Press "Enter" to skip to content

Judge: Testing Welfare Applicants for Drugs Violates Fourth Amendment

Some South Dakota conservatives think we should test welfare recipients for drug use. A U.S. District Court judge ruled this week that Florida's welfare drug tests are unconstitutional:

Enforcement of the law was temporarily halted in October 2011 after the American Civil Liberties Union sued, arguing that mandatory testing of people who were not suspected of using drugs violated the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven permanently halted enforcement of the law in Tuesday's ruling. She agreed with an earlier court finding that "there is nothing inherent in the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a concrete danger that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use..." ["Florida Law Mandating Drug Tests for Welfare Struck Down by Federal Judge," Reuters via Huffington Post, 2013.12.31].

Before you conservatives get all hot and bothered about the ACLU and liberal courts doing favors for welfare queens, take a look at the welfare recipient who brought the lawsuit that torpedoed Florida's drug-testing:

The lead plaintiff in the case is Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran living in Orlando and attending the University of Central Florida. A single father, he cares for his 4-year-old son and disabled mother.

"The new law assumes that everyone who needs a little help has a drug problem," Lebron said Wednesday. "It's wrong and unfair. It judges a whole group of people on their temporary economic situation" [Michael C. Bender, "ACLU, Navy Vet Sue over Welfare Drug Testing Law," Tampa Bay Times, 2011.09.07].

I hear a lot of hollering from conservative quarters about government tyranny manifested in improper searches and seizures—Common Core's alleged Big Brother database, traffic cameras, IRS harassment of Tea Party groups, drone and NSA surveillance, etc. I hope my conservative friends will respect the argument of a Navy veteran that suspecting poor people as a group of criminal behavior is at least as improper and tyrannical as the other Fourth Amendment abuses making the news.

Tangentially related: Monsanto is collecting all sorts of data about farmers, which some farm groups are realizing will allow Monsanto to further consolidate its market power and reduce farmers economic liberty.


  1. BIll DIthmer 2014.01.02


  2. Roger Elgersma 2014.01.02

    The courts do not care what kind of disasters take care of the kids. When going through divorce court I looked up the laws and only found one case of a Dad getting custody. He was incapable of holding a job. So if you need good people doing the jobs, drug test them. But do not test the ones taking care of the kids since the courts might be embarrassed about who they gave the kids to.

  3. Jenny 2014.01.02

    If the conservatives insist on mandatory drug tests for poor people, then there should be drug tests for gun owners (to make sure they play with their guns responsibly), drug tests for farmers that get their welfare subsidy checks (sorry farmers, you're expensive to us tax payers that dole out billions every yearto you guys). Oh, and don't forget big oil corporations -think of those huge welfare queens of Exxon, Chevron. They do make a lot of big environmental messes with our tax money also, so drug test them all.

  4. mike from iowa 2014.01.02

    Brand new poster,short time follower,so please be gentle. Federal District Court Judge Mary Scriven was appointed by dumb bass dubya(aka Bush 43) to her present position,so I can't imagine how she failed to toe the litmus tests placed on rethug appointees-strict constructionists,anti-poor,anti-worker,pro business,etc. I agree with her ruling. Somewhere a wingnut is drawing up impeachment articles for her treacherous hide.

  5. Les 2014.01.02

    I'm sure that is already in the ACA Jenny. A big reason I cannot enjoy a very occasional Cuban. Cigar that is. .
    The problem I see with the ruling. Come and get it. You want what I have, you play by my rules to get it. Farmer, driver, big oil, anyone who holds out their hand for something. What did you give me in respect to owning and using my gun Jenny?

  6. DB 2014.01.02

    Hey, if she is buying the guns, I'll pee in whatever cup you want. I always get a kick out of people whining about drug testing those who receive the free money when the rest of us have to pee in a cup to earn it. Cry me a river.

  7. Vincent Gormley 2014.01.02

    No rivers, you'd pump it 200 miles uphill and make every taxpayer contribute to the cost of your thirsty lawn.

  8. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02

    Hmmmm............Perhaps someone can explain to me how it can be found to be un-constitutional to drug test welfare recipients, but as a condition of my employment I am required to be subject to random drug testing as well as for-cause testing. Maybe I should quit and start collecting welfare so I have the opportunity to have my rights protected too??????

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.01.02

    I wondered exactly that, Duffy. Have you noticed that private-sector employers get to demand all sorts of surrenders of liberty that the government does not get to?

