1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

Prior Welfare Recipient, US Congresswoman Wants to Drug-Test--the Wealthy

Rating:
4.66667/5,
  1. Beenthere2Hippie
    [IMGL=white]https://drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=50675&stc=1&d=1466174425[/IMGL]Oh hooray! Nice time! We are so, so, so happy to read a nice thing after this week of awfulness! Incredibly badass Wisconsin Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Obviously) will be introducing a bill next week called the Top 1% Accountability Act, which will require all rich people claiming over $150,000 in tax deductions to undergo a drug test to make sure they’re not spending that money on drugs. They would have to submit a drug test, no more than three months old, or take a much lower standard deduction when filing taxes.

    OH I LOVE HER. I LOVE HER SO GODDAMNED MUCH. SHE IS MY HERO AND EVERYTHING I WISH I COULD BE!!! Who cares if the primaries are over? I am electing her president of my heart, right now.

    This is in response, you see, to the many states that drug test those who receive cash welfare assistance, and to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker suing the federal government for not allowing him to drug test people getting food stamps. The assumption with these laws is that they will save states tons of money by kicking off welfare all the people who spend their government assistance riches on drugs. As it turns out, there are not nearly as many of those people out there as Republicans imagine. Weird! And the cost of those programs far outweigh the benefits! Other than the smug satisfaction of getting to insinuate to poor people that you think they are probably on drugs!

    It’s a horrible thing to do, which is why Rep. Gwen Moore is so awesome and my new favorite person ever. I want her and Nina Turner (who once introduced a bill that would have required men to undergo “special precautions” in order to get Viagra, which is still my favorite goddamned thing ever) to get together and be ball-busting superheroes.

    Of course, Moore is not just busting balls here. She’s damn serious about this bill, and says she intends to get co-sponsors and push it through, both to highlight the sheer stupidity of drug testing welfare recipients, and to call attention to how much money our country spends on tax expenditures, noting “We think it’s important to engage in some transparency and accountability around tax deductions.”

    Moore says the idea came to her when she saw Paul Ryan giving a speech about his not-at-all-helpful plans to help the poor in America. “When he stood in front of a drug treatment center and rolled out his anti-poverty initiative, pushing this narrative that poor people are drug addicts, that was the last straw,” she said.

    Now, if that bullshit made our faces burn, we can only imagine how Moore felt — as someone who actually has been a welfare recipient herself. “I am a former welfare recipient” she said, “I’ve used food stamps, I’ve received Aid for Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Head Start for my kids, Title XX daycare [subsidies]. I’m truly grateful for the social safety net.”

    She also wants to bring attention to the fact that we perceive poor people who receive government assistance as “entitled,” but not rich people who get piles of tax deductions, even though technically, they cost us more. And, quite frankly, are way the hell more “entitled.” She notes that, when it comes to drug abuse, “There are no boundaries with regard to class or race … if these poor people who are entitled to SNAP for survival are required to be drug tested, then certainly those people who claim $150,000 or more in tax deductions should be subjected to the same in order to receive this benefit from the government.”

    And that’s true! Frankly, in my experience, I’ve known way more rich people with drug problems than poor people with them. Maybe because they can afford it? Drugs are expensive!

    “I would love to see some hedge fund manager on Wall Street who might be sniffing a little cocaine here and there to stay awake realize that he can’t get his $150,000 worth of deductions unless he submits to a drug test,” she says.

    US TOO, GWEN, US TOO.



    By Robyn Pennacchia - Wonkette/June 16, 2016
    http://wonkette.com/603089/badass-w...ich-folks-who-use-tax-deductions-to-buy-drugs
    Newshawk Crew


    The above op-ed is not the opinion on DF or even the publication, Wonkette. It is the opinion of the writer only.

    ____________________Drug-Test the Rich

    [IMGR=white]https://drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=50676&stc=1&d=1466174683[/IMGR]Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) has had enough of the growing movement to drug test poor people who need government assistance. So on Tuesday, she’s introducing a bill that she says will make things fairer.

    Her “Top 1% Accountability Act” would require anyone claiming itemized tax deductions of over $150,000 in a given year to submit a clean drug test. If a filer doesn’t submit a clean test within three months of filing, he won’t be able to take advantage of tax deductions like the mortgage interest deduction or health insurance tax breaks. Instead he would have to make use of the standard deduction.

