Talk Straight

Fair enough but I doubt if those fish were in those bottles for more than an hour…two tops.

Instead of people worrying about the fish while they were in the bottles, I’m rather surprised no one has wondered what happened when they were taken out.

Huffington Post turns on Attorney General Eric Holder: “Time to go”

People are butt hurt over goldfish in clean water. Goldfish in water! What do these geniuses think goldfish live in. Good lord! People are whiny idiots.

So many hateful people on tumblr

Just a thought

Remember when the Chicago teachers went on strike for pay raises?

Has that guy never heard of the startle response? You tell someone to remove their finger from the trigger….you don’t do it unless you want to hear a loud boom.

May 22

Here’s That “Drug testing welfare applicants” post I got….

Since you chose to pick the ‘against drug testing’ side right off the bat, I guess I’ll go with the “I’m for drug testing”…which, conveniently, I really am.

Not sure what kind of statistics, I can lay out here since how much, if any, money a state would save would be dependent on whether the state pays for the drug test or has the welfare applicant pay for it themselves, whether, if the applicant pays for it him/herself they get reimbursed if they pass the drug test, and how long the applicant would most likely be on welfare.

For example, Florida made drug testing of welfare applicants mandatory in 2011. The applicants were required to pay for their own drug test and, if they passed and got on welfare, they would be reimbursed the cost of the $30 drug screening.

The Naples-based Foundation for Government Accountability conducted a study on whether Florida would save money with the program or not. The study focused on 5,964 Floridians who applied for cash assistance in July. According to the study, 574 applicants were denied because they tested positive for drug use.

The study found the state saved almost $923,000 by not providing assistance to the 574 applicants who did not pass drug tests. As the state spent less than $162,000 on reimbursing applicants who took tests that found no drugs in their systems, Florida had a net savings of more than $761,000. Tarren Bragdon, a former Maine state representative, and president and CEO of the FGA, insisted that, if this pattern holds, the state will save more than $9 million in the first year of the law.

Bragdon took aim at critics of the law who maintained that it produced no significant savings. With 9.6 percent of applicants ineligible for welfare due to drug tests, the report found the program would save the state money as long as more than 1.87 percent of applicants were denied assistance. If the results from Florida are reflected in other states, taxpayers across the nation would save more than $173 million annually.

In September 2011, The Paul Valley Democrat, reported:

Drug testing welfare recipients saved Florida taxpayers nearly $1 million in the first month of implementation, leading two Oklahoma lawmakers to announce they will re-file similar legislation in Oklahoma.

Of course, there will b others who claim otherwise. For example, the ACLU put this out in August, 2011:

The Department of Children and Families’ central region has tested 40 applicants since the law went into effect six weeks ago, and of those 40 applicants, 38 tested negative for drugs. The cost to the state of Florida to reimburse those 38 individuals who tested negative was at least $1,140 over the course of six weeks. Meanwhile, denying benefits to the two applicants who tested positive will save Florida less than $240 a month.

There’s a couple problems with this…other than it came from the ACLU.

First off, compared to the Foundation for Government Accountability which tested over 5,000 applicants, this study only tested 40. This group never stated how the 40 people were chosen not did it relate how many of those 40 never actually took the drug test…it only notes the two who failed. For all we know, we had 40 people who applied for the test but no way of knowing how many people dropped out or chose not to complete the test because they knew they would fail.

Also, the ACLU touts the presumed $1,140 over the course of six weeks to reimburse the people who, supposedly, passed the drug test but it would only save the taxpayers $240 a month.

See what they do there? They put a big number next to a smaller number because they know that’s what will register with the people-the number. Not the time frame of six months vs one month.

So, if it costs $1,140 over 6 months, to reimburse people who pass drug tests, that actually comes down to $190.00 per month cost.
Since the ACLU reported that savings per month to the taxpayer was $240 a month, when tested over the same time frame, the savings to tax payers would be, at a minimum, $50.00 per month. Or if you used the ACLU method of 6 month to one month ratio-a savings of $1,440 over 6 months to a cost of $190 per month.

Then, on top of that, one thing that both studies did not mention is the cost in benefits to the recipients.

For example, on average, a single parent with two children receives approximately $320 cash assistance per month, approximately $668 in food assistance (food stamps), but, of course, that depends on the state. Some states pay out less some pay more.

So taking that into account, your average welfare recipient receives $988 per month if assistance…and I’m not counting other benefits such as medical and dental assistance, employment seeking benefits (also known as clothes shopping in the taxpayer dime), housing assistance and daycare daycare assistance. If we were to add those in as well, we’d probably be looking at over $1,000 more per month.

So, again using the ACLU’s model, if we saved $668 per month by denying one drug abuser benefits, that would come to a saving of $5,928 over six months…and that’s if they only denied one person.

So there you have it. Savings would be favorable if drug users were tested and would save tax payers money in the long run.

However, considering that judges have found this practice to be unconstitutional, it’s pretty much a moot point.

Have a great day.