|
|
January 16, 2012 · By Bob Ellis · 1 Comments
Source: Wikimedia Commons
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!)
Why am I compelled to explain such “Duh!” realities? Last year, even with a large Republican majority, the South Dakota House failed to pass this common sense legislation.
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?
Can Republicans manage to find it within themselves–with the voters watching more closely than ever–to act like Republicans in 2012?
Time will tell…and so will the voters (and potential primary challengers) if they don’t.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
Just in time for Memorial Day, we’re being treated to a generous serving of praise and grandstanding by politicians, corporations and others with similarly self-serving motives eager to go on record as being pro-military. We erect monuments for those who die while serving in the military, yet for those who return home, there’s little honor to be found. Making matters worse, thanks to Operation Vigilant Eagle, a program launched by the Department of Homeland Security in 2009, military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are also being characterized as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats.
In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, outgoing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Steven Miller’s suggested that the targeting of tea party and other groups was in part caused by Congress’ failure to provide “clear rules” on what constitutes political activity. But those rules are already clear, Americans for Limited Government President Nathan Mehrens noted.
We are to believe, according to the pro-O media, that President Obama has survived the scandals and his ratings haven't dropped dangerously low. I don't believe it. Too much talk on the streets says differently. There are people who like to mess with the poll results, just because they can. There are people who swing back and forth on their opinions on any given day. And, there are people who are probably afraid their answers are being reported back to some central source for loyalty review.
What do you have when you have a theory that is contradicted by observed scientific law? For one thing, you don't have much in the way of a viable scientific law.
Those words written in the early years of the 19th century by Sir Walter Scott referred to his story of a love triangle with all of the intrigue that ensued. But it could equally represent the corruption and deception rife within the Obama Administration, within the State Department, in the IRS and among far too many of the personnel and bureaucrats existing in an ever growing BIG government. But the big question remains why the State Department and the White House have spun such a web of lies over Benghazi.
|
"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 |
Pingback: RC Legislative Crackerbarrel: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients – American Clarion