Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Saying Things That Sound Good

But once again, not following through with any actual thinking.

So Nikki Haley spewed out a conservative small government suggestion today: drug test all unemployment benefit recipients.

Oh, but how shall we pay for this, someone asked her. Oh, we won't have to worry about that, the savings in withholding unemployment checks to those who turn up positive will more than pay for the program, Ms. Haley reasoned.

I don't think the numbers of mary-jane smoking, coke snorting, smack injecting UNEMPLOYED would support this.

But who am I? All those lazy formerly gainfully employed people whose lives have been completely turned upside down while the 1% at the top of the money chain make profit on the bones of the middle class, well, gosh darn it, should just go pee in a cup.

Seriously, I think she meant welfare recipients. That would go over much better in our rabidly anti-anyone-else-getting-government-funds Southern society.

Jim DeMint wants to snoop in teacher's bedrooms and find evidence to fire gay teachers and female teachers BUT NOT MALE TEACHERS who have extramarital sex. Nikki Haley wants laid off workers to pee in cups. But then they both claim to be pro-small government. With straight faces.

What they mean is they want government to get out of the wallets of corporations and the wealthy so they can continue the rape of the middle class.


Jared said...

Following on from the drug test angle -- would Haley's administration prosecute people who fail one of those tests? I have serious doubts from the beginning that the costs of the drug tests would offset government outlay, but if charges are subsequently pursued, that's even more taxpayer money. And then if they're incarcerated...you get the idea. No thinking there at all. Instead, it's a drug raid at the unemployment office.

Chris M said...

It sounds like a good idea, personally. I'd like to think I'm not paying taxes to support those who are sitting at home getting baked on our dime. And turning up positive for drug use is not enough for arrest or incarceration so that's most likely a moot point. And welfare would be nice as well. But in all of these, who will foot the bill is the issue.

JanetLee said...

Jared - true that. But they know people don't think things through, just say something that pushes a button, get an emotional response and a vote.

JanetLee said...

Chris - but most employers drug test prior to hire and if fired for drug use, one would not be eligible for unemployment benefits, so spending our tax dollars on something that would have, at best, a very small benefit, does not make sense.

I seriously doubt in these economic times that many of the unemployed (my mother being one of them) are sitting at home getting baked. Most of them are trying to pay their bills and feed their families.

JanetLee said...

Oh, and unemployment taxes are paid 100% by the employer, not the public.

jaz said...

Agreed. People love to opine that "something should be done" about things... and then, in their very next breath, they gripe about paying taxes.

Um... that's what taxes are supposed to be for, people. We pay taxes so that federal, state, and municipal government can "do something about" rising crime rates, decaying infrastructure, troubled schools, etc., etc., etc.

Haley's strategists are reasoning (correctly, sad to say) that her constituents will all cheer "Yeah, let's do something about those welfare bums who are smoking dope!" without spending two seconds thinking through the logistics of setting up a regulatory agency, hiring staff to administer and enforce the testing... oh, yeah, and paying for all this.

The worst part is that when Haley is elected and the screening program fails to materialize, no one will even notice.