First, it is the polar opposite of what most of us would consider compassionate conservatism. Consider if you will, a single mother abandoned by someone who left her with nothing except hungry children, forced to scrape together thirty-five dollars she doesn’t have so she can urinate into a little cup – just so she can try to feed her family while she’s job hunting.
I can’t imagine what that would do to the last remaining shreds of dignity that someone has as they try to better themselves. This measure presumes people applying for such benefits are guilty, unless they provide bodily fluids to be successfully tested.
The TANF program, as a condition of receipt, already has a provision where recipients are limited to a lifetime of 60 months of receipt, and the condition that the recipient must be seeking work. For those most in need, adding a pre-qualification of this nature is little more than class warfare against those least able to fight it. It is unnecessarily cruel, and speaks poorly of those who would insist on government’s hand being that heavy.
Was I mentioning the heavy hand of government? Second, and more importantly, the measure embodies the ultimate expression of the intrusive nanny state in its most malevolent form as it creates more government, and a dangerous overreach of the authority of the state to intrude into our lives [Pat Powers, “Drug Testing for TANF Recipients? Uncompassionate Conservatism and the Nanny State at Its Worst,” Dakota War College, 2016.01.19].
What I witnessed in the parking lot at Social Services office in Sioux Falls totally disgusted me. People were walking of the office, getting into a newer SUV with kids and large flat screen TV in the back seat. These people have learned how to work the system. They have learned how to get more from being poor, then someone working 60 hours a week. If someone from Social Services suspects drug use, there is very little they can really do. If they have answered all the right questions on all the right forms, they get what they want.
The goal of Social Services should be to get people to take care of themselves, to the point that there will not be a need for their services. We all (well most of us) know that drug abuse leads down a very slippery road; the end result is often not good. Having people stay clean, and become productive citizens will not only do them good, our society as a whole will be enriched [Michael Clark*, “Urinalysis for Welfare… and Legislators?” Dakota War College, 2012.01.29].
I have consistently opposed mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients as hypocritical, fiscally ineffective, and unconstitutional. It’s nice to see that Powers agrees with this logic and is now working to keep his fellow Republicans from making this mistake.
In further signs of possible sensibility from the GOP spin blog, Powers is touting new polling data showing that raising the state sales tax a half-percentage point to 4.5% to fund teacher pay raises has overwhelming support, and he’s telling Republican legislators they’d better not stand in the way of this popular proposal. Pat Powers says vote to raise taxes to pay teachers more—incredible!
I’ll have more on that latter point in my next post, in which we’ll compare Glen Bolger’s poll results with your opinions expressed in the latest Dakota Free Press poll. Stay tuned for more analysis… and for the next amazing flip-flops from Dennis Daugaard and Pat Powers!
Update 2016.04.12 05:42 CDT: I originally attributed the 2012 DWC post to Powers. His daughter reminds me that the 2012 post actually came from Michael Clark. I have corrected the citation and regret the error.
Betty and Reuben Olson got federal welfare totaling $222,759. Betty has been writing in the Grand River Roundup that Reub is on opiates for his knee pain. Wth?
larry kurtz
Make ranchers pee in a cup to apply for grazing permits on state lands.
larry kurtz
Make Future Fund recipients pee in a cup to qualify.
Dana P
So many examples of courts ruling that this is unconstitutional. So many examples showing that alot of money goes towards the companies that do the drug testing (crony capitalism), yet the results show that welfare recipients overwhelmingly are NOT taking drugs. Big ole waste of money just to score political points.
But yeah, if that’s the way they want it, let’s start drug testing ALL recipients of taxpayer dollars….right?
mike from iowa
How could Powers forget all those new SUVs with all those large,flat screen tvs in the backseat?
Maybe wingnut pols need to be tested on their knowledge of jeebus and what he supposedly stood for. I doubt if any would pass. Then you could fire them and elect some real compassionate people-Democrats.
larry kurtz
Pat Powers is a loser of biblical proportions. Anyone who believes anything he writes is delusional.
Daniel Buresh
Some saying about a broken clock comes to mind. Larry, I think that is more than a valid point.
larry kurtz
i’m starting to like you, Mr. Buresh.
Jenny
Why don’t they just put the .5 sales tax on alcohol and cigarettes? Why do they need to hit the poor again on food? South Dakotans, you would be proud to know that you, along with Oklahoma, Tenn. and West Va. have the highest taxes on food! Congratulations on oppressing your poor!
Well, I have been calling the SD GOP the “Quantum Mechanics” political party for sometime. Are they for Obamacare (Daugaard) or are they against it (Thune)?….. Is it a particle or a wave? In quantum terms, it depends upon whether it is observed or not. When observed they are against things like Obamacare, but when not observed (off on junkets in DC) they act as if they are for things like Obamacare.
Now the great division over drug testing and welfare for the SD GOP, this one I will admit, is more classical in nature, in terms of physics, because both are observable upfront, but the answer as to how it could be lies in its quantum entanglement which goes against conventional political thinking.
In terms of PP, it is said “you should not look a gift horse in the mouth,” but this GOP division is bewildering and perhaps suggests that just to be safe for all, the only testing we really need in SD is IQ testing for all who choose to run for political office (jk)….
grudznick
Jenny, that’s a swell idea. They should raise the tax on booze, cigs, and lottery tickets. Balance raises for good teachers on that three legged stool of taxation. 5% BCL tax now, legislatures!
Donald Pay
Don’t expect truth or consistency from P-squared. The SUV story is pure fiction, like the Trump lie about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering as the Towers fell.
P-squared’s positions on legislation are based on who’s paying him, who introduced the bill and/or who he thinks can do him some good in the future. The personal is political for P-squared.
The 2012 bill ran into a buzzsaw of opposition, but Munsterman supported it, as did Kirkeby. Both of these gentlemen had connections to P-squared. I know Kirkeby’s position was honest, because he had to overcome some substance abuse problems in his life, and felt is was important to get people into treatment. The bill in 2015 must be introduced by some legislators that P-squared has a problem with. It’s an extreme bill, and counterproductive, no matter who sponsors it.
DiSanto and Olson’s unconstitutional drug test bill is up! House Bill 1076 would require every adult TANF/SNAP applicant under 65 to submit to drug tests that they pay for themselves.
mike from iowa
Would the state handle drug tests like they handle rape kits? If they leave people hanging and do not bother processing drug tests then they wouldn’t have to shell out so much welfare for the needy. The greedy ones need drug testing right alongside every politician.
Paige Powers
CAHEIDELBERGER- You’re lazy. Pat is my Dad, and I knew immediately that the latter half of this article was not a direct quote from him. Never in my LIFE have I heard my Dad make comments like that. Take a little time to actually thoroughly read your sources, and you’ll see that the author of the article you pulled that quote from is *gasp* not Pat Powers! You need to correct this and acknowledge the error.
Betty and Reuben Olson got federal welfare totaling $222,759. Betty has been writing in the Grand River Roundup that Reub is on opiates for his knee pain. Wth?
Make ranchers pee in a cup to apply for grazing permits on state lands.
Make Future Fund recipients pee in a cup to qualify.
So many examples of courts ruling that this is unconstitutional. So many examples showing that alot of money goes towards the companies that do the drug testing (crony capitalism), yet the results show that welfare recipients overwhelmingly are NOT taking drugs. Big ole waste of money just to score political points.
But yeah, if that’s the way they want it, let’s start drug testing ALL recipients of taxpayer dollars….right?
How could Powers forget all those new SUVs with all those large,flat screen tvs in the backseat?
Maybe wingnut pols need to be tested on their knowledge of jeebus and what he supposedly stood for. I doubt if any would pass. Then you could fire them and elect some real compassionate people-Democrats.
Pat Powers is a loser of biblical proportions. Anyone who believes anything he writes is delusional.
Some saying about a broken clock comes to mind. Larry, I think that is more than a valid point.
i’m starting to like you, Mr. Buresh.
Why don’t they just put the .5 sales tax on alcohol and cigarettes? Why do they need to hit the poor again on food? South Dakotans, you would be proud to know that you, along with Oklahoma, Tenn. and West Va. have the highest taxes on food! Congratulations on oppressing your poor!
Let’s see how they vote this session.
Well, I have been calling the SD GOP the “Quantum Mechanics” political party for sometime. Are they for Obamacare (Daugaard) or are they against it (Thune)?….. Is it a particle or a wave? In quantum terms, it depends upon whether it is observed or not. When observed they are against things like Obamacare, but when not observed (off on junkets in DC) they act as if they are for things like Obamacare.
Now the great division over drug testing and welfare for the SD GOP, this one I will admit, is more classical in nature, in terms of physics, because both are observable upfront, but the answer as to how it could be lies in its quantum entanglement which goes against conventional political thinking.
In terms of PP, it is said “you should not look a gift horse in the mouth,” but this GOP division is bewildering and perhaps suggests that just to be safe for all, the only testing we really need in SD is IQ testing for all who choose to run for political office (jk)….
Jenny, that’s a swell idea. They should raise the tax on booze, cigs, and lottery tickets. Balance raises for good teachers on that three legged stool of taxation. 5% BCL tax now, legislatures!
Don’t expect truth or consistency from P-squared. The SUV story is pure fiction, like the Trump lie about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering as the Towers fell.
P-squared’s positions on legislation are based on who’s paying him, who introduced the bill and/or who he thinks can do him some good in the future. The personal is political for P-squared.
The 2012 bill ran into a buzzsaw of opposition, but Munsterman supported it, as did Kirkeby. Both of these gentlemen had connections to P-squared. I know Kirkeby’s position was honest, because he had to overcome some substance abuse problems in his life, and felt is was important to get people into treatment. The bill in 2015 must be introduced by some legislators that P-squared has a problem with. It’s an extreme bill, and counterproductive, no matter who sponsors it.
DiSanto and Olson’s unconstitutional drug test bill is up! House Bill 1076 would require every adult TANF/SNAP applicant under 65 to submit to drug tests that they pay for themselves.
Would the state handle drug tests like they handle rape kits? If they leave people hanging and do not bother processing drug tests then they wouldn’t have to shell out so much welfare for the needy. The greedy ones need drug testing right alongside every politician.
CAHEIDELBERGER- You’re lazy. Pat is my Dad, and I knew immediately that the latter half of this article was not a direct quote from him. Never in my LIFE have I heard my Dad make comments like that. Take a little time to actually thoroughly read your sources, and you’ll see that the author of the article you pulled that quote from is *gasp* not Pat Powers! You need to correct this and acknowledge the error.
Thank you for that correction, Miss Powers. I regret and have corrected the error.