One would have to be missing the vein with Mr. S. Holme's needle to float so dubious a deduction. The argument is to be taken-up with the oh-so liberal
Justice Clarence Thomas. I'll let him speak for himself (from the same dissent in GvR):
I object to both the method (cost-benefit analysis reveals that the testing is a wash at best) and the insulting way it is being promoted: that similiar legislation has been introduced in twenty-two State Legislatures this calendar year is no indication that drug testing has suddenly become an excellent means of reducing fraud; it is, rather, as Shakespeare would put it "proof of something much too round". My response, to paraphrase Mr. Wales, "don't urinate (sic) down my back and tell me it's raining" If those State Legislators were serious they would actually get together and promote `real' fraud squashing $$$$. Thereby saving real money - but that is not their motive, is it? The problem with the `96 Personal Responsibility `reform' act (Clinton+Gingrich job) is that each State was allowed to implement it as they liked it. Some States are doing a pretty good job (Texas/Louisiana), some absolutely suck: (Pennsylvania, Maine). Take PA, for instance: An independent investigative panel was set up to look into the system. Two different Gov.s./administrations wouldn't force the State Welfare Agency to turn over their records or otherwise cooperate:
http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/reports/Performance/Special/speEBT091411.pdf Louisiana? Their DFCS, by implementing the use of biometrically tagged `smart cards', in a single program (taxpayer subsidized child care - so parents can go to work), is saving $1.5 million a month (no more double billing/billing when child isn't there, etc).. They use GIS (geographical information services) to get real time reads on where WIC, etc. cards are being used and what is being charged. http://www.nascio.org/awards/sti/ http://www.informationbuilders.com/applications/st_louisiana Drug testing? It has its place (objective use) but to think the actual results of blanket random testing (get a few individuals not to sign-up at all/kick a few out//plenty of bark and dulled teeth) impacts either meaningful decreases in end user or private provider fraud? Keep in mind, biggest individual client fraud is working under the table for cash to supplement benefits. I want ALL money to be tagged bio-metrically (abstracted fingerprint) to the client. When the client leaves the system all identifying personal info is expunged from the system, but the state owns the rest of the data (predictive analysis, etc). Get tired of reading stories, here in Missouri, about food stamps selling for sixty cents on the dollar. `Nothing to hide' should apply to the State Agencies/private providers contracted by those agencies as well as the clients. ed:formatting
Last edited:
