congress. That is another way we can save millions of tax dollars!

Exactly! I've never taken drugs in my life and don't see why I should be accused of doing so. I lost my job because of funds that the school didn't have not because I was using drugs.

Plus, this testing is costly.

So if the argument isn't costs good, then what's the problem? They are not stating that EVERYBODY on UE gets tested they just want the ability to seperate those in need vs those taking advantage kinda of like means testing; nobody is accusing anybody of anything.

The problem is you're guaranteed spending money in an effort to MAYBE save money, and it's very likely that the money saved won't be greater than the money spent.

Sick & Tired wrote:what would the businesses know about the unemployed? THEY ARENT HIRING, hence the unemployed. So how would they know if anyone on unemployment was taking drugs???

Furthermore, this theory was already tested in Fla, only 2% of those tested were positive for drugs...the state had to reimburse the other 98% for the cost of the test because if the test comes back clean they have to give the money back. It ended up costing the state MORE money than they saved from discovering the measly 2% that were in fact using drugs....

Good point. I'm a Republican who generally sticks up for conservative legislations. And though I'm working part time and not collecting unemployment anymore. I still feel all the pain and fear in the posts by the unemployed. Though drug testing is bearable in the end, it is no less dehumanizing and hurtfull to folks who are already suffering mightily being unemployed. All I can say is that hopefully it'll work out. They might drop the drug testing and possibly cut only 24 instead of forty weeks from the 99. Ya never know. It's all about whatever it takes to get enough votes from either side of the isle to pass it. Personally I wish they'd also pass a national everify to weed out the illegals who'll go back to their mother country, and leave more scratchings(jobs) for unemployed Americans to sift thru. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Whether people agree with me or not, what matters is that everyone needs hope, a job and money. And I pray that everyone finds a way to persevere, a job and a measure of peace this Christmas and always.

This is outrageous insulting and humiliating. I would not agree to being drug tested to receive funds that i am entitled to by virtue of working. As long as I held a job and found myself unemployed through no fault of my own and I meet all the requirements for a system my employer paid into then i should receive the benefits to save me from ending up in Grand Central with a cardboard sign. As it is I did what was required, the economy, employers, politicians haven't helped a lousy situation and here I sit out of work for 3 yrs, desperate, hopeless, broke, alone with hundreds of resumes apparently deleted since I hear from no one. I have been trying to figure out how to survive without any viable means of employment. My skills are rusty, getting up daily is a long lost memory and now they want me to give a sample. Me thinks not!

I think drug testing is a waste of resources. Maybe I am just tired of being put down or something, but my attitude is go ahead test me... but don't ask me for money to pay for it. And, if states can test for drugs, then my state can give me and all uninsured health coverage at a fair rate based on income level (never more than 20% of annual GROSS income).

I feel pretty downtrodden about being unemployed, but I am stronger and better than letting stupid wasteful things like drug testing bother me.

J

The entire war on drugs is a waste of resources its a social problem not a criminal issue...
I took three drug tests in one week all for different recuiting agences, that cost SOMEBODY some money....(yes they were all clean)..

but this is another instance of backing people into a corner and taking away more rights...

http://www.leap.cc/
http://www.leap.cc/

The purpose of UE is to provide a financial bridge while looking for employment; you are required to be employable.
Since most orgs require drug testing then it is logical that to receive benefits for the purpose of gaining employment you would meet the same criteria that a potential employer could require. If you do not meet said requirements then you are not eligible for some jobs and hence are eliminating potential employment opportunities.
Other then the skewed ACLU findings in Michigan there is ample evidence from the 80’s (and using England’s high UE rate as a model) that correlates being UE and drug use. If the purpose of the government program is to get you a job and you are doing or starting things that inhibit you from gainful employment then you don’t deserve benefits.
As for costs that argument is stretched even further since the model would be the same as the military model, everybody will not be tested it will be based off of random selection or if you are identified as an abuser (just as in the military).
It will provide a preventative fire wall against potential abuses by drug users trying to get on the system and the proposal has broad tax payer public support.
Now that we have the facts let me help you all out with the actual argument as opposed to talking points and self esteem issues.
It will never happen because it is unconstitutional and has been struck down in the courts. So all of you concerned with this should be using that angle to attack the Republican for wasting everybody’s time on legislation (much like Obamacare) that is unconstitutional.

The above is the only argument that holds water and should be used to question his motives. Why waste time on something that will never see the light of day? Is it for a sound bite? To appease a base? or whatever but that will bring the specter into the light for what he is. Arguing self esteem and whether UE people use drugs is validating his argument.
Just argue the legal aspects and there is no argument……..you've won

Tristen

you seem so against the unemployed and pro republican. So why are you here?

i will agree that the drug test thing is political grandstanding and not likely to happen....
I am a person in recovery 12 years of it...with 25 years of qualification to get there...
I have experiance in the field of recovery, all the laws in the world have done nothing to deter an addict, possibly some borderline cases are deffered...mayge..
the rate of availability of illicit substances has been a constant..

i have seen the Law do as much damage or more than the drugs themselves....How do think the drugs get into this country? its well known that our intelligence community (connected to the bankers) deal in drugs outside our borders...do you think they stop at the border?

Hunterforjobs wrote:Tristen

you seem so against the unemployed and pro republican. So why are you here?

LOL as shocking as it might seem you don't have to be left to support the UE.
A difference of opinion is not being against something (having tunnel vision hurts the cause more).

It alway makes me laugh how if somebody has a difference of opinion on this site your either a troll or asked the usual "Well why are you on here" crap.

Not just the left are UE and since this is an UE site not a UE for the left site (as much as some of you try to make it that) only for those ideals and talking points I'm right where I belong.

Lastly trying to make the above Repub argument an argument against the UE is just BS (better to make it an argument against common sense).

The other side of your coin is that the above argument is designed to ensure that the real UE in need are the ones helped not the abusers. You wouldn't have a problem with means testing UE benefits (provided it hurt the wealthy) so it would seem logical that the tax base that provides the benefits we enjoy makes sure that nobody is abusing our benefits (or their tax dollars), so I guess fraud and abuse does not matter to you.

huh?
left, right wings of the same bird....just about..

I think we maybe need some new labels...lets borrow from Physics maybe

something like the strangeness and flavors of Quarks....

but really we are ALL people first, why labels?

lets not label people please

Unconstitutional thing is a good point, but even if it were to happen it's throwing away guaranteed money at the chance of savings. If doing this stops half a million total from being spent on drugs, but costs 2 million to do (example obviously, I'm just pulling these numbers out of a hat), why bother?

For that matter, some people will spend some of the money on drugs and use the rest to feed their families: should their children starve because their parent can't control themselves and make good decisions?

I don't take illegal drugs. However, I say no way should there be drug tests. Workers have worked for these benefits. If it happens, then they will do it for Social Security. No way. If it happens take it out of the rich 1% taxes they should be paying!

There should be a limit to how many times they can test you in a year, if you pass. I have at least 4 contract assignments in a year, most require this. Talk about invasion of my rights!

How many times do the politicians take these tests? 0
How many times do Wall Street banksters take this test? 0
How many times did George W Bush take this test? 0

by tristen303 Yesterday at 6:49 pm

"""Not just the left are UE and since this is an UE site not a UE for the left site (as much as some of you try to make it that) only for those ideals and talking points I'm right where I belong. """"

Yes for ALL people...

I have no doubt some people are less than honest and abuse any and every system......it just seems to me when people of the left abuse something we seem to talk hundreds may thousands of dollars it cost the rest of us.....

when people on the right abuse we talk Billions

Here's one of the many problems with drug testing: most often, they're testing for marijuana use because that's cheapest test. But you can test positive for that for days, even weeks (nobody really knows exactly how long) after you've used. In other words, you test positive even when you're not high. So somebody please explain to me how that is an employer's business, and apparently, by logical extension, the government's, if you accept the argument being floated here.

And yes, it's also a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. If drug testing fans can't, that's not my fault.

For the record, I have objected to means testing here several times for SS and Medicare, and that goes for UE as well.

If any group should be drug tested, I suggest we start with our crooked politicians. Lets start with Congress and the WH.