The Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program provides unemployment benefits to eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. In other words, it gives money to be people who get laid-off. Their job disappeared. They didn’t get fired. And the way this is paid for is by levying a tax on employers. Instead of giving you an extra sixty or seventy bucks a month, they give that money to the state and federal governments, just in case they have to ship your job to India. It’s not really that complicated. People who are out of work through no fault of their own are given a weekly stipend to help them through the transition from joblessness to employment. When times are tough and lots of folks can’t quickly find a new job, the government extends the benefits from six months to a year, or maybe even for a longer period. The point is, people who did nothing wrong and are out of work shouldn’t be ruined financially and left homeless and bankrupt.
But that’s not how people on the right see things. Newt Gingrich, for example, thinks that receiving unemployment insurance payments makes people lazy. He also thinks we should drug test people before they can receive the check that their employers paid for. That’s right. Maybe you didn’t want unemployment insurance. Maybe you would have rather had that extra sixty or seventy bucks in your paycheck. But Newt Gingrich wants you to pee in a cup before you see your own money.
How about if we ask people to pee in a cup before they see any of their 401(k) money or collect disability insurance payments? How about if we require presidential candidates to prove that they don’t have genital warts? Does Newt want to sign up for that?
I didn’t think so.
Newt also thinks we should drug test people before we give them food stamps. So, if you’re an eight-year old and your mom likes to smoke pot, you get to starve.
Here’s my idea. No one can receive any benefit from the government, whether it be a Social Security check or a mortgage deduction or a subsidy for their farm, unless they are registered to vote and have actually voted in one of the last three federal elections (including primaries) in which they were eligible to vote. Forget turning people away because they don’t have a photo ID. Have literally everyone vote, all the time. You can provide waivers for people who are mentally ill or incapacitated. And people can always vote for no one or nothing. Just show up and cast a vote for “don’t care.” The idea is that you can’t expect the government to provide for you if you won’t provide for the government.
The first thing that would happen under this new system is that conservatives like Newt Gingrich would go extinct. And that makes it worthwhile in my book.
Newt Gingrich is a genital wart. You do something you know intellectually is foolish and risky but sounded and felt good at the time, and you wake up in the morning with a Newt you can’t get rid of.
Or a klingon.
I know that in Australia people have to vote (or get fined). I’d be interested to read from someone here how that is working out there? Are folks better informed? Would people rather vote than pay the fines? Is there a “don’t care” option”?
Of course, with one party wanting to keep people from voting (or being informed too) I don’t think the US could have a mandated voting system.
I know you’re snarking here Boo, but there’s probably a dozen or so less controversial ways we could tinker with our electoral institutions to make it easier for people to vote. True, most of the laws on the books are at the state level, but not all of them. If Obama wins in 2012, I hope he calls up a few Professors that are experts on election law (Sam Issacharroff anyone?) and tells them to lead drafting teams to put together electoral reform bills. Nothing radical, just a number of sensible reforms that taken as a whole represent fundamental change. Then gauge the temperature of congress for each of them, and have friendly senators/congressman introduce them in turn until one passes. This was essentially how FDR passed a number of his bills and I think its a good model. Multiple drafting teams, delivering fully baked bills to Congress, and daring them to turn down every iteration of the bill. Congress gets to tweak according to the political demands of the moment, but the President delivers the message that if one iteration of the bill fails, there will be another introduced shortly.
my friend and fellow scrapple-news writer Scott says we should not only drug test welfare recipients, we should also provide give them physical and dental examinatons as well, and then compassionately provide them with the necessary medical services they need to thrive.
in jest, of course.
says over the top stuff to compensate for the reality of his personal life. He long ago realized he could do just about anything he wanted if he attacked the cultural left.
Your idea is, by the way, completely unconstitutional.
Pat Robertson is once again the winner when he makes the comment “What’s this mac ‘n cheese? Is it a black thing? I’ve never once had it”
Though he still wears the crown of arrogant cluelessness, his comment does demonstrate just how wide the chasm is between his class and the 99%.
How does one negotiate with a class of people who don’t know what mac n cheese is?
So, if you’re poor, you pee. If you’re rich, you don’t.
It certainly points out why OWS exists.
Newtie is crazy and will make a mistake very soon. He’s just a Rep candidate of the month.
Not an entirely bad idea. I prefer a more direct approach to the drug test rhetoric: require that every legislator, president, judge, and bureaucrat who requires drug testing for any American be subject to what they require. Which is to say unannounced visits by the bottle brigade to White House meetings and press conferences, Congressional debates, Supreme Court and other federal court sessions, and of course campaign events featuring incumbents (and why not throw in potential future incumbents?)
Or we could just start by abolishing the DEA and all fed support for the drugwar nationwide, and thus take a significant chunk out of the deficit.
As to the voting plan, a waiver for the mentally ill would clearly and unconstitutionally discriminate against the GOP and the teabaggers.
All elected politicians should be required to take a drug test and a sobriety test before they are ever allowed to speak from the floor or cast a vote. Should they fail that test then they will be ejected from the floor immediately and must enter rehab immediately. If they fail three times then they will lose their right to represent their constituents and a new election will be held to replace them. That should get rid of a bunch of worthless politicians very quickly!