On AGREEING with a Republican Senator... Sort of

     I was scanning the news this morning, and saw this little nugget.  My first impression: "Good.  These asshats SHOULD face the supreme court, or at least angry mobs while they're making these blatant power grabs!  Ha!!"


     Then I read into the article: Governor Rick Scott wants to make state employees subject to random drug testing. Like they can afford any of the expensive crap on a public salary, current right-wing media opinion be damned. 


     Okay, on the one hand, if you want to be a state worker, most private corporations have been requiring random drug testing since the mid-90's.  There's a certain sense of parity in it.  


     For the record, I think marijuana should be legalized.  The idea of a stoner committing a home invasion for pot money gives me the giggles. So, if all other things are equal, and pot's legal, then yeah, I think you should be subject to random drug testing if you're feeding at the public trough.


     It dovetails nicely, though, into Governor Scott's not-so-subtle goal: drug testing welfare recipients. He's coming at it sort of sideways, the argument being that if you're getting a check from "the state", then you should have to meet the same criteria as actual state employees.


     Dear Lord, I not only agree with a Republican, I'd not mind going one step further: mandatory birth control during receipt of welfare support.   


     Now, I don't think all welfare recipients are bad people, or lifetime moochers, and I don't think anyone who's had the misfortune to need welfare would call it their ticket to riches.  


     Having said that, I do think that the social safety net can and should come with strings attached.  If you are collecting a check from the state, and using it to buy illegal drugs, you've obviously got some disposable income; if I'm the one issuing the check, I'd feel compelled to look very closely at why someone so down on their luck as to need state assistance has disposable income.


     And, yes, I think it ties in with the general economy, only because if Governor Scott can get at least the welfare-recipient case past the Supremes, we may well find out one of two things:


     A.  We may find out that the majority of welfare recipients are NOT sitting around smoking crack all day, and are just good people in bad situations who need a little help.   Or...


     B.  We may find, and weed out, a chunk of system abusers who don't have any right to collect anything from the state, because their "real" income is off the books, and criminal. 


     Same for Section 8 recipients; same for food stamps.  And, yes, I think if you are receiving state or federal aid, you should refrain from getting pregnant; I also believe if you are receiving aid, that birth control should be FREE.  


     I think you can also see a case building here for drug testing unemployment beneficiaries as well... seems a logical step, and again, if pot were legal, I wouldn't have a problem with it.


     So, as reluctant as I am to admit it, with that one caveat, I agree with Governor Scott.  I see a potential for savings at the state level that, for ONCE, doesn't involve destroying the lives of teachers, firefighters, and police officers.  


     Brutal Truth