    Her office has calculated that the people impacted will be those who make at least $500,000 a year. “By drug testing those with itemized deductions over $150,000, this bill will level the playing field for drug testing people who are the recipients of social programs,” a memo on her bill notes.

    Moore has a personal stake in the fight. “I am a former welfare recipient,” she explained. “I’ve used food stamps, I’ve received Aid for Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Head Start for my kids, Title XX daycare [subsidies]. I’m truly grateful for the social safety net.”

    Ten states require applicants to their cash welfare programs to undergo a drug test. States are currently barred from implementing drug testing for the food stamps program, but Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has sued the federal government to allow him to do so and has gotten some Congressional Republican support.

    Moore has been frustrated to witness attempts to tie those who avail themselves of the safety net to drug use. “Republicans continue to criminalize poverty and to put forward the narrative, the false narrative in fact, that people who are poor and reliant upon the social safety net are drug users,” she said. In fact, evidence from test results among states that test welfare recipients indicates that they are no more likely to use drugs than the general population — in fact, they may be less likely.

    That didn’t stop House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) from using a drug rehab center as the backdrop while he unveiled his poverty plan last week. “I think this is what tipped me over the edge,” Moore said, “rolling out his poverty initiative in front of a drug treatment program to sort of drive that false narrative forward.”

    Moore also wants to use her bill to question why some recipients of government aid are treated differently than others. “On the one hand, poor people…are entitled to things like Medicaid and SNAP [food stamps],” she said. “People who take tax deductions and particularly those in the top 1 percent…are not entitled to anything.” But they still benefit from a large pot of government money. The government loses about $900 billion in revenue to tax expenditures every year, which mostly flow to the wealthy.

    When it comes to drug abuse, “There are no boundaries with regard to class or race,” she said. “If these poor people who are entitled to SNAP for survival are required to be drug tested, then certainly those people who claim $150,000 or more in tax deductions should be subjected to the same in order to receive this benefit from the government.”

    Moore also thinks that while there is no evidence that drug testing welfare recipients saves states any money, drug tests for wealthy taxpayers could be different. “We would save a lot of money on this,” she said. “When you add up all of the tax expenditures, all the money we give really wealthy people, it really rivals the amount we spend on Defense, Social Security, Medicare.” The mortgage interest deduction, which overwhelmingly ]benefits people making more than $100,000, alone cost $70 billion in 2013, or 0.4 percent of GDP.

    Her bill will also help illuminate this very fact: that so much is spent on tax expenditures, not just on direct aid programs like welfare and food stamps. “We think it’s important to engage in some transparency and accountability around tax deductions,” she said.

    Moore is not the only lawmaker in Congress who has raised questions about unequal treatment between the poor who make use of government programs and everyone else who needs them. In February, Rep. Rosa DeLauro asked why only recipients of food stamps were being considered for drug testing but not the farmers who also make use of programs run by the Agriculture Department. But Moore is very serious about pushing her bill forward. “I’m motivated,” she said. “I’m going to work on it very seriously. I’m going to try to get cosponsors.”

    She also wants to “engage the wealthy in this poverty debate,” she said. “I would love to see some hedge fund manager on Wall Street who might be sniffing a little cocaine here and there to stay awake realize that he can’t get his $150,000 worth of deductions unless he submits to a drug test.”



    By Bryce Covert - Think Progress/June 16, 2016
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...ealthy/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds
    Newshawk Crew

    About Author

    Beenthere2Hippie
    BT2H is a retired news editor and writer from the NYC area who, for health reasons, retired to a southern US state early, and where BT2H continues to write and to post drug-related news to DF.

Comments

  1. Booty love
    what is the deal with wanting to drug test certain groups of people??

    first it was welfare, now its the semi wealthy...whats to be gained by this...more money for the government to keep?

    What we need to do is start giving people fitness tests..not drug tests. obesity is a way bigger health and financial issue than drug use is.
    people desperately addicted to drugs can't easily pass a military style fit test.
    drug tests for any one other than convicted violent criminals, to me, is hog wash

    plus...with all the other bullshit and unconstitutional laws thats been placed upon us.....whats wrong with fitness for freedom?
  2. Diverboone
    That's about the most absurd idea I have heard in a while. How could anyone compare tax deductions on earned income to those who request government assistance?
  3. mess clean
    I think it's a spectacular idea.