  10. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02

    I would like to know exactly what it is in my chosen profession that is inherent in the condition of being employed in it that supports the conclusion that there is a concrete danger that those so engaged in this profession are prone to drug use... The facts actually show that less than 2% of all those tested in my profession result in a positive drug or alcohol test result. Yet 98% of those tested routinely are having their rights infringed upon.

  11. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02 is the Federal Government that requires this testing under the color of law. Called the Fitness For Duty program.

  12. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02 more the original suit winner....I am a Navy veteran if that matters to the merits of the argument.....NOT.

  13. Jenny 2014.01.02

    Same thing could be said with credit reports, which are routine these days with prospective jobs. I can see with criminal background checks, but with credit reports - that's going too far.
    As for gun owners, I have a right to be safe in this country, so take your drug test and mental evaluation. Again, I'm not asking for your guns to be taken away. I know people who are heavy drug users that should NOT be handling guns.

  14. Porter Lansing 2014.01.02

    By far the largest group of "welfare recipients" are the millions who get mortgage interest deductions. What equity is maintained with the millions who don't own their home? Drug test this group and see what "white privilege" and "white welfare" looks like when it gets egg on it's face.

  15. Les 2014.01.02

    You earned no right to be safe Jenny. That blood has been spilled and yet you wish to take the rights of gun owners whose very gun ownership gives the bad guys hesitation to enter your home.

  16. Les 2014.01.02

    By knowing people who are heavy users of drugs with guns and not reporting it, you are perpetuating armed drug use. You have no rights with that attitude.

  17. Jenny 2014.01.02

    That is just ridiculous, Les. I'm not up for a round with you. Walk out your door, Les - there are plenty of alcoholics and drug addicts amongst us. No right to be safe? Well I guess we don't need policemen then. I have no right to call 911, okay.

  18. interested party 2014.01.02

    Guns should have interlocks so that alcohol use, opioid ingestion, and the compounds that accompany some mental illnesses prevent operator error.

    As to having your 4th Amendment rights protected from the South Dakota legislature: good luck with that. Marty Jackley already surveils every one of you poor schmucks. No state laws should be applied to rezidents.

  19. Les 2014.01.02

    We finally have ridiculous on the table Jenny. Invite Porter over and share some of that whine.

  20. interested party 2014.01.02

    That conservatives rail against the NSA and allow South Dakota's law enforcement industry to conduct Total Information Awareness is so laughable it seems psychotic.

  21. Eric 2014.01.02

    Last time I checked... Unemployment or welfare was a benefit ... NOT a Constitutionally written entitlement. Don't want the drug test, ... don't apply for the benefit.

  22. owen reitzel 2014.01.02

    How about farmers receving government aid Eric? How about businesses who get government habdouts or taxbreaks?
    My point is you can't pick on one group to drug test. If people on welfare or unemployment get tested then anybody getting government aid needs to be drug tested.

  23. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02

    You can't pick on one group to drug test????? Military members, anyone covered by NTSB or NRC regulations, job applicants in some cases, Airplane License Holders if they are involved in an accident, people who have driver's licenses, etc, etc, etc are all required to submit and the ACLU doesn't say boo! What is so "special" about welfare recipients? Are they a protected class?

  24. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02

    Please note that the original bringer of the suit was a Navy Veteran and HAD TO submit to random testing when he was in the military but now that he is collecting welfare he feels his rights are being trampled???? PLEASE............

  25. Les 2014.01.02

    Im not so sure farmers can have drug violations and continue in the farm program Owen. Once upon a time I knew of a customer losing his fed farm program rights as a farmer, drugs involved.

  26. Les 2014.01.02

    Is there any employer that doesn't write in drug testing as part of the employment policy?

  27. owen reitzel 2014.01.02

    Your comparing apples and oranges Duffy. Being in the military is a job and you should be tested. If you drive drunk or on drugs you should lose your license.
    Most people on welfare or unemployment don't want to be on it. I'm on unemployment right now and don't want to be. That being said I don't do drugs so if they want to test me fine.
    I've never said I'm against people on welfare being tested. What I've said is anybody receiving government aid has to be tested.
    If the farmer lost is fed aid Less because of his drug use then that's a good thing

  28. Les 2014.01.02

    Im all for drug testing the Corps Jenny. We have a few hundred left of the thousands offshored by both parties, might as well force them out of the country and live on the eternal spring of life.
    Are you protecting those heavy drug users you know, from a test? Maybe you as well? Test me, to have Obama repeal his new taxes on me! Im good with it even though I won't benefit as much as my niece does with unearned income credit.

