Food Stamp work requirement will Dramatically Hurt Farmers and Low-Income Households.

Here's what I don't get; instead of solving the root causes of social problems, Republicans go after the safety net programs put in place to help the victims of those problems. Remember "tort reform," it went after people injured or killed from medical mistakes, instead of trying to reduce those medical mistakes. The same is true of food stamps.

GOP Ideological Agenda different from Real World Problems: The lack of food and medical benefits for the poor, a problem in third world countries, is coming to the U.S.

In conjunction with the proposed $17 billion cuts to Snap in the Farm Bill, Republicans are getting waivers to institute draconian work requirements (30 hours a week in WI) that will drop many needy families.

"There is a proposal of a cut of about 17 billion to the SNAP or food stamp program over the next 10 years," said Zack Wilson, with the High Plains Food Bank. 

Work-for-Food another GOP created Problem: The GOP has been pushing this for a long time, and are now about to get their precious work requirements. But what got people on the food stamp program in the first place? Stagnant and dropping wages along with a ridiculously low minimum wage? The Great Recession that forced many big box stores and struggling manufacturers to go out of business? That was an outcome from the GOP's deregulation and voluntary regulation of Wall Street banks. So let's cut food stamps instead of tackling the reason why so many people need them:

USDA: “What would happen if funding for the Food Stamp Program were cut by $5 billion?” and “What would happen if food stamp benefits were converted from food vouchers to cash?” No matter which way the question is posed, changes in food assistance policy have effects on low-income households and the farm economy.

1. The $5 billion food stamp cut led to decreases in farm and food processing production ... approximately $1.3 billion and 7,500 jobs lost. The hardest hit farm sectors were livestock, feed crops, and fresh fruits and vegetables. 

2. The $18.5 billion food stamp cash-out led to decreases in farm and food processing production of approximately $3.5 billion and 18,500 jobs lost. Again, the hardest hit farm sectors were livestock, feed crops, and fresh fruits and vegetables. The production and job losses were distributed across the Nation.

3. The number of “working poor” increased as a result of the food stamp cut. Spurred by the reduction in food stamp benefits, low-income households sought more work hours, but, in aggregate, did not earn enough labor income to compensate for the drop in food stamp benefits. 

Walker's "Starve the Kids" program for under and unemployed parents, a GOP money saver!

Scott Walker's plan to require a Dickensian 30 hours a week rule to get food stamps and housing benefits is unrealistically strict for a reason; Republicans want to destroy the public safety net system and basically create slave labor for undesirable low wage jobs. It's politics of resentment + politics of demoralization.

Welcome to Walker's world, where withholding food and housing is no longer a sick immoral decision, unimagined in a more civilized society.

Food stamps represent a kind of "basic income," something I've written about many times here. And while some countries are already experimenting with a basic income, the U.S. is attacking the safety nets themselves, killing any possible move in that direction. Check out this interactive map detailing each Wisconsin county. There's more below on the concept of a basic income, but first...

Goodbye to Free or Reduced School Lunches? For a while, my own kids got a reduced lunch, and it was an economic lifesaver for us. Walker's new work requirement of 30 hours has nothing to do with pushing anyone into full-time better-paying jobs, but everything to do with cutting state spending, and it's not just me saying it. Walker's idea fits right into the new Farm Bill reform plan, that analysts say will devastate the working poor:

23,400 children in Wisconsin losing access to FoodShare benefits. That's about 8% of children who are now enrolled in the food stamp program in Wisconsin, and many of them would also likely lose free or reduced-price lunches in their schools as well, according to a memo from the Legislature's nonpartisan budget office.

The GOP's "it was meant to be a temporary" Program BS: Since successfully selling minimum wage jobs as something that was "meant to be temporary," which of course is no longer true, Republicans are now using that same line for food stamps. But wait, maybe negative income growth and the loss of benefits in the workplace changed what was "meant" with both minimum wages and food stamps?

Republicans have said that the FoodShare program is meant to be a temporary form of assistance ... it's a good time to encourage parents to get jobs, they say.

Qualifying for food stamps also includes school lunches:

A new memo from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau and requested by Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse, shows 23,369 children could lose their subsidized school lunches because their families will lose benefits through the state's food stamp program known as FoodShare.

The 2018 Farm Bill income limit is 200 percent of the federal poverty level, but in Wisconsin it's 133 percent, meaning those in the state-fed gap have to jump through another "small government" hoop to get the paperwork to manually sign up instead of being automatically enrolled.

In my line of work, I talk to people at every income and non-income level, and I just don't see people trying to game the system at all. Many are struggling with health or family issues, and some just don't have the mental capacity to navigate a very complicated system designed to frustrate the even the smartest applicants. They simply do without and suffer the consequences.

I think the reaction below says it all about Walker lack of competence to govern and solve problems. These are all strictly ideologically driven goals that have no real application in the real world:

A spokeswoman for Gov. Scott Walker did not immediately respond to questions about whether his administration plans to create ways to ensure families who are still eligible for free and reduced-price school lunches through the National School Lunch Program to receive the aid. A spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction also was not immediately able to comment on efforts the department is planning if the proposed changes become law. 

This is now a government that's not serving the people, but that's oddly working against them:

Likely save $9 billion in that time through recipients losing benefits The LFB analysis released Tuesday also projects 75,720 FoodShare recipients, or 11 percent of the total number of recipients statewide, would lose benefits under the bill's proposed changes.

Walker's new food share rules are open to abuse, like the incentive to drop as many recipients as possible..?

Require pay-for-performance standards in the state's contracts with private groups that help run the state's FoodShare and separate Welfare to Work, or W-2, programs. Create an up to $20 million fund to pay private contractors ... could use the money to pay vendors for reaching big cost savings or improvements in performance. 

Who would withhold housing for the poor? Walker:

Implement work requirements and drug testing for public housing programs.

I pity the corporate executive who loses their job. Walker wants them to "look" poor, by forcing them to sell their home and car:

Put asset limits on FoodShare and W-2 programs to exclude people with homes valued at more than $321,200 and personal vehicles worth more than $20,000.

And because the poor have extra money sitting around they don't need right away...

Create health savings accounts for Medicaid recipients.

A basic income should have been the next step in slowly reforming some of our social safety nets, but everyday Republicans are in power, new ideas like these are shelved for a 70-year-old agenda:

A basic income, a government-guaranteed paycheck that would allow people to buy food and housing. That would not only help the individuals but would help keep economic wheels spinning and generate tax revenues. Both Marxists and libertarians have proposed basic income schemes. Milton Friedman was an early proponent. 

A new NPR/Marist poll finds that 1 in 5 jobs in America is held by a worker under contract. Within a decade, contractors and freelancers could make up half of the American workforce ... without the constraints, or benefits, of full-time employment ... They must handle saving for retirement and their health insurance on their own.

The public safety net — the budgets for fire departments and social services — is already strained. 

In 2017, Finland introduced a type of universal basic income scheme ... with a single ($879) per month stipend, payable to all Finns, regardless of their income, tax-free.

Young people living for free with their parents might suddenly feel rather rich. And that would mean employers currently offering unpleasant jobs with low pay might need to increase their pay rates or go out of business. Basic income would give workers the freedom to not be forced into the jobs that no one wants — think about garbage collectors — or to let people grow richer by taking on those onerous tasks. It might force society to revalue unpleasant but necessary tasks, and reward them.

Wisconsin Republicans should just seek death penalty for costly poor people, or is punishment more fun!

The title could be a simple exaggeration, but it really isn't.

Republicans in the state have done it, they've gone after everything a person, or family, needs to literally live; Work for food stamps, work for health care, and now work for housing. If you don't work, you don't live. We're now the death penalty state for the jobless!!!

GOP lawmakers have advanced a proposal that would require some able-bodied adults to work in order to get housing vouchers in Wisconsin.

This is another state law by anecdote, you know, something he heard from someone who heard it from someone else:  

Rep. Terry Katsma, R-Oostburg, is the bill'ssponsor. He said the proposal will encourage voucher recipients to seek job training and help fill employment vacancies he hears about in his district.

The bill doesn’t specify what the employment, training, and or other "self-sufficiency requirements" would be.

Nice guy huh? A realllllllll Christian.

Terry has serving as an elder and deacon in his church, serving the youth of the community as a Workbound, Inc. board member and a member of Kiwanis.

Walker takes credit for Wisconsinites finding jobs. Taking away their food really works?

If it sounds too good....well, that's the rule I go by anytime I hear Republicans brag about a law they say is working.

And so it is with Scott Walker's latest pronouncement that reaffirms the right wing idea that every one of those starving unemployed workers are lazy "takers." They had to be pushed into jobs by cutting off their food supply, a cruel punishment that requires 80 hours a month in work training to get food stamps. That's the going rationale that makes it acceptable to envious conservative voters.

Walker: "We will take care of our neighbors and fellow citizens, but for those who are able to work, we expect something in return."

Some of those on the FoodShare program got work, but was it because of the work requirement? Walker wants us to think it was, despite any lack of proof:

32,193 people food stamp recipients enrolled in the program since April 2015 and 11,971 participants gained employment in the past year.

More than 41,000 people lost access to food stamps within the first year of a new state law after the state said they failed to seek employment. 

But here's where Walker makes himself look good due to the lack of information:

The department does not track how many of those who gained employment are no longer enrolled in the FoodShare program.

Nor does the administration track how many people who are eligible for the program found work on their own.

N. Carolina GOP's Big Government drug test for 7,600 welfare recipients kicked out 9 users.

The Republican push to punish the poor has degenerated to simple humiliation via the food stamp drug testing program. 

While tightwad conservative voters want to keep more of their hard earned money, they’re perfectly fine wasting cash on humiliating the needy with drug tests for the innocent.

Public policy through intimidation, a roaring success? Nope, the proof is in again; out of 7,600 recipients, 21 tested positive, 12 of which had their food stamps reduced because they had kids. 9 lost their food stamps. Success?

North Carolina revealed early results on Tuesday from a round of drug tests given to those applying for or living with the help of welfare.

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened. Of the 21 people who tested positive for drugs, 12 of them will receive reduced benefits because they take care of children in need of support.

Here are a few other "success" stories:

Should everybody get a "universal basic income" in the U.S.?

Finland is getting rid of the welfare state in 2017 and replacing it with something called a "universal basic income."

Tired of wealth redistribution to the poor? Well this is it. No cheating, fraud and no purposely embarrassing hoops to make poor people jump through. Everybody gets the same un-taxed monthly check regardless of income. Simple, but can it work, and how will it cover those who will still fall through the cracks? Here's the fascinating story:

In 2017, Finland will introduce a type of universal basic income scheme, in which most of the country's welfare state will be abolished and replaced with a single €800 (£579, $879) per month stipend, payable to all Finns, regardless of their income, tax-free.

Citizens of Finland will be allowed to spend it in any way they want. No longer will state benefits be doled out based on the status, personal circumstances, or the qualifications of the applicant. Everyone gets €800 a month.

Basic income is one of the most-discussed, least implemented macro-economic ideas. Basic or universal income enjoys support ... Both Marxists and libertarians have proposed basic income schemes. Milton Friedman was an early proponent.

Left-wingers like it because it dramatically allows the collective wealth of a nation to be shared in way that provides support for all. It does away with the punitive, humiliating nature of collecting welfare benefits. No more food stamps, credits, or housing benefit, where the state decides for you what its largesse can be spent on.

Conservatives like it because it kills off the massive administrative bureaucracy required to handle hundreds of micro-benefits and all the application paperwork they generate. It makes the state smaller. And because it leaves the money directly in the hands of individuals — rather than as credits or forced payments for certain services like energy or food — it lets the market decide what the cash gets spent on. The poor can now pay the rent or play the casino, with no further moral requirement for the state to step in.

In Finland, €800 a month will cost the government €52.2 billion a year. The government's revenue for 2016 is €49.1 billion. In theory, the shortfall should not be a problem because not every Finn is an adult (only those of working age will receive it) and richer Finns' payments will be taxed. In addition, the end of other social programmes should produce savings.

This is the other part of the huge appeal of basic income: it's technically neutral on the government's income statement, but everyone will instantly be able to see how much tax they're paying and how much welfare they're receiving in return.

One of the criticisms of basic income is that it would kill off the desire to work. Few studies have been done of this, but those that have indicate that people only reduce their work hours by a small amount on average.

The fact that a fiscally neutral basic income scheme would pay out only £423 per month per adult (€585 or $644) means almost everyone receiving it would still need a job. £423 a month is simply not enough to survive — or even pay rent — in most areas of Britain.

It might disincentivize some work, however. Young people living for free with their parents might suddenly feel rather rich. And that would mean employers currently offering unpleasant jobs with low pay might need to increase their pay rates or go out of business.

That might not be a bad thing: A basic income pre-supposes that most people want to work anyway, because productive activity is how we create meaning and identity. Basic income would give workers the freedom to not be forced into the jobs that no one wants — think about rubbish collectors — or to let people grow richer by taking on those onerous tasks. It might force society to revalue unpleasant but necessary tasks, and reward them more justly.

It would alter the labour market in favour of labour, in other words.

Check out this Wisconsin research experience,  similar to the basic income, but known back then as a "negative income tax."

Researchers in the Office of Economic Opportunity, the brain trust for Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the midsixties, began planning a large-scale field experiment of the idea. Several sites in New Jersey were ultimately selected for the test, which was launched in 1968 with the University of Wisconsin's Institute for Research on Poverty in charge of the research and a Princeton-based firm, Mathematica Inc., in charge of field operations and data collection.

Americans don't like Food Stamp Shaming, and Hate Citizens United/Money is Speech.

A few big time polls came out today, gauging public sentiment about big time issues, and low and behold, Republican politicians are not on the same page as their voters. You’d think Republicans would lose a few more elections if that were really true.

Food Stamp Shaming and Food Restrictions: Most Americans think poor people shouldn't feel ashamed for using the safety net, according to a new YouGov poll. Just 14 percent of survey respondents said they thought people should feel ashamed for using welfare, while 62 percent said people shouldn't feel ashamed. Republicans were more likely to favor shame than Democrats, 20 percent to 9 percent.

Don’t celebrate yet. Republicans have managed to make Americans suspicious of poorer Americans, enough so to warrant drug testing without suspicion, which is pretty unconstitutional.

Two-thirds of Americans surveyed in the new YouGov poll supported welfare drug testing.

And like the public’s lack of support for ObamaCare, even though they like the details, two things; Republicans have successfully messaged food buying restriction on the poor, a form of shaming, something they’re really against; but the public doesn’t like the food restrictions when they’re confronted with the actual choices:

Sixty-four percent in the YouGov poll supported government restrictions on what people can buy with public benefits, but only 28 percent said they supported prohibiting food stamp purchases of steak, seafood, cookies, chips or energy drinks.

Poll Says We all Hate Citizens United: Boy, if you talk to “stand with Walker” Borg-ites, they’ll agree money is speech. But away from the nut job activist, not so much:

A new NY Times poll was just released that targets the insane amounts of money being funneled into politics ever since the Roberts Court decided corporations were people and the results are staggering. 

NY Times: Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by “super PACs” and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors.

And by a significant margin, they reject the argument that underpins close to four decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence on campaign finance: that political money is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Even self-identified Republicans are evenly split on the question.

Republicans try to take “Cheddar” off Dairy State Tables!

Republican Rep. Rob Brooks has apparently never shopped for cheddar cheese. I have, and it's clear he's clueless. He would know that “sharp” cheddar cheese IS the real thing, and the most flavorful authentic choice for the smart shopper. He would also know that many times, “sharp” isn't always that sharp, despite its label. But it beats out the buttery mild and medium cheddar options. 

So Brooks is really gutting the true flavor and essence of our state symbol for a 20 to 30 cents per pound savings in FoodShare.

Brooks' bill is as bad as Republican State Rep. Dale Kooyenga’s brilliant bill to repeal the law that guarantees butter on every restaurant table in the dairy state. Yes, he really did attack Wisconsin butter. 

Farmers and dairy industry supporters of the GOP were also appalled at this nanny state madness from our Big Government Republicans. Let’s face it, the tired old “stop abuse” “restore integrity” and “get back to the original purpose” excuses just don't cut it anymore.

Just as bad, Brooks is basing his bill on hearsay and anecdotal tales from the checkout line. Those tired old mythical stories where the extravagant poor buy “crab, lobster, shrimp or any other variety of shellfish.” Cap Times:

Rep. Rob Brooks, R-Saukville, cited "anecdotal and perceived abuses," adding that his bill is designed to target abuse, not fraud. "My intent is not to stigmatize, not to shame anyone."

Not fooling anyone, Democrats pointed out the absurdity of this bill:

Rep. Evan Goyke, D-Milwaukee, held a platter of four Wisconsin cheeses. All four were cheddar. One was shredded and three were in block form. Three displayed flags that said "GOP Prohibited." One flag said "GOP Approved." The approved cheese was a block of mild cheddar. Two sharp cheddars — one shredded and one block — were not approved. One mild cheddar was not approved because it was too large, Goyke said.

Rep. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, couldn't help but point out the obvious:

"When you look at something like this cheese plate, there's no evidence of sharp cheddar fraud. People are not buying sharp cheddar in order to defraud FoodShare, and there's no nutritional difference. So if those are the stated goals, the bill is not accomplishing either."

Republicans were also quick to turn on their deep pocketed business supporters to stoke fear and envy in low information conservative votes:

A memo to lawmakers from groups including the Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association, Wisconsin Agri-Business Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Kwik Trip, Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers and Wisconsin State Cranberry Association says the bill would harm their businesses, "dramatically increase government power" and place checkout clerks in a difficult position.

Job killing legislation? No, really?

"Though well-intentioned, Assembly Bill 177 is a threat to both job creation in our state and our right to decide for ourselves what to put in our grocery carts," the memo reads. "…the unintended consequences of the proposal will do far more harm than good."

Republicans had no explanation for their lunacy:

"Why in the world would you bar someone from buying shredded cheese vs. a block of cheese?" Goyke asked. "Don't blame the federal government. You wrote a bill that makes a difference between shredded and non-shredded cheese, and then you come to Madison and say, 'Let's let common sense prevail.' How in the world does that make sense?"

This is all symbolic clap trap anyway, but it is a reminder why "block grants," with no federal strings, is on the republican agenda. This is what they want to do on state-by-state level:

No state has received such a waiver … to impose restrictions on food purchases.

I thought this post summed it up well at the Political Environment:

About new WI GOP rules for food stamp recipients: Let's have legislators be drug-tested before they can receive their $44-$88 tax-free daily meal, lodging and housing payments and make sure they are only buying healthy meals with public, entitlement payments.

I put together just a few pages of the complicated upside down nanny state regulations no one in their right mind could keep track of. I mean really, no ketchup?

Is this getting ridiculous or what? Photo ID for Food Stamp Purchases?

Yea, let’s keep dumping on the poor lower paid worker using food stamps. It feels so good.

They've always said, “busy hands are happy hands,” and nowhere is that more evident than in our own “small government” republican legislature (it’s small “r” republican now because they’re not a legitimate party anymore, just a bunch of taxpayer supported petty bullies too weak to make in the private sector).

And GOP voters continue to betray their “small government” credentials (assuming this myth was ever true in the first place), by not asking why they’re seeing an array of convoluted regulations when government was supposed to get out of the way. 

I've got a feeling it has more to do with conservative voter envy over "the lifestyles of the poor and downtrodden." These dummies are still getting mad over “large screen plasma TV’s,” despite the fact no one’s made a tube TV for decades. Here's another retreaded unoriginal idea from the right wing:

Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, says the proposal is an effort to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse and to make programs like FoodShare more efficient. But detractors say it would shame those living in poverty, with no discernible benefit.

The only thing stopping republicans right now are federal laws preventing these onerous added layers of “special scrutiny.” It’s all about equal treatment under the law. If charge or debit card customers don’t have to show a photo ID, why would someone on food stamps?  These idiotic ideas would be on the fast track if the GOP ever turned programs like this into state run block grants, free of government fairness “strings.”

Rep. Jesse Kremer is a sick paranoid.  

Penalize the poor, deduct $3.50 worth of food. 

"It sickens me to see all of the fraud and abuses … From some of the tenants in our rental homes that make more than I do and can't afford rent to the people using Quest cards at Potawatomi or using these benefits to purchase steaks for their dogs because dog food is not covered. They are there as a crutch and a lifeline, not a lifestyle."

Let me see if I've got this right; government always screws things up and can’t do anything right, but it can do a great job running big government food stamp pantry outlets?

Kremer also wrote in his "term paper" … limiting the use of QUEST cards to privately-run food pantries overseen by the government. " 

Heck, republicans want to create a federal regulation requiring the photo ID for Foodshare. The argument is this: It would crack down on the sales of cards on social media or the black market. But that's a lot of BS too: 1.3 percent in 2009-11.

And this will blow your mind: Talk about irresponsible public policy. Kremer is willing to make this malicious change, knowing the law is flawed and unworkable:

The central problem is that an EBT card is issued to the head of a household, but all members of that household are allowed to make purchases with it, per federal law. Kremer acknowledges that the ability for other household members to use a card presents a problem for his bill. "The way we’ve drafted the bill is it would still be head of household getting the card with the photo ID on it, but everyone else in the household still would have to be able to use that card," Kremer said. "So it’s kind of, yeah, a double-edged sword. It works in some cases and won’t in others."

But screw it, right Kremer, because that's just too much work to try and solve.

But we know what this is all about really. And this feigned "we're just worried about fraud" thing has gone beyond credulity:

A 2013 move to put photo IDs on EBT cards in Massachusetts prompted complaints from the USDA that the state was using the requirement to improperly cut benefits and similar concerns were raised when Maine implemented the requirement in 2014.

Scot Ross, executive director of the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, flagged the bill as an "appalling" move … He said Wisconsinites are struggling financially in large part due to policies passed by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican legislative majority. "Shaming a mother in poverty who's trying to feed her kids isn't going to make her less poor. Basing policies on ridiculous allegations isn't going to solve any real problems," Ross said. "Jesse Kremer needs to provide the evidence to back up his call for this despicable policy, and if he can't, the first thing he should do after apologizing to the people of Wisconsin is resign."

Missouri Republican would ban Seafood and Steak from those rotten lazy Food Stamp thieves.

When I see Republican sponsored bills that reach so far into our personal lives that we’re basically being told how to live and eat, I always think of their bullshit about “small government.”

Here’s the tale of another pious conservative social engineer taking it out on the hungry poor, just like Jesus did:

Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin is sponsoring legislation that would prevent people receiving food stamps from buying “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak.” He’s already admitted the bill might need “tweaking” to permit people to buy “canned tuna and fish sticks.”

These kinds of bills — premised on the idea that food stamp recipients are lazy thieves — are a favorite of Republican lawmakers: take Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, who’s so suspicious of food stamp users that he recommends his constituents snoop on their shopping carts to make sure nothing looks too sinful.

And Brattin has already proven himself to be a stupendously effective troll: he was last seen sponsoring a bill that would have allowed men to have to grant women permission to get an abortion. (That one failed immediately.)

Prevent the poor from eating fish? Kinda reminds of a story...

When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick. The disciples came to Jesus and said, “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish” … “Bring them here to me,” Jesus said. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. They all ate and were satisfied…

So tell me all about our “small government,” “get government out of the way” religious right Republicans dictators. 

Conservatives in denial, really don't want to admit they hate wasting money on the poor, attack school.

Republican don't want to waste money helping the poor! That was the answer on an assignment in a West Allis school. Too political? One mom thinks so, and she's getting major national coverage whining about it.

But wait, does anyone remember how a conservative teacher brainwashed his students in 2012?

Democurmudgeon: And how does a teacher rate to bring in dumb Ron Johnson, or Rep. Thomas Petri? How does a teacher plan field trips to GOP presidential debates and the Faith and Freedom Coalition Forum of zealot religious right wingers, with students from his class? 

FDLReporter: Karl McCarty, who teaches history and political science at Oakfield High School, invites politicians to speak with his class as a way to show students that politicians are human. Recently, the class hosted U.S. Rep. Thomas Petri (and) Ron Johnson who said any of the GOP candidates would be better than President Barack Obama … “That (hope and change) was an empty vessel filled by the people that voted for him — their hopes and dreams,” Johnson said. jsonline: Call this story Oakfield High School's Excellent Republican Adventure. In a whirlwind trip to Iowa, seven students and two recent graduates of the school, shepherded by teacher Karl McCarty and a father of two in the group, drove six hours from Oakfield to Des Moines, met top GOP candidates.

Where was the outrage? Republicans were silent back then. But now....

A suburban high school government class assignment aimed at helping students figure out which beliefs align with certain political ideologies has come under fire. A Nathan Hale High School mother took her concerns over a recent class assignment public after a teacher graded her son as incorrect for assessing the statement, "We should not help the poor, it's a waste of money," as fascist, instead of what the teacher marked as the correct answer: conservative/Republican.

It’s true isn't it? Who wants to drug test shiftless freeloaders who don’t show up for work? Who wants to cut the poor off from Medicaid or kill ObamaCare? They care alright. Who didn't want to waste money on food stamps in the farm bill? Who won't want to increase the minimum wage? The correct answer is: Conservative/Republican, and they don’t like the truth.

The issue was brought to light by conservative news outlet EAGNews.org and then Fox News. Heather Bronnson posted the EAGNews story on social media Monday, adding the comment, "No political party espouses not helping the poor, it's ridiculous. Why can't they just teach the basic political spectrum without lying?" Bronnson's postings elsewhere are critical of unions.

A West Allis-West Milwaukee School District spokesman said Tuesday the political spectrum assignment was developed by teachers at the high school and has been used for about a decade. 

But West Allis wasn't having any of this phony outrage:

A West Allis-West Milwaukee School District spokesman Brian Vissers said the issue had been fueled by EAG, a media group with an anti-public education agenda.

"There are all types of questions on this assignment ranging from far right to far left," he said. "It seems like the mother in this case just pulled out what her political views are. She didn't have any issues with the articles or questions on the other side of the political spectrum."

Walker phasing out Welfare, FoodShare, Medicaid and Unemployment with bogus screening Questionnaire.

Republicans have found a way to make us lose every one of our safety nets. And what will happen to the people and families who need public assistance. It's anybody’s guess. 

Scott Walker is now requiring a drug test for all public assistance programs, against federal law, and offered this Orwellian explanation:

Walker: "We're not making it harder to get government assistance, we making it easier to get a job."

Two completely different goals. Walker inadvertently acknowledges that it will make getting government assistance harder by arguing that it doesn't. From WKOW's Greg Neumann:

The Wretched Democratic Response? You'll want to put your fist through the monitor with their comeback:

Rep. Peter Barca: "We look forward to the debate, I trust the process will be fair (giggle). I'm not so sure we'll agree to the outcome." 

It turns my stomach.

A similar Montana bill making the rounds nationally and now in Wisconsin, looks like this:

The bill would require anyone who applies for government assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to go through a drug screening. TANF provides temporary financial assistance for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children. The program offers financial assistance to help pay for food, shelter, utilities, and expenses other than medical.

Yes, even pregnant women will be tested. I doubt you can get any lower than this.

