Source: Huffington Post
I’m not quite sure who at Huff Post didn’t manage to catch this the first time around.
From the above cited article:
The politicians pushing drug testing disagree. In South Carolina, where the unemployment rate is 9.9 percent, well above the national average of 8.5 percent, Republicans want the nation’s toughest requirements: blanket drug testing of every applicant for unemployment benefits and compulsory volunteer work for the long-term jobless.
Now, I don’t know if I need to give you the definition of the word “volunteer”, but I’ll give you the link.
Of course, the issue here is that Republicans want to mandate “compulsory volunteer work” for those on unemployment insurance. Well, if, to volunteer, you must be actively willing to do whatever it is, then how exactly is the oxymoronic phrase “compulsory volunteer work”, presumably where, since the work would be compulsory (so you would not actually be volunteering, but would be mandated to work, and to work at no pay at that), how is it not an exact description of slavery?
With slavery, it is mandated that people perform work without pay, and with “compulsory volunteer work”, it would be mandated that people perform work without pay. Ergo, “compulsory volunteer work” is just a euphemism for slavery.
Finally, the Republicans admit what everyone has been thinking.
The GOP wants to go back to the “good ole days”, um, where slavery was legal? Really? But there it is, in black and white, for all to see. The GOP wants us all to be slaves. I knew it.
Wait one minute. If the GOP wants to go back and make us all “volunteer” slaves, could they perhaps get a few non-profits together that had people picking cotton and tobacco, and maybe even vegetables in the fields? That way, the GOP could kill the DREAM Act, have their border fences, and not have to pay for any housecleaning and gardening labor. They could still prevent any economic recovery, since all of us who were out of work would have to volunteer for the already rich, who, after all could pay for these jobs, but if they have slaves, then why bother?
This all has to do with the notion that the GOP thinks that anyone who is poor is on drugs, and that those people receiving any form of public assistance must be poor, and therefore on drugs. I don’t know, but if I were to work for those assholes, I would need to be on drugs.
First of all, those people who get unemployment insurance (UI) are able to do so because they were just recently employed, and through no fault of their own, they were laid off, downsized, outsourced, or what have you, generally by an already rich Republican. The money which pays for UI does not come from the individual taxpayer in the first place. It comes from a tax on corporations which would never be given back to the corporation if left unpaid to the UI recipient, and generally comes out of the allocated employee salary funds from that former employer, so it really is the UI recipient’s money to begin with.
I know for a fact that there are quite a few Republicans who are employed and who use drugs (Rush Limbaugh to name one). If there are individuals who are employed and who use drugs with the money they earn, it is their business (beyond the scope of not getting busted with the drugs, should they be illegal). So if someone on UI wants to spend a portion of that retained earned income on drugs, it should be no one else’s business but the UI recipient’s.
The GOP nationwide in the states’ legislatures and in US Congress has been pushing for enactment of legislation which would remove welfare, TANF, SNAP, and UI recipients from having the ability to receive their checks unless they are able to pass a mandated random drug test. Oh, and by the way, the recipient has to pay for the test. I thought the GOP was against individual mandates, or perhaps that is just when it suits them. One law in Florida mandating these measures was struck down because it clearly violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure.
This all caught my eye because there is some pushback from the Democrats who are essentially saying that if you are going to test people who get public money (still not sure why they include UI), then we ought to be testing everyone who gets public money, including state and federal representatives. Maybe not oddly, but at least effectively, this move made some of the GOP sponsors of the bills withdraw them, in what seems to be a direct admission of hypocrisy by the GOP.
Yes, once the Democrats pushed back by amending the bills so that the GOP bill sponsors would also have to get tested, those Republicans decided that the measure was not such a good idea after all.
I think that if we were going to institute this policy, it would be a good idea to make sure that ALL public money, like corporate banking bailouts for instance, will only go to people who have tested negative for illegal drug use, particularly cocaine, MDMA, and maybe ketamine in their case. Oh, and how about all those oil subsidies? No drugs for them. No more partying with the regulators for you, Big Oil! Imagine how much money this would save. Do you really think the oil and banking barons would give up their drugs for public money? I doubt it.
And the next time you see some sort of whacked-out SOPA/PIPA/NDAA/EEA type of legislation come out of Congress, well, test them too.
Vote Legalization! Vote Green! Vote Oatman!