  29. mike from iowa 2014.01.02

    My constitution says the government promotes the "general welfare" of my nation. I take that to mean all U.S. citizens,not korporate amerika as defined by citizens united ruling. One can read in various newspapers daily how "responsible" many gun owners are by the number of accidental discharges from clowns that shouldn't be allowed in the same zipcode as a gun.

  30. Jenny 2014.01.02

    Les, one of the drug addicts I know (and don't like) is sitting in prison until 2015. It's the best place for him, since he's not a good person, and doesn't take care of his kids.

  31. interested party 2014.01.02

    GOP hypocrisy:

    "Radel was asked by a reporter about calls for his resignation following his guilty plea, especially because the Republican congressman voted for a provision that would require food stamp recipients to submit to a drug test. "With drug testing for food stamps — I think members of Congress can and should be tested as well, and maybe it'll help someone else in the future," he said."

  32. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02

    Jenny.....Here is the little dirty secret for you....Corporations don't pay taxes...that's right THEY don't pay them YOU do when you buy their services and products. Not that this discussion is in any way germane to the topic of this article. But until people realize that to rail against Corporations is a zero sum game since the politicians have a vested interest in perpetuating this aspect of class warfare. That's right...they have a vested interest in picking winners and losers so they can raise campaign funds and stay in power. Then they hide the true costs to you since on your 1040 form you never see the true cost of the taxes YOU pay.

  33. Deb Geelsdottir/ 2014.01.02

    Drug testing individuals receiving some level of govt assistance in FL was a big money tree for drug-testing companies, and a massive drain on state coffers. Something like 2% of drug tests were positive. They rest was tax dollars flushed down the toilet.

    That leads me to think that true fiscal conservatives are strongly opposed to these blanket drug testing laws. Right?

    I still haven't heard a cogent explanation for why all government aid recipients should not be drug tested for eligibility. Perhaps if Jaime Diamond had been drug tested, along with CEOs of Wells Fargo, LIBOR, BoA, AIG, etc., the effects of the Great Recession would have been mitigated.

  34. owen reitzel 2014.01.02

    Plus Deb the Governor owns the company doing the drug testing. Hmmm

  35. Jenny 2014.01.02

    And you're okay with that, Duffy?

  36. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02

    Jenny..... Not sure what your question is? It is the way it is. IMHO Corporations should pay no taxes. Corporations will never really pay taxes anyway YOU do as I stated. Also in many cases as an investor you get hit twice....the Corporation pays dividends on profits they made and if their lawyers and CPA's couldn't get them out of paying taxes on it those are subtracted from what is passed on. Then the investor gets to pay taxes again on the dividend they received because to them it is income.

  37. Jenny 2014.01.02

    I'm not surprised you would shrug off and try to justify the way corporations run business and how they find loopholes to get out of paying taxes. This is just the honest free market, it is what it is. God Bless America, the greatest country in the world.

  38. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.02

    OK Jenny....How would YOU propose that Corporations pay taxes in a manner that would not 1) impact the price YOU pay for their products and services? 2) result in a lowering of the investor's return on money they paid to support the further development of those Corporations? I would certainly not dismiss a workable solution to what you see as unjust (but the way it works).

  39. Deb Geelsdottir/ 2014.01.03

    Okay, this may cause adverse reactions for DF and others, but I kind of like it: Hollande, France, just proposed or passed (I'm unsure.), a law that limits executive compensation to a specific percentage above the average employee's pay.

    Yes, I favor a capitalism/socialism blend, like the US has.

  40. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.03

    Deb...The only way I could support an idea like this is if the Federal Budget was likewise capped to a percentage of GDP. Balanced budget is just another dodge that allows the politicians to pass on ever increasing taxes to feed the bloat Federal Bureaucracy. If you are going to cap executive compensation then you need to cap Federal Spending. What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Add to that a law that states all laws that are passed by Congress apply to Congress and I am down for it. Capitalism and Socialism in their purest forms never exist due to the same base reason....GREED. You need to incentivize people to do what is right for all as opposed to what is right for them. This opposed to the way Government usually tries to force people to do things......mandate them, tax them, extort them as opposed to making it advantageous for them to do it.

  41. Nick Nemec 2014.01.03

    Duffy Floyd, your assertion that corporations would simply increase prices on their goods to offset taxes they would pay on their profits is absurd on its face. Don't you believe in the free market system, don't you believe in capitalism? If corporation X increases the price on their widget, for whatever reason, they give corporation Y an opening in the market to produce a lower priced widget and cannibalize X's market share. Pressure to monopolize market share trumps maintaining profit margin.

  42. guido 2014.01.03

    If the welfare queens need to get tested, fine. But then when I sign up for crop insurance, the test should also be administered. A poor man gets welfare, and the rich man gets a subsidy.

  43. mike from iowa 2014.01.03

    Haven't heard one poster so far state they see people in new suvs with Obamaphones,buying beer,cigs and sports drinks with their food stamp cards.I almost forgot they buy lobster and steak an ordinary working stiff can't afford. Standard wingnut talking points-somehow missing here.

  44. DB 2014.01.03

    Mike, that is always of concern. EBT should be restricted like WIC. Beans, milk, eggs, cheese, rice, potatoes.....all of the staples that are cheap, nutritious, and provide many meals which gives consumers the most bang for their buck. High sugar and sodium products, pre-made items, and any other high manufactured product should not be allowed. The problem is all these food manufacturers and restaurant owners all have lobbyists ensuring they can still cash in on ebt dollars. I think this is something both sides can come together on.

  45. Les 2014.01.03

    So we only increase taxes on corporation X Nick and allow corporation Y the economic advantage. Not quite the PUC effort I would have expected.

  46. Lynn G. 2014.01.03

    Mike, There was a radio station(shock jocks) in Austin, TX caught paying a person to call in and and claim their family was getting those items and saying all kinds of things to further enrage the public. When the station was caught they claimed it was for entertainment.

  47. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.01.03

    DB, should we apply the same principles to school lunches and all those kids getting subsidized government food?

  48. DB 2014.01.03

    Of course, our lunch lady's made all kinds of homemade items from casseroles and stews to your normal items like pizza and burgers. Most everything can come from these staple items. People need to get over this idea that the school lunch food is making their kid fat or unhealthy. They are fat and unhealthy because you failed as a parent and you don't push your child to be more active and you allow him to sit and play video games. End of story. School foods don't make your kids fat alone, just like teachers can't make your kids smart without parental support.

  49. Bob 2014.01.03

    To answer Deb and others of similar stripe.

    Perhaps the Constitution is not cogent to you. I am finding this increasingly true among neo's. Those that "claim" conservatism and only from certain and very select, if not minuscule, portions of this compact truly are not and show a very visible fascistic bent. In other words, they tend to be the first to throw the Constitution under the bus when it does not serve THE corporate/fascistic purpose. In the end the matrix IS all about control and slavery. I do recommend that you take the neo glasses off and actually read the 4th ammend in an objective frame of mind. On it's very face and even in contemplation, the UA is unconstitutional. Persons, houses, papers and the catchall, effects is the rule of law and security to the individual to these ends IS the govs job at ALL levels. Now, you can continue to stuff your fingers in your ears and scream la la la la all you want, but in the end, this is cogency on freaking parade. You see it all comes down to the hated phrase of both the ubber left and the neocon, Individual Liberty. ALL of the securing documents are written with this primary and singular thought in mind.

    As an aside, one writer here claimed this as a fed gov type of mandate. Hmmm.... If one believes in "following the money", and skippy if ya don't by now there just may be NO hope for you, one needs to ask "Who has the most to gain or loose by such an "action", a different picture emerges that comports it self to the power structure of the world. In our overly litigious and law strewn society of late, would not insurance companies have the keenest interest in such an unConstitutional law? Well now, history is replete with such behavior when viewed by the observational class. But what is less understood is the corporation position in management. Lets bring this down to the kitchen table and unwrap it, k?

    Level one THE ruling banks and specifically "The City", in London.
    From here, march out all the banking orders for the world and each countries central bank ('Give me control of a countries currency and I care not who makes the laws." One o them antique Rothschilds, eh?)

    Level two, THE major corporations who implement level one's orders and rule OVER national govs.

    Level three and the LOWEST level of management, Heads of state in the economically controlled countries and this includes our pres and congress.

    Whether you "believe" this or not is irrelevant in the face of undeniable FACT. Further, this is why you do not see a change of course between the two FULLY controlled and contrived parties. One can only see a change of speed and NOT a change of course.