Surprise, according to your Questionnaire, there's a "Reasonable Likelihood" you're Taking Drugs: In the GOP's Montana bill, applicants must willingly give up personal information to the government or risk “raising suspicions” about possible drug use. Sound coercive and an easy way to suspect anyone? Not to the rightwing authoritarian Republican Reich:

Applicants must answer a questionnaire called the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) to determine the "likelihood of having a substance abuse disorder." If results indicate a "reasonable likelihood" of drug abuse, the applicant would be required to undergo a lab test with the state.

And what if you fight back against having your privacy invaded by big government…

Failure to complete the questionnaire and/or drug test would result in the applicant being denied benefits.

Which is the intended result, and a pretty tricky way to defeat opponents. Big government Republicans will also dump taxpayer money into a new privatized bureaucratic hoop:

In cases where a person is deemed ineligible for assistance, a third party would be authorized to accept payments for children whose parents are ineligible for benefits.

The right wings avowed enemy, the ACLU, made this persuasive argument:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana argued that because the people who receive government assistance are by definition low-income earners, this bill treats them like criminals before they even apply for financial assistance. In December 2014, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that Florida's enacted version of this bill was unconstitutional and "suspicionless drug tests violates the Constitution's protection against unreasonable government searches."

Isn't it about time freedom loving Republicans challenge another constitutional protection? And because many readers don't get to see the comment section, here's one I thought was to important to not include:

lufthase: The Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory mentioned above is a specific proprietary screening tool created and owned by the SASSI Institute. Because they're actual health practitioners and not RW ideologues, they have this to say about using their screening test like this:

"To use the SASSI to discriminate against individuals, such as disqualifying job applicants or to deny public assistance, violates the purpose of the SASSI and is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act."

and…
"…when public assistance is made contingent on participation in the assessment and treatment process, it increases the risk for violations of ethical principles and applicants’ rights."

The folks who wrote the damn screening test (and stand to profit from its use) say this is not a legitimate use of their test. Shout it from the mountaintops!

Walker Drug Testing takes food from needy, creates more government bureaucracy, shreds Constitution, thinks he should be president?

Remember Scott Walker’s recent slip admitting we’re not all “born equally free and independent?” Taking the state constitutional wording…

"All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain and inherent rights...."

Walker tweaks just how equal with…

"…it doesn't matter what class you were born into … here, opportunity should be as equal as possible. As equal as possible!"

He said it like it was right there in constitution, repeating it, with emphasis.

Now we’re finding out that a person’s “freedom” can be tweaked too. Unemployed? You just lost your constitutional protection against an unreasonable government search. Like Walker said.

"With this budget, we are addressing some of the barriers keeping people from achieving true freedom and prosperity and the independence that comes with having a good job and doing it well."

And Walker will make sure those barriers are in place and enforced. Walker stuck in a lot of qualifiers too. Let's unpack that; drugs are a barrier to freedom, and until you are drug free, have a “good” job and you’re doing it well, you aren't technically "as" free. Am I playing word games and reaching a bit?

Like the ACLU wrote in the Florida case: 

“…offensive assumption that public benefits recipients use drugs at higher rates than the general public, and imply that the privacy rights of poor people and communities are worth less than those of the gainfully employed…”

Any conservative pocket constitutionalist, who still has a version that includes the 4th Amendment, might want to read it again. Simply put it protects against unreasonable government searches.

Junk Food for Kids Lunches, but not for Low-Income Food Stamp Recipients.

Many Republican dominated states have taken aim at what can only be called big government control over what people on food stamps can buy. They say it's something about not wasting taxpayer money on the purchase of junk food.

But wait a minute. Aren't Republicans trying to reinstate serving junk food in school cafeterias, food that's also paid for by taxpayers? Not only that, they say districts can't afford the more expensive healthier food. Oh really, and the poor can with their limited amount of food stamps?

Again, Republican ideology is trying to have it both ways, with the help of the news media that hasn't said a peep about this amazing contradiction. Here's what our new big government Republicans are saying about school lunches:

As the opening bell sounds for the 114th Congress, don’t be surprised to see GOP lawmakers take on school nutrition … included provisions to allow states more flexibility to exempt schools from the Department of Agriculture’s whole-grain standards if they can show hardship and to halt future sodium restrictions 

But those same high salt foods are the target of our hypocritical GOP food stamp Nazi's. One Borg-like follower, tax attorney Jay Miller, summed it up nicely this way:

(Some) argue that having the government regulate food-buying decisions is condescending or paternalistic. They are using food stamps, i.e., government funds, which cost taxpayers over $60 billion per year. Given this investment, the government has an obligation to ensure that the program - which is designed to improve, not harm, the health of low-income people - fulfills its purpose.

But school lunches are exempt? Beautiful. Miller assumes low-income people can afford healthy foods, but congressional Republicans whine taxpayers can't afford those same foods for school lunches? 

...sparking complaints among schools and Republicans who argue the rules are too prescriptive and costly.

Here's Millers diatribe that mirrors every other Republican lawmaker trying to have it both ways:

Whether it is cirrhosis of the liver, lung cancer or diabetes, the government should not be an enabler (Except when it comes to school kids?) 

When it comes to food stamps, however, the government seems to be saying that candy or chips are of equal nutritional value to grapefruit or fresh spinach. 

And to make things worse, food stamp recipients will have to wait for local convenience stores to start stocking the expensive health foods because demand will eventually force them to carry it: 

We know that purveyors of fried chicken, pizza and burgers line the commercial streets of the inner city, whereas merchants offering healthier products rarely can be found. But if government were to mandate that food stamps could be exchanged only for such products, the marketplace would respond by making them more available there.

