January 16, 2012 · By Bob Ellis · 1 Comments
It seems someone realizes the voters are watching the 2012 South Dakota Legislative session.
The Rapid City Journal reports South Dakota Rep. Mark Kirkeby (R-Dist. 35) intends to submit another bill this session to authorize drug testing of welfare recipients who are believed to be using drugs, and subsequently cut off welfare checks if they are confirmed to be using drugs.
Though bleeding-heart liberals are already whining about how “inhumane” it would be to cut off taxpayer subsidization of recreational drug use, this a real “Duh!” bill.
If a welfare recipient (who is receiving the fruits of another person’s labor without that other person’s consent) is spending money to buy and use drugs, then the taxpayer’s hard-earned money is being used to pay for drugs. If the welfare recipient has money to spend on drugs, then they could have spent that money on food or other essential items instead of confiscating it from a producing taxpayer. If the taxpayer is providing food and other essentials that the welfare recipient does not otherwise have to buy with money they already have, then the taxpayer’s assistance is making it possible for the welfare recipient to buy more drugs than they would otherwise be able to purchase. No matter how you look at it, government is forcing the taxpayer to subsidize recreation drug use. (Geepers, I don’ t believe I even have to explain this!)
Bleeding-heart, empty-headed liberals also like to whine about supposedly punishing children for the behavior of their parents. No, drug-using parents are harming their own children through their own criminal and irresponsible actions; don’t blame the taxpayer or lawmakers for the wrongs of a lawbreaker who cares more about getting high than about their own children.
Further, if a welfare recipient is using recreational drugs, is that really a good environment for a child? Do we really want children to live in a home where they may be witnessing their parent, their role model, breaking the law and using recreational drugs? Do we really want children to live in a home where the parent(s)–who are responsible for the care and safety of their children–are intoxicated and likely unable to make responsible decisions about the care of their children? (Again, I am astonished that I even need to explain this!)
What in the world happened to the Republican Party that once stood for the taxpayer’s interest?
What in the world happened to the Republican Party that once stood for protecting families?
What in the world happened to the Republican Party that once stood for maintaining law and order?
What in the world happened to the Republican Party that once stood for personal responsibility?
Time will tell…and so will the voters (and potential primary challengers) if they don’t.
This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.
Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964