Congresswoman Who Used To Receive Welfare Wants To Drug Test Rich People Who Get Tax Breaks

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) has had enough of the growing movement to drug test poor people who need government assistance. So on Tuesday, she’s introducing a bill that she says will make things fairer.

Her “Top 1% Accountability Act” would require anyone claiming itemized tax deductions of over $150,000 in a given year to submit a clean drug test. If a filer doesn’t submit a clean test within three months of filing, he won’t be able to take advantage of tax deductions like the mortgage interest deduction or health insurance tax breaks. Instead he would have to make use of the standard deduction.

Her office has calculated that the people impacted will be those who make at least $500,000 a year. “By drug testing those with itemized deductions over $150,000, this bill will level the playing field for drug testing people who are the recipients of social programs,” a memo on her bill notes.

Moore has a personal stake in the fight. “I am a former welfare recipient,” she explained. “I’ve used food stamps, I’ve received Aid for Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Head Start for my kids, Title XX daycare [subsidies]. I’m truly grateful for the social safety net.”

Ten states require applicants to their cash welfare programs to undergo a drug test. States are currently barred from implementing drug testing for the food stamps program, but Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has sued the federal government to allow him to do so and has gotten some Congressional Republican support.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/06/16/3788980/moore-drug-test-wealthy/

[tonyt53]

1. This is a good one!!!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Yes! Fantastic idea....LOVE it!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. K&R n/t

[Fresh_Start]

3. Every elected official should be drug tested

someone on drugs might squander $300/week in welfare
an elected official on drugs might squander $300 million a year in public funds

[TryLogic]

9. Sounds good to me.

[azureblue]

44. a blood test and breathalyzer

A once a week blood test and a breathalyzer morning noon and evening.. You got a blood alcohol level above .01, then you are too drunk to drive a car and make decisions.

[Gore1FL]

46. No one should, really.

I like the bill for calling them out, however.

[Amimnoch]

55. Hell with that. I think they should be required to do a bowl

Before every session begins, and for every round of peace talks.

The discourse would be more honest.
The laws passed would be more humane.
There might actually be a chance to have peace in our time.

[klook]

56. Yes, they'd still be tested, though

"I'm sorry, Senator. Your blood test shows your morning high has worn off. Please step this way to the Vape Room."

[Amimnoch]

69. LOL, fair enough ;). Eom

[Major Nikon]

58. They should be drug tested and thrown out if the results aren't positive

[LisaM]

4. Good one!

Maybe we can put an end to this drug testing mania.

[Iggo]

5. LOL. Nice.

[rurallib]

6. I approve of this message

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. I'd like to know what medication tRump is on. He should be using *something* (and he's rich). . . nt

[azureblue]

45. I think he likes the snow too much

sure acts like it...

[scscholar]

52. He doesn't even drink...

and wants to bring Prohibition back. Your example is bad.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. I didn't post an example. I know he doesn't drink. I think his body is making him slightly psychotic

[felix_numinous]

8. KICK!! Now that is some Karma

I can get behind. Go Representative Moore!!

[phazed0]

10. Um. No. Bad idea.

I would rather see it flipped the other way to be fair... no drug testing. How about that?

[elljay]

11. uh, hello, don't you think that is really her point?

Of course she doesn't really want to drug test the rich and this proposal would never pass through Congress, where almost all are multimillionaires, as are the current president and both presidential candidates. This is political theater intended to point out the absurdity of the current drug testing requirements.

[phazed0]

14. Would rather have seen it presented as such..

Maybe it would actually pass instead of just being political theater.

[annabanana]

16. and how would it "actually pass"?

Nothing in Congress will be right until we get the oceans of dark money out of our elections...

[phazed0]

17. Agreed.

Well, if "this one" is certainly not going to pass, I would rather see a voice up there speaking directly for the ones hardest hit.

So the headline is now "Congresswoman fights for draconian drug testing for rich people." instead of "Congresswoman fights for the constitutional rights of underprivileged citizens." - Sure, I give it a little flair there for impact.

At least one had a little bit of a shot in the dark, maybe? But yeah, dark money.. nothing meaningful for the regular person is going to happen till it's fixed (if ever).

[jtuck004]

63. Did you just fall off the truck? You are wanting to go back to the way it used to be, before

these supers-predators, thugs really, aka Congresspeople, started using the laws to waste and steal people's money. They are the ones performing your political theater.

Turns out people on food stamps get high on illegal drugs less often, because they have no money. The people who have the money are the ones getting high. But if we assume, incorrectly, that black folk are the problem, aim the laws at particular demographics, and associate them with food stamps, we can destroy a bunch of lives for profit and change the public perception of reality, even make us afraid of each other.