Our meddling big government food watchdogs want to save us from ourselves, except in schools, where taxpayer money usurps the health of our children:

Although government can't stop people from engaging in self-destructive behavior, it shouldn't abet that behavior, either. Where, as with food stamps, government's goal is to combat hunger, it ought to avoid policies that substitute one health problem for another.

Scott Walker pushes Unconstitutional Drug Testing for Food Stamps. Other Big Government tests not far behind?

Funny thing on the way to a Republican one party police state, those standing up for their constitutional rights were denied food stamps. Think how far Republicans can push drug testing for whatever they eventually feel needs a little tough love.

Even worse, Americans don’t understand what Republicans mean when they insist on changing federal programs to state controlled block grants; no federal strings attached to the block granted money, which means the GOP can require any test they’d like to penalize and choke off benefits. Cruel? They’d tell you to get a job, the kind they know will never be created through tax cuts.

Let’s take a look at what’s already happened with drug testing that ended up costing taxpayers in Missouri $25,000 for each of the 20 positive tests…don’t complain, it’s the principle that matters. WSJ:

In Missouri, over an eight-month period, 636 drug tests were administered, yielding 20 positive tests at a cost of $500,000, the Kansas City Star reported in December. Two hundred people refused to take the tests and were denied benefits, the Star reported.

200 people might have refused the drug test as a way to protect their constitutional rights. Ask any tea party member of a 501(c)(4) if they would take a drug test to exempt themselves from paying federal taxes?

812 people applied for assistance, according to figures from the Tennessee Department of Human Services cited by The Tennessean. Four who refused to participate in the process were denied benefits. Six who answered “yes” were tested, and one failed. In all, five were denied benefits.

Scott Walker iisn'tlooking out for the taxpayers, he’s using that empty excuse to push is ideological doctrine that sometimes saves money, but most of the time wastes it (like the Medicaid money).

And look at the chart showing the rise, fall, and rise again of food stamp assistance. Come on, this is an easy one. 

The rise and fall coincides with the economic job swings seen in the Bill Clinton years through Bush and the Great Recession. Businesses large and small were wiped out and those that did survive changed their business model to a bare bones full time staff with part timers brought in only when seasonally necessary. The chart has nothing to do with freeloaders or drug addicts. 

6th District Candidate for Congress Mark Harris casually wipes the floor with grumbling Glenn Grothman on Drug Testing!!!

I think I could listen to Winnebago County Executive Mark Harris, a Democrat from Oshkosh, talk all day about his solutions to today's problems. He was the adult in the room, with Republican State Sen. Glenn Grothman down the table from him.

Grothman looked uncomfortable, irritated and inconvenienced, throwing off answers only because he had to.

The highlight was Harris' answer on drug testing. It was the only major applause line that prompted a warning from the moderator. This is gold:

Harris: "But there's a presumption here that people that are poor are more likely to be abusing drugs, and I'm not sure we have any evidence to support that. I think it's a little insulting that we jump to that conclusion. I bet you none of the business men that are going to get your manufacturing tax credits are going to have to pee into a bottle before they get it." 

Free Markets are Dying because of forced employee Health care, Minimum Wages and Paid Sick Days!!!

We are so owned by big business that local editorials apologetically shill for them without even thinking anymore.  

The opening line in this Orange County Register opinion piece is supposed to be scary:

America’s businesses are getting older and fatter, while many new businesses are dying in infancy. Regulations, bailouts and crony capitalism are choking off our economic promise. A study last month by the Brookings Institution found … young people are starting companies at a sharply lower rate than in the past. 

A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers shows a major cause: The cost of complying with government regulations … falls disproportionately on smaller, newer businesses.

Why? Well first, we’re supposed to assume the National Association of Manufacturers is a believable unbiased source not looking out for its own industry…I don't think so. I guess we’re also supposed to reel back in horror at what the editorial lists as "onerous" big government regulations, but I don’t think so.

Governments are imposing onerous new rules on a seemingly daily basis: health insurance, minimum wage hikes and mandatory paid sick days for even hourly employees.

Yes, health care, the minimum wage and paid sick days are "onerous," contributing to America’s demise.

The opinion piece even admits these “onerous” regulatory mandates force smaller businesses to rely less on our social safety nets while leaving larger more politically connected companies on the public dole. I'm sorry, but business shouldn't rely on any social safety nets, right?

These mandates shift substantial social welfare costs directly onto often-struggling small businesses, while being proportionally much less costly for larger companies.

Oh, and did you know income inequality wasn't caused by chintzy business owners looking for cheap labor that relied on taxpayer supported food stamps and health care, it was our meddling government:

It also makes the arguments of socialism distressingly more attractive to those who don’t understand that free markets are our best chance for prosperity for all. Income inequality — which is directly caused by flawed government policy…

The solution to flawed government policy…wait for it; government policy. Would I kid you:

Policy must incubate our new and small businesses...

Walker cuts food stamps tied to heating assistance, just in time for winter.

Winters have always been difficult in the state for low income Wisconsinites. In the past, many who needed heating assistance also received food stamps. Not anymore, thanks to Scott Walker.

Perhaps Walker believes he's helping people pay their energy bills instead of living a life dependent on food:

AP: Cuts to the nation's food stamp program enacted this year are only affecting four states (Wisconsin is one of them), far from the sweeping overhaul that Republicans had pushed ... attempted to save money by scaling back what lawmakers called a loophole in the food stamp program that entitles low-income families to more food aid if they participate in a federal heating assistance program. Among the 16 states that allow the practice or some form of it, 12 governors have taken steps to avoid the food stamp cuts. The states' workaround — mostly by Democratic governors — has infuriated Republicans who pushed the cuts.

