Dec 15 2011
s. 1050: drug testing for unemployment benifits? US may back SC’s effors
S. 1050 is a bill that I’ve pre-filed co-sponsored by Senator Dick Elliot (D-Horry County). It calls for an applicant for unemployment benefits to pass a drug test. My logic? Those currently working are susceptible to a drug test to keep their job, why shouldn’t those seeking unemployment benefits have the same requirements?
The legislation below passed the US House last night. Congressman Mick Mulvaney was instrumental in its passage.
SEC. 2127. DRUG TESTING OF APPLICANTS.
Section 303 of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(k)(1) Nothing in this Act or any other provision of Federal law shall be considered to prevent a State from–
`(A) testing an applicant for unemployment compensation for the unlawful use of controlled substances as a condition for receiving such compensation; or
`(B) denying such compensation to such applicant on the basis of the result of such testing.
`(2) For purposes of this subsection–
`(A) the term `unemployment compensation’ has the meaning given such term in subsection (d)(2)(A); and
`(B) the term `controlled substance’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).’.
Dec 20, 2011 @ 13:19:17
Sen Bryant, I never said or made any reference to unemployment recipients being dregs. What I said was “I’d like to once again remind Sen Bryant of the class of people he’s so determined to be the dregs of society”. I would think that you’d have a strong enough command of the English language to understand that “he’s” would reference you, not I. It is you, not I that labeled them as “lazy dogs”. But the truth that you fail to acknowledge is that they are out of work through no fault of their own, were consistently employed for over a year, are actively seeking employment, and are physically capable of returning to full time work. If that weren’t true, they wouldn’t be eligible to draw unemployment benefits.
But what’s interesting in your reply is that your hatred for those less fortunate than you is so deep that you are compelled to grasp to anything to bash them with, regardless of reality. You have to invent your own soundbites out of thin air because your argument has no legs to stand on. Your response exposes what a true cowardly fraud you are.
Dec 19, 2011 @ 16:42:22
Dan, There was a bill that require drug testing of elected officials, I supported this bill, but we didn’t have the votes to end a filibuster.
Andy, I agree with you in that those that use unemployment benefits for drug use are dregs.
Dec 17, 2011 @ 14:58:41
I’d like to once again remind Sen Bryant of the class of people he’s so determined to be the dregs of society. These people that’s he’s labeled as “lazy dogs” are out of work through no fault of their own, were consistently employed for over a year, are actively seeking employment, and are physically capable of returning to full time work. If that weren’t true, they wouldn’t be eligible to draw unemployment benefits.
One would think that after Gov Nikki Haley’s embarrassing exposure of exaggerated claims on this, along with Sen Bryant’s obvious unchristian attitude, he would simply drop his continued assault on proven hard working Americans who fell victim to failed policies of the Bush/GOP era. But the ongoing push for Plutocracy and social Darwinism from the right continues.
Dec 16, 2011 @ 19:44:22
Can we also test our legislators for drugs too? If they fail, kick them out? Would you back that?