The SCRS carried in 1999 and unfunded liability of $179 million with a 2-year amortization period. Today it currently carries an unfunded actuarial liability of over $13 billion with another $5 billion in the smoothing pot and a 37-year amortization period. State and local governments, furthermore, now contribute approximately $600 million per year to carry the unfunded liability. In order for the 37-year amortization period to fall to 30, which is the upper limit according to federal guidelines, state and local governments will have to contribute $700 million next year. The annual contribution by state and local governments, just to carry the unfunded liability, is projected by the current actuaries to rise to almost $2 billion by 2030.

How did we get here? Unfortunately, lawmakers have been making political promises, sidestepping the real issues, and kicking the can down the road. We cannot ignore this problem. The System in its current condition is unsustainable. I look forward to a serious discussion about these issues. I will make every effort to maintain the current benefits for our retirees, but if we do nothing then soon nothing will be left.

S. 532 (Peeler R-Cherokee) requires a recipient of unemployment benefits to pass a drug test to continue benefits. Simple enough? Well, as you know, they’ll throw out the lame “unconstitutional” argument, so we amended it to conform to a employee being fired for failing a drug test. The bill now reads that if you fail (or refuse to take) a drug test in an application process, you’re benefits will discontinue. There is no requirement for employers to require a drug test, but many currently do.

What I thought was a nontroversy,we recommitted S. 532 to clean up a glitch. S. 532 will come out very soon. (This link leads to the original version of the bill which reads differently than the explanation that I’ve given in the post. The amendment now under consideration would cut off the benefits of any UI recipient that fails a drug test as part of an application process. The disqualification would fall under the premise of “able and available” for work which a beneficiary who fails a drug test as part of an application process clearly would not be. The test would be paid for by the potential employer, and that employer would have to notify DEW of a failure.)

Here’s a popular e-mail being circulated, you may have seen it. I wish I had it this week in the Labor, Commerce, & Industry Committee:

Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes & The government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question: Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? Because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their BUTT doing drugs while I work. Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program “URINE OR YOU’RE OUT”! Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don’t. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country – AND SOON!

Recently, drug manufacturer Janssen was involved in a lawsuit. The manufacturer was accused of mis leading the public on possible side affects of the then patented mental health medication Risperdal. Here’s the article Spartanburg Herald.

Also, our friend over at schotline.com, Jeffrey Sewell, has been involved these issues.

One thing to consider. A drug company markets their product hoping to convince physicians to prescribe their product to increase their profits. There will always be all kinds of accusations in this process. I’m even suspicious of competitors’ involvement somehow.

After a manufacturer looses the patent, the marketing comes to a complete halt since an unlimited number of generic companies can make the drug. So now, we have total unbiased science and experience dictating the use of a drug. Here’s another reason (along with the obvious financial savings) why it is a good idea to use the old “tried and true” generic drugs first.

You can only turn the other cheek so many times!