As of now, the cuts will only affect Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey and New Hampshire. It's unclear how many people will be affected. Officials in Wisconsin, New Jersey and New Hampshire said they don't track that number.

Walker springs Big Government Drug Test on Wisconsinites who we all know are drug addicts.

Boy, we’re so not in Wisconsin anymore.

Scott Walker’s talk of actually drug testing childless individuals getting unemployment and/or food stamps is the height of big government Republicanism. So now we can confirm the unemployed are drug addicted freeloaders? Can you say kick ‘em when they’re down? Unconstitutional?

What Republicans don't want to deal with are the “free market” consequences of their corporate offshoring/inversion policies. Yea, go after the guy who lost his job instead of asking why big business has scaled down their workforce while pushing their "job creator" myth. And Republicans continue to use the courts to push for everything they want:

Gov. Scott Walker's promises for a second term include cutting property and income taxes for individuals and requiring drug tests for those seeking unemployment and food stamp benefits. "We believe that there will potentially be a fight with the federal government and in court. ... Our goal here is not to make it harder to get government assistance; it's to make it easier to get a job," Walker said.

Walker rationalizes unwarranted drug testing by suggesting he's actually helping the unemployed pass their employer drug test. What a guy? Did you ever get the idea this guy never had a real job in his life? Who requires drug tests? Let's start with politicians? I wish.
 

Rep. Robin Vos had to chime in:

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said ... that the federal government should take its cues from state officials and try to help them reach goals like that rather than hinder them. "The system is upside down. It should be us pushing them," Vos said.

John Nygren loves the idea too, and said so on WPR’s Joy Cardine Show, included in the audio clip below. But what Walker, Vos and Nygren are proposing is only a starting point. Despite the unconstitutional nature of drug test, the following repugnant rant contains many of the ideas above, and a few additional suggestions mentioned often by Rep. Paul Ryan. Let’s be clear, this is how conservatives think, starting with Nygren, and ending with former Arizona state senator Russell Pearce:

Huffinton Post: Former Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce resigned as Arizona Republican Party's first vice chair late Sunday after receiving criticism over recent comments he made about women on Medicaid.

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get [female recipients] Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations," Pearce said. "Then, we'll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job … (people out there [who] need help) " should get it from "family, church, and community," not the government.

“No cash for Ding Dongs and Ho Hos, you’d only get money for 15-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and powdered milk – all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want a steak or frozen pizza, then you’d have to get a job. Ever live in a military barracks? You’ll maintain your property in a clean, good state of repair, and your home will be subjected to an inspection at any time, possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or an X-Box 360, then get a job.”

 Ironically, Pearce and most Republicans call the above “small government?” Oh, and the old tube TV's, you can't buy them anymore, so enough with with the big flat panel TV talk:

Pearce insisted he favored a small-government solution to poverty.

Pearce is like every other Republicans, he’s a freeloader:

When he’s not hosting his KKNT-AM program, Pearce helps promote the Elderly Assistance Fund in his taxpayer-paid position in the Maricopa County treasurer’s office ... paid $85,000 a year in that role, the newspaper reported, and he also draws a public pension from previous government work. Pearce accepted but didn't report nearly $40,000 in paid junkets and college football tickets from Fiesta Bowl officials while helping them receive state subsidies. 

Ryan’s “Opportunity Grant:” Put everyone using Social Safety nets under Contract, penalize them for failure.

You really can't make this stuff up.

With the promise of streamlining all of the different safety net programs and cutting red tape, Paul Ryan has devised an amazingly convoluted solution to his imagine "social hammock" problem.

Ryan can't hide from this one...

Imagine those families struggling to make ends meet, on assistance, and under contract by a “local provider.” Call them a neighborhood "jobs boss." Someone who watches over their every move, wagging a finger and doling out consequences for missing job training benchmarks, income and wage expectations... 

Big government enough for you yet? Working but not making enough and collecting food stamps? Now you have two bosses. And the one that helps you feed your family with food share is hanging a contract over your head…with penalties.

Here's a sample from Ryan's transcript:

Take an example. Let’s call her Andrea. She’s 24. She has two kids … Her husband left … her only work experience was a two-year stint in retail. She and her kids now live with her parents in a two-bedroom mobile home. She’s been trying to find work … She doesn't have a car. She can’t afford child care. And her dream is to become a teacher.

Under this plan, Andrea would go to a local service provider. She would sit down with a case manager and develop an “opportunity plan.” That plan would pinpoint her strengths; her opportunities for growth; her short-, medium-, and long-term goals. The two of them would sign a contract. Andrea would agree to meet specific benchmarks of success, a timeline for meeting them, consequences for missing them, and rewards for exceeding them.

Ryan Spreads Big Government in the form of oversight, more red tape and reporting…

A neutral third party would keep tabs on each provider and their success rate. It would look at key metrics agreed to by the state and federal government: How many people are finding jobs? How many people are getting off assistance? How many people are moving out of poverty? And so on. Any provider who came up short could no longer participate. And at the end of the program, we would pool the results and go from there. 

Here's 7 minutes of absolute lunacy, if you've got the time (edited for time and sanity):



Join Ryan's "War for America's Poor."

I also found this analysis over the problem with any form of block grant system:

The block-grant approach has fundamental flaws. A 2014 analysis by the Center for Law and Social Policy, or CLASP, summarized the problems: “Block grants do not respond well to economic downturns like the recent Great Recession, thus leaving families, communities, and states without resources just when they need them most. They are ill-suited to supporting core national goals – such as ensuring that every American starts life healthy and well-nourished – but instead contribute to disparate life chances based on where a child is born. And, since there is no direct link between spending and need, Congressional appropriations for block grants tend to shrink over time.”