Georgia state Rep. Kip Smith, who is co-sponsor of a bill requiring that public assistance recipients be tested for drug abuse, has been arrested and charged with DUI.

Of course. He's another Wide Stancer.

I don't see in the article where it says he is on public assistance.

@Fortythreepercent

He is on public assistance because he gets his pay cheque out of the public purse.

@dragonstaff

I can deal with that definition. I have no problem with welfare recipients having to go to work for the government in exchange for their checks and stamps. Once that happens, this guy can be tarred and feathered for being yet another hypocrite.

@Fortythreepercent

Do not start down the slippery slope of working for welfare.

If there is work for a welfare recipient to do, why should he do it in return for food stamps and not a proper wage?

Once they start getting people picking up litter and painting fences or mowing roadsides in return for their welfare payments, what is to stop them from getting them to do your job for the same sort of pay?

This guy should not be tarred and feathered for being a hypocrite, but for being an elitist meep who thinks that the law doesn't need to apply to him.

@dragonstaff

That would imply that they have marketable skills, so they would already be applying and getting jobs that I could get. A TVA-type system for people that have no marketable skills could work. They could get a wage to work on public projects in lieu of food stamps and a welfare check. Society would get something out of them instead of just pouring money into baby machines and no one would care about drug testing them.

I guess you assume that people who work for the government are the same as people who receive government assistance. Run that by your garbage man next time you see him.

@Fortythreepercent

I assume nothing nothing of the sort. I just don't agree that welfare recipients should be expected to do work for their payments when they should receive a living wage and associated benefits for doing it instead. If the work is there, and needs to be done, the person doing it should be paid properly for doing it, no matter what it is.

@dragonstaff

If they have the skills, they can go get a job. If they lack skills and still want public assistance, I see no problem with them working for those payments. Maybe the skills they gain while working on the dole can be applied to future jobs. That said, some skillsets are worth less than others. If you can't make a living doing a certain job, maybe you should get more work somewhere else. People who aren't on welfare work multiple jobs. I don't see the point of having a permanent, unskilled underclass that just sucks at the public teat without giving anything back.

@Fortythreepercent

Read my post without your red-coloured glasses.

I am not talking about skillsets or lack thereof.

I am saying that if a job needs doing, the person doing it should get paid, not be expected to do it in return for welfare, which has the effect of lowering the value of that job, and then lowering the value of all other jobs as a flow-on effect, especially low-income and labouring type jobs. This just puts more people on welfare. So does the practice of one person working multiple low-wage jobs to support their family. If a job doesn't pay enough to keep someone alive, then the pay-rate needs to be adjusted upwards until it does.

@dragonstaff

If a job doesn't pay enough to keep someone alive, then the pay-rate needs to be adjusted upwards until it does.

That makes sense. Although I disagree. Again, this has everything to do with the skills of the worker. If all you are capable of doing is licking envelopes, it is up to you to broaden your skills. The solution isn't to give an envelope licker $20/hr. Some jobs just aren't worth very much money to do or for the employer to pay for. The government is better able to identify where low value tasks are and which ones need staffing. A private sector business wouldn't have to pay inflated wages as the government is paying these people money anyway. Other, sub-living wage jobs can go to the mentally handicapped and students, who don't need to support themselves or their families by doing menial, low-value tasks.

As far as welfare recipients have to do something for their free money, there is an added benefit of the welfare office being able to provide job counseling, as is done at the unemployment office now, with the idea of getting them into a situation where they can support themselves.

@Fortythreepercent

Slave labour is slave labour, no matter how you dress it up.

I am not suggesting that a street-sweeper should be paid at the same rate as a doctor, but any job that needs to be done (can't be left un-done without serious repercussions) is worth paying a living wage for. End of story. Anything else is a variation on slave labour, including the (ab)use of the disabled in these positions.

The only thing that the government should expect from the unemployed in return for their benefits is that they look for work, and do what is needed to help themselves. This could be anything from hiding the tats and getting the bright blue hair dye bleached out to going for training and education provided by the government (because they can't pay for it themselves) to get some saleable skills.