    So you see, the posited culprit is just "following orders" either knowingly or unknowingly. Again this is irrelevant as both positions seal the fate for Individual Liberty. U.A.'s presuppose events or actions and CLEARLY violate both word and spirit of the ONLY document that ALL can unite around in the pursuit of Liberty and Justice for ALL.
    Lastly another poster pointed out the true and obvious, that being.... A feller looses his job due to the noecon "outsourcing" His unemployment (a private thing by the way) runs out (Hmmm, again it is the neo taking that from him and this after "outsourcing" millions of jobs.......) and his "credit" rapidly deteriorates. In applying for every job that he can find, these places run "credit checks" on the poor feller and deny him the job on that basis. It was lack of employment that got him there, and that not of his own hand, and he is denied a job on this basis. Seems like that might be construed to fall under at least one of the 4ths securing elements, maybe papers. Now here again is where the neo will tell you, with a straight face no less, the "the individual has NO expectation of privacy". Plainly the 4th does not exist in their world because they have sold their soul to corporate fascism. These are the modern day Torrie's. These work for both level one and level two of the world power structure
    There is an easy way out of all this. it is hard and constant work but it IS simple. It does involve some study and growing a "pair". Dispelling fear is among the most difficult things an individual can do but it must be done. And fear does lie at the root. What holds one in inaction regarding things of this nature is that,..... ready for it? Folks have TOO much to loose. Our founders pledged all that they were and all that they had to secure Individual Liberty to themselves and their posterity. In effect, they had NOTHING to loose. And this boys and girls makes THE most dangerous of opponents. On the field of battle, the LAST person you want to face is one with nothing to loose. You definitely want to face an opponent with MUCH to loose! What the monster fears more than ANYTHING is to be realized as irrelevant and harmful to Individual Liberty. "They" fear this more than your guns or standing armies. Again for the observational class, this is the easiest "tell" that this course IS the right one to take.

    Form your community's full of GOOD Americans and take care of yourself and each other. You need "them"(gov) for nothing. Independence of this stripe is NOT the lack of dependence but rather the free will choice of interdependence. It most comports with Individual LIBERTY. While I may not have changed the willful slaves mind, I am grateful for your willingness to view the trip that needs taken....
    As my good friend Forrest would say "That's all I have to say about that".......

  50. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.03

    Nick...So exactly where does the money come from that Corporations pay in taxes if not from the price of the services and products they sell? And unless they are given a loophole not to pay a portion of a corporate tax how does Corporation Y not end up paying the same tax that Corporation X is trying to cover? There are all kinds of ways Corporations try to obtain an economic advantage in not paying taxes. Look at Eaton Corp...they merged with an Irish company so they could relocate their corporate HQ to Ireland and claim they were an Irish company and pay taxes there. Corporation outsource their labor. Profits made as a result of activities outside of the US are taxed at the rate of country of origin. Big Pharma has many subsidiaries out of country and make their drugs there as opposed to in the US so the profits are technically made outside of the country. Apple has billions parked off to pay dividend they borrow the money as opposed to bringing these off shore dollars home and take a tax deduction for the interest they pay. So they get a deduction instead of paying tax on the funds they still have off shore. The end result is I maintain....any taxes actually paid by a Corporation are paid by those that do business with them and purchase their products and services. Basic economics...................

  51. interested party 2014.01.03

    Corporations spend trillions on lawyers to ensure that their principals don't submit to UAs. Laws like the one Florida has on the books simply serve to repress the working poor.

    Expect South Dakota's legislature to do as they have done with civil rights for women and pass some variant of the one a woman just struck down.

    I am frightened for my home state: you people are screwed.

  52. Donald Pay 2014.01.03

    Here's what I don't get about the righty talking point: if it is true that corporations don't pay taxes, then they shouldn't be screaming about paying taxes. The corporate elitists and sycophants should stop all the lobbying for loopholes, stop clambering for subsidies through the tax code, stop funneling money into anti-tax groups, stop buying public relations that continually makes contridictory points that fool the idiots out there that they si9multaneous pay too much tax while saying they don't really pay taxes (whew)--- and then pay up what they say they don't pay in full, and then do whatever it is that "people" do who do pay taxes to make up for what they don't pay.

