Senate Democrats don’t use advantage to kill drug testing bill
Senate Democrats had an opportunity today to kill legislation that would require local social services agencies to screen welfare recipients for possible drug use.
And the chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus made a big deal about the fact that they didn’t take advantage of the chance.
Republicans had only 19 of their 20 members present in the chamber today, when the Senate was scheduled to act on Senate Bill 721, sponsored by Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson County. All 20 Democrats were present, enough to kill a bill that several members of the caucus have denounced.
Carrico rose during the Senate floor session and asked his colleagues to let the bill go by until Monday.
Then Sen. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico County, took the floor and delivered a not-so-subtle reminder that Republicans exploited the Jan. 21 absence of Democrat Henry Marsh of Richmond to ram through legislation that dramatically redraws the boundaries of state Senate districts.
“It’s interesting today that we are having this bill go by for the day, or at least there’s a motion for it to go by for the day, and let me tell you how tempted I am to ask my 20 members on this side of the aisle to vote against it going by for the day,” McEachin said. ” But I am restrained by our better angels, Mr. President.”
McEachin said he didn’t expect his restraint to be “well received by the other side.”
“But I hope that the people of Virginia, our bosses, the people that we report to, will understand that even though the other side is down one vote, and even though we have the ability to kill this bill today, that we will wait until the other side has all of its members present, and then we’ll move forward,” McEachin said.
The bill would require local social services departments to screen participants in the Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare (VIEW) program and determine whether there is “probable cause” to believe the person is using drugs. Those suspected of using drugs could be required to take drug tests and lose benefits for 12 months if they refuse and test positive.
Even if Carrico’s bill passes, there may be no funding in the state budget to implement the mandate. The Senate Finance Committee attached a clause to the bill that prevents the measure from taking effect until funding is approved. A similar bill in the House of Delegates has been held up in budget-writing Appropriations Committee for the same reason.
– Michael Sluss
February 1, 2013 - 7:58 PM
Once again the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Good idea. I agree. If people are taking my tax dollars, I want them not to be drug-addicted individuals.
They should have passed it, this bill has been there for a long time , it started life as House Bill 73 it has been studied,delayed,and cast aside. NOW if they want my money they have to take the test. I had to take the test to earn that money they are taking!
These drug test programs in other states have cost
the taxpayers more than they have saved.
Yeah people on welfare and getting food stamp have a TON of money to waste on drugs. Only a moron would believe this.
Another article about how great democrats are. Why would anyone be againest this? I see people on Patterson ave in Roanoke drinking at 10 am on the porch of their section 8 housing. A dollar a month for rent and get messed up all day everyday. The govt pays the owner the rest of the rent and everyone is happy. If they get a job at McDonald’s they lose the housing because then they make to much for the free housing , so no incentive to do anything. More planned parenthood is needed……..
The VA Senate Vote on Drug Testing is good. The unethical Republica move, to redraw Districts, should lead to thier ouster.
The VA SENATE Vote on Drug Testing for Social Services Aide is a good move. The Vote to redraw Districts, should lead to ouste those who Voted for this unethical move.
It is a stupid, wasteful idea at a time when we do not have the funds to pay for it but I applaud the Dems for not acting like the GOTP. There is a difference I remain proud of.
Art if you recall, the Democrats have been victorious the last two elections. They snatched victory and left the Republicans with defeat.
Just wondering…how many delegates and senators would we lose if they were drug/alcohol tested each AM in Richmond?
“If people are taking my tax dollars, I want them not to be drug-addicted individuals.”
Then we should test our politicians as well, agreed?
Art Hill is correct. What a bunch of maroons.
But they are free to swill as alcohol as they want, right?
Funny how every act of every political body has come to be so obtuse.
terrible idea….perhaps put other limitations on it such as time.
That should be called the Starve or Steal Bill
I agree with Larry. We buy their groceries and pay their rent and they spend their low wages on crack and Ganga.
With thinking like this the government should demand drug testing for any person who gets a tax deduction or tax break. These people get a break and should have to prove they don’t do drugs to get it. They too are getting money back from the government using the logic that closing tax loopholes is a tax increase.
drug test people for drivers license too while your at it……
ALL welfare programs should have this qualifier. If they do not submit to drug tests or fail a drug test, no welfare for you!
The democrats are plain awful…..UNTIL the banksters and corporate CEO’s AND our Congressional members have to be drug tested when they take government funds then and only then should others be drug tested!!!
There needs to be a limit on the length for welfare. They need to re-qualify every (x) amount of months. Food benefits should be limited to certain foods (fresh fruit, fresh veggies, some meat, eggs, cheese, grains, beans, peanut butter, etc).Doing so will also contribute to better focus in school for children, instead of all the cheap sugar/fat/carb filled junk that is the currently what they can get more for their buck. There should be an incentive program for those that remove themselves for an extended period of time. This is a mindset that needs reform, just as much as it is a mismanaged government program. This is not the Entitlement Generation for nothing. As with almost anything, I think the private sector could do a lot more than the government. Communities know their people better than the federal government. Working together to assist and find this guy work or that woman work, or meals for that family or a shelter for that one, is faster and more efficient than going and signing up and knowing where your food and rent money is coming from. The psychological aspect of panic and providing for yourself and your family should drive any person, not the benefits office.
Until we stop producing human beings incapable of taking care of themselves and have the jobs and opportunity for all able bodied/minded people to gain employment, kicking people to the streets, for whatever reason you care to use, will have only detrimental effects on our society. This is not going to help anyone, not them and not us.
If you discard the disabled and the elderly, the number of people you believe are “scamming” you for those plush benefits is a drop in the bucket of what we give to corporations and the high class parasites in this nation.
“America’s Four Socioeconomic Classes
1. Parasitic financial Aristocracy (creates no value, skims national surplus)
2. High value creation (employed, heavily taxed)
3. Low value creation (employed/informal economy, lightly taxed)
4. No value creation (unemployed, dependent)
…If the wealthy parasitically skimmed their wealth, they are in effect depriving the economy of capital that could have been productively invested elsewhere. I
…What we need to consider is what happens as the parasitic and dependent classes take an ever-larger share of the national surplus while the classes creating most of the value decline in size and political influence.”
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2013/01/americas-four-socioeconomic-classes.html
What a bunch of friggen busybodies the RWnuts are. Get your nose out of everyone else’s business and worry about your own maybe. Yet another expensive solution in search of a problem.
4.These drug test programs in other states have cost
the taxpayers more than they have saved.
Comment by Rob Thommins — February 2, 2013 @ 9:54 am
Exactly! In every state that has gone this route, the cost of the testing program has exceeded the savings in reduced benefits paid and the testing programs have shown that the instance of drug use among welfare and food stamp recipients is LOWER than it is among the general population. And the net effect of the program has been to take away food from children whose diets are already deficient.