This is purposeful. By design. Follow the money- who got rich?

It is a lie and political theater to tell people we need to spend taxpayer funds to check people who we know - statistically, mathematically, with plenty of data in the bank - don't do the drugs you are looking for as often as people who are recipients of corporate tax incentives. They and their employees will do more illegal drugs than people with food stamps.

If we are honest, and NOT acting for the benefit of just a few, then we must test the corporations and their employees who are benefits of this money, which we know is being received in furtherance of illegal activity - statistically, mathematically, with plenty of data in the bank. We can make a paper trail. The President can staff the FBI with forensic accountants to investigate and return with facts. It is within his written powers to do so. If we are not acting, there are no really good excuses.

If we want to test people who are doing drugs, we HAVE to test people who have money. There is a positive correlation with how much money you have and how much you spend on illegal drugs. If we want data on who is doing them, the only sane thing to be doing is to be testing the people with money.

It we are not doing that, and we are not, what is happening today is just kabuki,

[phazed0]

64. "If we want to test people who are doing drugs"

I don't want to test anyone for drugs. Rich or poor. That would fix the problem in question, no?

[jtuck004]

67. The problem is no one cares, really, what you want. Or any of us. That's old

thinking.

Today we have marauding bands of politicians finding a group with money and hate, and they serve them by harassing the cause du jour to propel their career. They have the constitution to protect their minority rights to hate, by which they can, and have stopped, much of our forward progress.

You have to deal with that. They act much like sociopaths, it seems. Absent a political career they might be able to hurt far fewer, but they are where they are.

I get you want no tests, but that ain't gonna be possible in your lifetime, and real people are being hurt by this every day, and to just sit and wish it weren't so is too easy for the comfortable. It isn't protecting you or anyone else, and it won't change the fascist's menu in the slightest.

While folks are sitting around wanting and wishing, these will be doing something that goes at it. I think the second option has a better shot at accomplishing anything, ymmv.

[2naSalit]

12. K&R!!!

[Urchin]

13. And Drug Test Bank CEO's

Before bailing out their banks.

Hey, if bank execs drive their banks into the ditch because they were too busy getting high all the time, why should the government bail out banks if those drug impaired bank execs remain in charge of those banks?

[appalachiablue]

19. This too, and mandatory, annual and independent psychological evalutions for both.

[spanone]

15. now you're talkin!!!!!!

[Triana]

18. GREAT idea IMO.

Give those rat bastards a taste of their own crap.

[AlbertCat]

20. Don't forget to test for the 3 martini lunch!

[bluestateguy]

21. While I do see the point she's trying to make

Rather than continuing the slippery slope, how about closing the road all together?

Next it will be drug tests for student loans, Pell Grant or SBA loans.

[treestar]

29. That's a good point

I bet she does not expect it to pass anyway and is simply making the point.

[DesMoinesDem]

22. A drug test to keep your own money?

She can't see the difference between someone getting money from the government and someone trying to legally reduce how much money they have to give to the government?

[The Wielding Truth]

23. Yes they are different, but is it just, to not pay your fair share?

[DesMoinesDem]

32. How is it not paying your fair share?

I, like most tax payers, use deductions to lower my taxes. That's why they're there. To be used. If she thinks that it's wrong she should try to change the law. This drug test bull just makes her look stupid.

[The Wielding Truth]

35. I think that she is using this measure to call attention to inequality. Drug testing the rich is a

" see how it feels" justification play.

It let's those who are really taking advantage of our economic system see how it feels to be on the other end.

Anyone accepting over $150,000 in tax writ-offs should be feeling a little ashamed to make welfare recipients get a drug test for money that is there in the law for them. Don't you agree?

[sulphurdunn]

25. Nope.

If a poor man who needs to eat has to piss in a bottle to get money to buy food from the government, a rich who has enough money to rig the tax code in his favor should probably pay more to help feed the poor man and should piss in a bottle to prove he's not a criminal too.

[DesMoinesDem]

33. That makes no sense.

Its not even an argument.

[sulphurdunn]

36. You are correct. It is not an argument,

but it makes more sense than forcing people to piss in a bottle to prove they're law abiding citizen before they can get a meal. Maybe, we should also make them pray or take an oath of allegiance of some kind.

[treestar]

28. tax write offs

can be seen as a privilege and not a right.

I still like it - their "own" money - if they have that much, they need to be responsible and not be on drugs. Think of how they invest other people's money anyway.

And I do not go with the right wing idea that someone getting money from the government is always zero sum - never paid anything into that program before. Right wingers like to pretend there are two sets of people that always stay the same. And there are plenty of benefits to the middle class, too. They are fine paying into and taking that. They just want to punish poor people.

[DesMoinesDem]

34. The government needs to make sure people with money are responsible and not on drugs?

That's really your argument? Lol

[treestar]

37. what's wrong with it?

You haven't really refuted it.

[reign88]

62. I guess the refute would be

people are free to do what they want with their own money. They can be responsible with it, or not responsible with it. Otherwise say goodbye to all of Hollywood and E Network.

If you were lending money to someone directly who kept asking for loans, and they kept spending it on drugs, would you keep giving them the money?

I mean, if I have a friend who keeps borrowing money from me and squandering it, I'm going to stop lending money to him at some point. For some reason though when the picture gets bigger, and it become a governmental program lending tax dollars, our view of the problem becomes different.

I'm not necessarily for drug testing welfare recipients, but I definitely can understand the motivation behind it. Make no mistake: a drug addict in poverty is going to die or end up in jail in the majority of cases. Plus, if I am struggling to pay bills or save money, I cut back on the non-necessities as best I can. I definitely would include recreational drugs as a non-necessity.

[leftstreet]

39. Drugged rich people might mess up their exemptions!

Test them for their own good, so they don't tick the wrong boxes!

[SpankMe]

68. Playing semantics

Some don't see all tax decuctions as "keeping one's own money". Some tax benefits that rich people get can be viewed as a government benefit or subsidy that shifts money back to them that should have gone to the government as taxes.

Just as Republicans can claim that the cancellation of a prior tax cut is, in fact, a tax increase, some can say that the artificial reduction of a tax that should be paid is a government benefit.

Some examples:

- Dubious business deductions (like that sky box at the baseball stadium, milage for that tricked out Ford F250 that you use mostly for personal use, that $1000 dinner you used to schmooze that client to buy some of your products, etc.)

- Mortgage deduction - on a second house (i.e., that 5000 square foot behemoth in the Hamptons that you stay in for exactly one week per year.)

- Interest deduction for yacht payments. If you claim to live on your yacht - even if part time - you can deduct the interest on those yacht payments as a "mortgage" deduction.

- Swimming pool deduction. You can build a pool at your house, claim it's for medical reasons, and can deduct it if certain other requirements are met.

And the list goes on. The above examples are clearly subsidies of some form. As such, they are monies given by taxpayers back to the rich. Drug test 'em to be sure they qualify!

[bluestateguy]

24. What if the person is a legal medicinal marijuana user?

Or is a resident of a state where it is legal for recreational use?

I assume her bill will account for these side issues.

[Matt_R]

50. Last I heard marijuana is still Schedule I drug...

and is against Federal Law. So, no problems there.

[Skittles]

26. drug test the people who start wars and crash the eonomy

[treestar]

27. I love it!

Gwen Moore!

[Tsiyu]

30. Amen

Judges, District Attorneys, Parole Officers, Court clerks and state legislators should also be routinely screened for substance abuse.

Anyone taking a tax dollar in income or recompense should be drug tested if the least of these are subject to it.

[lordsummerisle]

43. This ^^^ n/t

[choie]

31. Love it!

[pennylane100]

38. I would like to see that the police are drug tested on a regular basis.

Their job allows them to legally kill those that they see as a danger and if they make life and death decisions about the people they kill, it is only logical that they get drug tested to ensure they are drug free.

I have a feeling that steroids play a role in many of the police brutality cases and it seems quite reasonable to make sure they are drug free when deciding who lives and who dies.

[Matt_R]

51. May I add a breathalizer test at the beginning and end of a shift. n/t

[Chemisse]

40. Great! Most people who receive benefits are powerless.

They have no political clout and are a favorite scapegoat.

So it's wonderful to see someone in a position of power advocating for them - and even admitting she was once one of them!

[Beartracks]

41. Yes, please.

I want to make sure they're not using my tax dollars for luxurious crap, like lobster.

==========================

[SusanCalvin]

42. BWAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

https://m.

[niyad]

48. always liked that one.

[niyad]

47. k and r. LOVE IT. would also require all upper management in all MIC and corporate offices to

do the same.

[maddiemom]

49. Just SO RIGHT. ( nt)

[zazen]

57. Gwen Moore you are awesome!! n/t

[mysuzuki2]

59. She is my Congresscritter

I am proud of her!

[NorthCarolina]

60. I think ALL elected Government officials should be subjected to routine, surprise drug tests.

Cocaine would probably be legal within a week.

[clarice]

61. Hey.. I know... let's penalize ALL achievement. nt

[demmiblue]

66. .

[demmiblue]

65. Lol... nice!

[bucolic_frolic]

70. Those who can afford drugs might use them

and that would be those at the TOP of the income scale, not the bottom