My time at Walmart: Why we need serious welfare reform

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Two bloggers, an anchor and a herd of elk

DAVID FARMER

Anecdotes don’t always translate into truth.

Take the case of rising conservative writer Christine Rousselle, a student at Providence College, who wrote a blog last week about “welfare queens” gaming the state for a conservative website.

The piece, which cataloged some of Rousselle’s experiences as a cashier at a Walmart in Scarborough, caught fire, earning the young author news coverage in Maine’s media, including the Bangor Daily News, radio and TV.

She became, at once, a hero and a villain, joining the fight in Gov. Paul LePage’s efforts to drastically — and dangerously — cut spending on public health insurance programs funded through the Department of Health and Human Services.

While there were lots of allegations, judgment and harsh language in the column, it essentially amounted to the anecdotes of a young woman who worked summers at Walmart.

As Slate columnist Matthew Yglesias wrote, while discussing German and Greek work patterns, “Human beings are primed to see evidence that confirms our pre-existing patterns of belief.” Rousselle, a Republican with aspirations toward the punditocracy, saw what she expected to see.

But I wonder, if she had been so inclined, if she might have seen something else, too.

Another young woman, writing in November, delivered the perspective from the other side of the grocery line. The blogger calls herself “Dresden” and writes on the website CreatingMotherHood.com.

“Dresden” is not looking to become the next Ann Coulter, and I can understand why. She’s a young mother with a son. She lives with her mother. For the last two years, she has relied on food stamps, and has carried a sense of shame about it.

Reading through her blog, you can see that she is a smart, articulate woman who fell on hard times, including family sickness.

On Nov. 9, she wrote: “The moment that I realized that I no longer qualified for these benefits was incredibly triumphant for me. Within the same moment of celebrating I also felt so incredibly thankful. I have no idea how my family would have existed without this kind of supplemental assistance to purchase food.”

Unlike the entitlement mentality encountered by Rousselle, here is a young woman who is different.

In her blog about leaving food stamps behind, she talks about the judgment she encountered, particularly at the grocery store check-out line, and the embarrassment she felt when she had to go to the store. (If you just thought “good”, shame on you.)

It’s quiet, searing scorn delivered by strangers, perhaps cashiers such as Rousselle.

“There will always be some person that will know a person that read an article about a family or individual that ‘scammed’ the government,” Dresden wrote. “Well shame on that person. I never encountered such an individual. The people I met also on food stamps were poor, lived in poverty, carried such fear and anxiety in their soul about the big ‘what next?’”

There are relatively few people who cheat, even when you throw in the tax cheats, crooked salesmen, the butcher with his thumb on the scale and the gas station with the rigged pumps.

The question on how we address poverty and persistent need, especially among single mothers, children, the elderly and disabled and those poor folks who don’t fit into any particular category isn’t about the few who try to scam the system.

It’s about us and what kind of people we want to be.

In his latest book, “The Times of Our Lives,” Tom Brokaw tells a moving story about a herd of elk cows and their young calves trying to cross a raging river.

“It was not an easy crossing. … One calf failed and was swept downstream,” Brokaw writes. “Three times, the calf tried and failed to cross the river. Separated from his herd, he stood there trembling.

“On the far side, the rest of the herd waited patiently as the mother of the frightened calf stood at the water’s edge and, as God is my witness, nodded her majestic head to him, as if to say, ‘It’s OK; I’m coming to get you.’”

The elk then waded into the river and went to the calf, “nuzzling him for a moment before heading him upstream to an easier passage.”

Brokaw closes his book: “I shared the story with our grandchildren and friends over the years, extending the metaphor about maternal care to include the obligation we all have to one another when we reach our own flood-stage rivers. We navigate them successfully when we do it together.”

David Farmer is a political and media consultant. He was formerly deputy chief of staff and communications director for Gov. John E. Baldacci and a longtime journalist. His clients include Maine Equal Justice Partners and Engage Maine. You can reach him at dfarmer14@hotmail.com. Follow him on Twitter @dfarmer14.

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/21/opinion/contributors/two-bloggers-an-anchor-and-a-herd-of-elk/

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Did they ever make a law yet to require mandatory drug testing for welfare peeps? I mean that seems like a no brainer imo.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Did they ever make a law yet to require mandatory drug testing for welfare peeps? I mean that seems like a no brainer imo.

Everybody receiving a government benefit should be means tested, tested for substance abuse, then spayed or neutered. Too many pets in the world.

[Robby999 1,024]

Georgia bill on drug-testing for welfare applicants filed early

By Walter C. Jones Morris News Service Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 8:53 PM Last updated 9:09 PM <li class="wl-utility-item-0 icon-comment">Comments (11)

• Follow Latest News

ATLANTA — A bill requiring welfare applicants to take drug tests at their own expense was filed Tuesday for early introduction to the next session of the General Assembly.

Related Stories

• Georgia bill requires drug tests for welfare applicants

Advertisement Critics say cost will be as big a barrier as the test itself.

One of the authors, freshman Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine, said a similar law in Florida reduced welfare applications by 48 percent. That state saved $2 million in five months, even after reimbursing the roughly one-in-four applicants who passed the test, he said.

Under Spencer's measure, House Bill 668, Georgia taxpayers would reimburse the roughly $27 cost of a drug test to applicants who pass. Those who fail would be barred from getting cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for one month. Flunking a second time would result in a three-month ban, and three or more failure would make an applicant ineligible for a year.

"Georgia taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure their hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to subsidize drug addiction," Spencer said.

Social workers would direct failing applicants to state-approved drug-treatment programs.

The government would not be on the hook for the cost of that treatment, and Spencer suggested churches and charities pick up the tab.

Sen. John Albers, R-Roswell, the author of the Senate version of the bill which also includes applicants for Medicaid, said the aim is to turn around the lives of drug users.

Last month, a federal judge blocked Florida from using its law until a full trial is held. At issue is whether the law violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure by requiring a test of applicants when there is no reason to suspect them of illegal activity.

Spencer said he was aware of that injunction and has worked with the author of the Florida law to avoid a challenge in Georgia. For example, the names of anyone tested positive for drug use in Georgia could not be shared with law enforcement officials, he said.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

** that. Winter in hell again.

Except, what do you do with folks that are then forthwith eternally enrolled in GED programs or educational institutions? Or do you mean they actually have to show up full time each and every day in order to remain enrolled? Then, this might actually work.

Of course they have to show up. I think by the time they get a bachelors degree welfare will be amoot point.

And do not forget they can meet the obligation by WORKING also.

One of the problems is that the system punishes people for getting married or working Seems it rewars people for exactly what we do NOT need them to do. If anything they should be rewarded or at least brak even, at least for a time. We have lured them into this lifestyle, and that IS what it is, we have to lure them out of it.

Like illegals this has become an economic issue. You have to give them a reason to get out of bed. If they can make $400 per week PLUS food stamps PLUS WIC, PLUS free medical, PLUS PLUS PLUS...what job is a poorly educated person going to get that is better than that?

But if they are required to get an education or to work they will eventually (most of them) work their way into better jobs, either with experience or education.

[Robby999 1,024]

I have to submit to random drug screenings to stay employed and draw a check each week, so I do not see why it would be unreasonable to expect a person receiving benefits from my labor and negative drug screening, to be held to the same level of standards I have to maintain to stay employed! It would seem logical that since most employers require drug screening for employment, that if they were seriously interested in working, passing the drug test would not be an issue!

[웃 910]

How about we legalize drugs? Edited December 22, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Obama 2012 1,714]

wow, so there are bright 20-year olds.... who knew.

[Robby999 1,024]

How about handing out I-864's with the birth-control pills!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Georgia bill on drug-testing for welfare applicants filed early

By Walter C. Jones Morris News Service Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 8:53 PM Last updated 9:09 PM <li class="wl-utility-item-0 icon-comment">Comments (11)

• Follow Latest News

ATLANTA — A bill requiring welfare applicants to take drug tests at their own expense was filed Tuesday for early introduction to the next session of the General Assembly.

Related Stories

• Georgia bill requires drug tests for welfare applicants

Advertisement Critics say cost will be as big a barrier as the test itself.

One of the authors, freshman Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine, said a similar law in Florida reduced welfare applications by 48 percent. That state saved $2 million in five months, even after reimbursing the roughly one-in-four applicants who passed the test, he said.

Under Spencer's measure, House Bill 668, Georgia taxpayers would reimburse the roughly $27 cost of a drug test to applicants who pass. Those who fail would be barred from getting cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for one month. Flunking a second time would result in a three-month ban, and three or more failure would make an applicant ineligible for a year.

"Georgia taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure their hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to subsidize drug addiction," Spencer said.

Social workers would direct failing applicants to state-approved drug-treatment programs.

The government would not be on the hook for the cost of that treatment, and Spencer suggested churches and charities pick up the tab.

Sen. John Albers, R-Roswell, the author of the Senate version of the bill which also includes applicants for Medicaid, said the aim is to turn around the lives of drug users.

Last month, a federal judge blocked Florida from using its law until a full trial is held. At issue is whether the law violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure by requiring a test of applicants when there is no reason to suspect them of illegal activity.

Spencer said he was aware of that injunction and has worked with the author of the Florida law to avoid a challenge in Georgia. For example, the names of anyone tested positive for drug use in Georgia could not be shared with law enforcement officials, he said.

It's about d@mn time! They should make this a Fed law where all the states are required to drug test. I bet that right there would help thin out the herd.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's about d@mn time! They should make this a Fed law where all the states are required to drug test. I bet that right there would help thin out the herd.

It probably would. I am against it being done at the applicants expense. That will just get it tossed as unconstitutional, besides the savings would pay for it. Better to pay for the drug test.

I think we should also offer free birth control and limit the benefits based on the number of children a person has when they first apply. Increasing benefots for additional children is preposterous

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

How about we legalize drugs?

Marijuana of course, no brainer. Outlaw crabgrass instead if one must outlaw a plant. Apply the same rules as alcohol and save billions in annual costs. Of course the money "saved" is now being PAID to people who will not want the government to "save" this money. Hence the status quo. Too many people benefit from the "war on drugs"

As for other drugs I think we should decriminalize them and send people to treatment rather than prison.

We should also go to Afghanistan and offer the poppy farmers three times what the Taliban pays for opium, bring our troops home and then sink 95% of the opium in the ocean. Sell the rest for medicinal use. Use a market based answer to the opiate problem.

[EAbbas 213]

I had neighbors that lived next to me... while I worked two jobs 7 days a week so that i could support my children and live within my means they stayed home using their two children's disability checks (one had cerabal palsy and the other was severely autistic) so that they didn't have to work. They received govt assistance and drove a much nicer car than I did. They had name brand clothing (I shopped my local thrift store.. albeit the area I live we had name brands too but I bought it at 5 dollars and they spent 100 at time) They even encouraged me to just not pay my Credit card bills.. I did bcos it was my obligation to do so, where they didn't and just ignored any bills etc) They had medicaid and I paid out of pocket medical insurance.. as well as my insulin which was about 250 per month.

It's ppl like this that drive our system to the place where it is. They didnt need the assistance.. they just didnt want to work and I felt really bad for the children as the one with CP will probably have medical needs in the future that can't be paid for.

Also knew a family that would file bankruptcy and then within 12 yrs they would do it again.. and continued to live a lavish lifestyle with a beautiful house and nice cars.

I guess i feel there should be limits to govt assistance and being able to file bankruptcy.. altho it is more difficult now.

While we do what we have to do there are those who can but choose not to. I don't disagree with assistance, it is needed sometimes but should not be a career!!!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

While we do what we have to do there are those who can but choose not to. I don't disagree with assistance, it is needed sometimes but should not be a career!!!

This is why there HAS to be something given in return.. Such as work or education. "Assistance" should mean assistance, not a free ride. OK, you do not have education to get a good job? We will GIVE you the education AND some assistance to live, but you have to go for the classes. OK, you do not make enough at your job? We will HELP but you have to work also! If people actually work or actually get an education then the "help" will only be temporary and they will want better than they can get sitting around doing nothing. But when sitting around doing nothing is the BEST they can do, they will. If they LOSE something to actually get out of bed, they never will.

The prblem is that the welfare socity also employs hundreds of thousands of people and results in millions of votes for politicians. They do not want independent people that do not "need" them. Remember that a lot of people rely on these people for THEIR jobs.

Every government expense has a "receiver" and people love good steady government contracts, they will deal with the paperwork rather than a competitive market any day. If you have a pharmacy do you want to go out and compete with Walgreens and CVS or do you want a medicaid contract to deliver methodone to drug addicts? Same thing.

[Susita 175]

The prblem is that the welfare socity also employs hundreds of thousands of people and results in millions of votes for politicians. They do not want independent people that do not "need" them. Remember that a lot of people rely on these people for THEIR jobs.

I agree, but I also think that what you're proposing would generate public sector jobs as well, as they will need case managers to monitor if the welfare recipients actually attend their classes, go to work, etc. If anything, there would be more oversight, and with that I think the workforce would stay intact.