Enough, Gov. Scott. Enough.

Four courts have declared Governor Scott's drug testing for welfare clients unconstitutional.  According to this article:

Quote :

Thus far, the state has racked up $307,883.62 in legal fees and costs in the case, according to Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Michelle Glady. That does not include potentially hefty charges for legal fees from the ACLU.

Scott has not yet said whether he will appeal the unanimous ruling last week by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The governor could seek an “en banc” review by the full appeals court or take the issue directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's a dead horse... quit whipping it at taxpayer's cost.

Now, if you want to pay for the costs yourself, Governor, please resume your futile effort.

---

---

As an aside, the article goes on to say:

Quote :

Scott, meanwhile, has been forced to capitulate on an executive order requiring all state employees to submit to urine tests. The federal appeals court ruled last year that the governor could not constitutionally justify drug testing for all types of state workers without a reason. Scott and lawyers for the ACLU of Florida, which represents the state workers’ union, haggled for months before reaching consensus on the classes of jobs that could be eligible for the tests. The U.S. Supreme Court this summer refused to hear an appeal in the case, which is pending before a federal judge in Miami.

If they make testing illegal, I hope the damn judges and their families are on the plane flown by a pilot that's smoking pot and crack.. If military and military civil service have to pass drug tests everybody else getting federal money should have to pass a drug test also.. YES, I am including tax returns and any other federal aid, even if it is given by the state because the federal govt issues the states money for welfare.. IF YOU gave your child money for college and they spent it on ILLEGAL drugs instead of books and tuition would you approve of the way they are spending the money you gave them for college??

Well we certainly wouldn't want welfare recipients to feel like they are being picked on now would we?

I took I don't know how many drug tests in the Military, many of which were totally random. Didn't bother me because I had nothing to hide.

When some employers are even testing for nicotine as a condition for employment I don't see the problem. Make it so if a prospective or current welfare recipient tests positive then they must agree to attend drug counseling to continue receiving welfare.

Heh. Yeah, drug counseling... A great place to score drugs.

nochain wrote:

Well we certainly wouldn't want welfare recipients to feel like they are being picked on now would we?

I took I don't know how many drug tests in the Military, many of which were totally random. Didn't bother me because I had nothing to hide.

When some employers are even testing for nicotine as a condition for employment I don't see the problem. Make it so if a prospective or current welfare recipient tests positive then they must agree to attend drug counseling to continue receiving welfare.

Agree!.... We allow employers to test those employees that actually WANT to work but are ok with just handing out the freebies unconditionally... next thing you know society might want them to.......GET A JOB!.... Rather than Gov Scott folding on this issue more governors should join the cause....

riceme wrote:

Heh. Yeah, drug counseling... A great place to score drugs.

If they are poppin positive that doesn't seem to be a problem.... and we're the suckers that are paying for it and for some it's become employment and a way of life for decades--generation after generation....

riceme wrote:

Heh. Yeah, drug counseling... A great place to score drugs.

And make more connections.

Well, I am against the drug testing. It is a waste of money, and obviously the courts believe it is unconstitutional. A one-time drug test isn't going to keep people from going back to using drugs after testing clean and becoming eligible for welfare.

I am ALSO against handing out our tax money to deadbeats, generation after generation. Any money handed out should be tied to mandatory job training and job acquisition... and for a limited time only... not for generation after generation. (Damn that LBJ and his Great Society!)

Unless you are severely handicapped, you shouldn't be put on the "dole" indefinitely.

I agree 100% that it should be tied to job training and for a limited time.... The hard thing is finding open jobs because a lot of them are filled by ILLEGAL aliens.. What ever happened to 12-17 yr olds raking leaves, mowing lawns, working in grocery stores or restaurants after school and on weekends?? Now, people pay for a lawn service and the grocery stores and restaurants are filled with senior citizens that somehow ended up not having enough money to survive on their retirement and social security...

Jake, have you had any 12 to 17 year-olds come to your door lately asking if you would like to have your lawn mowed or your leaves raked? I suspect the answer is "no". I used to do it, and I suspect you did too.

I don't have a solution, but our kids are being raised as a privileged class that expect to lounge around spending their free time playing their video games until they are finished with schooling and expect a job to be handed to them.

It isn't all about ILLEGALS.

I agree it isn't all about illegals, but 1 job worked by an illegal is 1 job a tax paying citizen won't be able to work..

I agree 100% about the kids playing video games and things, but that because their parents allow them to do it..

If you have a $62 million investment, representing the biggest single chunk of your $218 million in wealth, and you put it in a trust under your wife's name, does that mean you're no longer involved in the company?
From 2011


Florida Gov. Rick Scott says it does.

Scott has aggressively pursued policies like testing state workers and welfare recipients for drugs, switching Medicaid patients to private HMOs and shrinking public health clinics. All these changes could benefit that $62 million investment, but Scott sees no legal conflict between his public role and private investments.

And, experts say, under Florida law he is correct.

A few days before he took office in January, Scott moved his shares in Solantic Corp., a chain of 32 urgent care centers, to the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust. Scott co-founded Solantic in 2001 and was involved in its operation until last year. His wife's trust now holds enough stock in the private company to control it.

polecat wrote:

If you have a $62 million investment, representing the biggest single chunk of your $218 million in wealth, and you put it in a trust under your wife's name, does that mean you're no longer involved in the company?
From 2011


Florida Gov. Rick Scott says it does.

Scott has aggressively pursued policies like testing state workers and welfare recipients for drugs, switching Medicaid patients to private HMOs and shrinking public health clinics. All these changes could benefit that $62 million investment, but Scott sees no legal conflict between his public role and private investments.

And, experts say, under Florida law he is correct.

A few days before he took office in January, Scott moved his shares in Solantic Corp., a chain of 32 urgent care centers, to the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust. Scott co-founded Solantic in 2001 and was involved in its operation until last year. His wife's trust now holds enough stock in the private company to control it.

So he followed the law but because he is wealthy that makes him a tyrant? OK, got it....

His salary as Gov. is 1 penny per year and he pays his own health care costs.

Throw the bum out!

nochain wrote:

polecat wrote:

If you have a $62 million investment, representing the biggest single chunk of your $218 million in wealth, and you put it in a trust under your wife's name, does that mean you're no longer involved in the company?
From 2011


Florida Gov. Rick Scott says it does.

Scott has aggressively pursued policies like testing state workers and welfare recipients for drugs, switching Medicaid patients to private HMOs and shrinking public health clinics. All these changes could benefit that $62 million investment, but Scott sees no legal conflict between his public role and private investments.

And, experts say, under Florida law he is correct.

A few days before he took office in January, Scott moved his shares in Solantic Corp., a chain of 32 urgent care centers, to the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust. Scott co-founded Solantic in 2001 and was involved in its operation until last year. His wife's trust now holds enough stock in the private company to control it.

So he followed the law but because he is wealthy that makes him a tyrant? OK, got it....

His salary as Gov. is 1 penny per year and he pays his own health care costs.

Throw the bum out!

Strange how wealth can be viewed...Gov Scott has money and is vilified for his wealth....hrc is a 'hillionaire' and was 'dead broke' making millions off book deals and speeches and these wealth rules seem to miss people like her and Bill and other democrats....politics?...Can't be...

I don't trust Scott or HRC.

I have zero trust in either Clinton....

mediawatcher wrote:

riceme wrote:

Heh. Yeah, drug counseling... A great place to score drugs.

   If they are poppin positive that doesn't seem to be a problem.... and we're the suckers that are paying for it and for some it's become employment and a way of life for decades--generation after generation....

I think you misunderstood me. Booting someone's lazy ass off of welfare for being a drug addict does not offend my Constitution loving, Libertarian sensibilities. I was jokingly saying, "Why the hell should the taxpayers be paying to send some free ride drug addict to yoga camp for junkies? They can kick the old fashioned way: Cold Turkey."

So in this century unfortunately we can't all be hard asses like at Miss Rice's School of Tough Love. So yeah, send them to one round of 6-weeks at yoga camp for junkies. After that if you pop again, no welfare, no yoga camp. You're done. Forever.

Damn, Ricey. I didn't know that you were so mean.

I think a few ruin it for the whole. I sort of get my hackles up when all people on food stamps are thought of as drug taking/dealing, baby making, system draining, ne'er-do-wells. The system needs refining for sure. I'll agree with that. I don't think drug testing is the answer.

Food stamps, welfare, and other types of aid are meant for short time use, NOT lifetime passes to be lazy and avoid work.. Put a time limit on all of the programs and a lifetime limit also.. I know some people will need help more than once because of businesses shutting down, but there are other jobs available...

I know they have to renew with documentation of all income sources. I've seen people be extremely honest with giving account of money borrowed from family members. These are the same people who are looking for work.

I agree a time limit is needed. But, I also see a need for churches and nonprofit organizations to step up in helping. Simple guidelines can be set up to keep people from becoming dependent on a system. The government has raised up a class they never intend to get off the teat. Many fall between the cracks and do not receive help while others are set up on a lifetime career of welfare.

But if a politician campaigned on change in this area he would not be elected. And if elected he/she would be vilified.

It really angers me to see ads on TV for lawyers that "will get you the disability payments you deserve".  

One branch of Christine's family tree is on Social Security Disability, and NONE of 'em look like they are disabled... and the other members of the family don't talk too kindly about this.

My question on disability is this? Do they receive more than they would with regular Social Security at the appropriate age? If so, are they claiming disability to gain more and to receive it at an earlier age?

Just trying to figure the reasoning. If there is any.

Earlier age.

I have no idea how much it is.