    If the poor get benefits but must get tested, why shouldn't the rich get tested to receive the benefits tax-wise, too? After all, the rich pay less taxes than the poor and middle class. I'd call that an "entitlement program". To qualify, piss clean.

    If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

    The ultimate result of all this should be a realization that drug testing is stupid. Period. And should be stopped.

    No one should care what you do in your personal life unless you fuck up at your job or kill someone in a DUI incident. Then, by all means, test away.

    I love it.
  4. AKA_freckles
    I agree with MC up there.^
    This seems equivalent to the bill proposed to make men produce notes from their wives to allow them to get Viagra / Cialis prescribed. I defended that as a beautiful way to illustrate government control of sexuality, written to change the conversation that's usually reserved just for women's issues.

    Its irony folks. This is a well played hand to get people thinking.
  5. noddygirl
    Apparently this is all fake.
  6. mess clean
    What? Publicity stunt or Onion article?

    I mean, BT2H has 2 separate articles from separate sources on the same topic...

    What have you discovered, noddy?
  7. Booty love
    Now you sound like me! Lol

    There is no such thing as false media?
  8. mess clean
    Booty, you're the best.

    Back to noddy...where did you see this is fake?
  9. Nosferatus
    (At least) Two wrongs don't make a right, has anyone thought of not drug testing anyone? Or, even better, legalization?
  10. AKA_freckles
    ^^^ that's the whole point Nos. Its a joke.

    People are so literal sometimes.
  11. Nosferatus
    ^^Apparently she actually did say it, you're saying she meant it as a joke? Is this a case of Poe's law?
  12. AKA_freckles
    Well in the sense that its all a joke. Just that the joke is usually on poor folks.
  13. Nosferatus
  14. AKA_freckles
    I'm serious. Poor people are not automatically stupid or criminal, but this country treats them like they are.
  15. Beenthere2Hippie
    Freckles, you are a smart woman and a consistent advocate for those less fortunate or facing severe life difficulties.

    Thank you for your heart--and your smarts. :vibes:

    Living in poverty is a game-changer in the life of any and all it touches, and unless you have experienced being destitute at a time in your life you may not realize just how paralyzing an experience it can be.
  16. mess clean
    Like I said in my post, the ultimate goal of the bill would be to point out that testing anyone is stupid.
  17. Diverboone
    I'm against drug testing programs all together. But I can not understand why there is such an outcry when it comes to testing those who receive government assistance. It's not about thinking poor people are criminal or drug users. It's about holding those who are in need to the same level of those who provide these needs. The majority of employers now require a pre-employment drug test. How is that any different than requiring those who receive welfare to submit to the same standard?
  18. Nosferatus
    I dunno, if they were so smart, couldn't they figure out how to not be poor anymore? By extension, only stupid criminals are known to be criminals because they're the ones who get caught.

    In all seriousness, I agree, people should not be treated differently because of income level, people should be allowed to be responsible for their own lives, my feelings on welfare aside, people on it shouldn't have assumptions made about them, once they get the money it's theirs, and the onus is on them to spend it responsibly.
  19. Booty love
    You know...you can't have a war on drugs, or profit from illegal drugs, if poor people cannot buy them and rich people cannot bring them in the country.

    All do to fear of drug testing.

    Mass drug testing isn't cheap and probably not that accurate...my weekly piss for bail could have been easily faked.

    The point of illegal drugs is to keep a large part of the population down and in need of government assistance
    Not to be used as a reason to deny government assistance

    If they really want to stamp out much of the illegal drug use in this country...stop bringing the drugs, into our country, in the first place!
  20. Booty love
    I think its because...the closer you get to dead broke, the harder you become to control and the more you see just how unfair our society is.

    This is why the poor urban blacks are able to unite and riot. They don't have anything for the government to take from them. Everything they have is provided by government...food, housing and drugs
    The government wont take those things

    Really the hardest person to control is a smart broke person

    You get enough of those together and you can scheme and plot
    Which is way more effective, in the long run, than violent protest
    The poor must remain clueless, addicted and violent so they can be criminals
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!