  53. Duffy Floyd 2014.01.03

    Donald Pay.......You obviously don't understand the realities of the world. Politicians WANT to have the power to pick the winners and losers....they use it to curry favor (and money) from Corporations and Lobbyists to feed their campaigns and get special favors like free vacations and such under the guise of "conferences" and "fact finding". Corporations are always under pressure to make more money from Wall Street. They are going to do whatever they can to pay the least amount of taxes to gain an economic advantage over their competitors and to pump the bottom line. The also have a vested interest in feeding the Pols to get those loopholes. The Dems will rail against Corporate American and paint them the villains while taking money from them to write those loopholes and feed their campaign coffers then tell you John Q. Public it is all THEIR fault (the Corporations). Again they have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth given is solidifies their power to stay in office. If you need proof just look at who controlled Congress during the time many of those loopholes were created. Over the last 50 years Republicans have controlled the houses of Congress relatively a short period of time and rarely both houses at the same time. Dems have had it pretty much to themselves for a majority of those years. Yet they are for the "little guy"....PLEASE..................... This all is NOT the subject of the original article though and I suggest we get back to THAT issue since it is ridiculous that this was found un-constitutional for this class of people yet is peachy keen for many in society to have to submit.

  54. Donald Pay 2014.01.03

    I have no problem with mandatory drug testing if it required to keep people safe. If you could draw a reasonable nexus between getting some TANF or SNAP benefit and the broader public safety, I'd be willing to listen, and so would the Judge.

    As a person who works in the human services field, I have been subject to random testing. I think it's fine. I'm responsible for the lives and health of people, and stoners just aren't going to be responsible. In most instances, people who test positive are given an opportunity for drug counseling and other assistance to maintain sobriety.

    Many of my clients receive benefits. I don't know of one who takes illegal substances. Testing them is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Test me, not them.

  55. Deb Geelsdottir/ 2014.01.03

    I feel a need to make this point very clear when I hear words like "welfare queens" and stories about wealthy SNAP recipients.

    I work as a chaplain for a business which serves disabled people. I've worked with people who appear normal, but suffer from schizophrenia. They didn't ask for schizophrenia. Nothing they did or didn't do caused their schizophrenia. But they got this disease anyway. These very nice people were stricken with an illness that makes it impossible to hold a job, so they do things like volunteer to help others when they can. They would give Anything to be free of their disease, but there is no cure. So they live in government-subsidized housing, receive government-subsidized healthcare, eat government-subsidized food, and feel a level of human dignity.

    I have a client whose mother drank steadily while pregnant. She has FAS, and is fully aware that she is not as smart as most other people. She's managed to hold jobs like sweeping a burger joint, but eventually she loses it because she doesn't really understand the whole "cause and effect" thing as it relates to the need to show up on time for work. So she lives in government-subsidized housing, receives government-subsidized healthcare, eats government-subsidized food, and feels a level of human dignity.

    IF you continue to CUT government assistance, THESE are the people who will suffer, and they will suffer terribly. To cut off the help they survive on is INHUMANE.

  56. Deb Geelsdottir/ 2014.01.03

    To be sure, there are government assistance cheaters. They are a very small percentage of all recipients. People tend to believe there are more because those stories get so much attention. It's less than 5%.

    I want every single cheater dumped off the rolls immediately! But they are the smartest and will be the last to go under the current system. Social workers are so deeply overwhelmed due to cuts that they can barely keep up with minimum documentation requirements.

    If you really want to get the cheats, pay social workers much better so the best are attracted. Hire many, many investigators.

    If you ignore these recommendations, which any social worker in the country will echo, then make no mistake about the results of your cuts:

    Good, decent, hurt human beings will suffer grievously and cheaters will thrive even more.

  57. mike from iowa 2014.01.04

    Lynn G-that is the M.O. of Fauxknee Noize(aka Fox News) when they get challenged on making stuff up. Oh,we are an entertainment,not news,organization. Actually,they are far right and biased and proudly admit that. Keep fighting the good fight. Someday,common sense will prevail.

  58. mike from iowa 2014.01.04

    Duffy Floyd-pharmas have been making drugs off-shore for quite awhile and when Dems wanted to allow American citizens to import prescription drugs,Repubs and big pharmas threw a fit and claimed imported drugs were not safe and the government couldn't or wouldn't guarantee the quality of drugs imported. What utter B.S. The last time Dems tried to pass a law to allow Medicaid to shop for cheaper drugs,Repubs and lobbyists blocked it again. Korporate Amerika gets away with running our gov't because our pols sell their votes to the highest bidders. We need pols with a sense of honor to serve American citizens,not give outr future away to non-citizens.

Comments are closed.