It’s obviously not a major step in the right direction, but South Carolina will no longer pay out unemployment benefits to drug addicts – assuming lawmakers approve a set of stopgap recommendations adopted by a S.C. House of Representatives panel.
Yeah … way to go S.C. lawmakers!
No word yet on how much the measure will save, but we’re guessing it won’t make much of a dent in the $700 million (and growing) tab that South Carolina’s Employment Security Commission has rung up with the federal government to cover jobless benefits in a state with 12.3% unemployment.
Ironically, these ESC “reforms” were pushed through by Rep. Annette Young (RINO – Dorchester), whose battle with Dewar’s white label Scotch is legendary at the S.C. State House.
Anyway, Young and her GOP colleagues in the state legislature appointed three of their former peers to run the ESC, paying them six-figure salaries (and exorbitant expense accounts) to basically run the agency into the ground.
In addition to its woeful fiscal management and chronic inability to place workers in available positions, FITS has recently uncovered several additional problems at this incompetent bureaucracy – including taxpayer-funded union recruitment and allegations of reverse discrimination, improper disbursement of benefits and, most recently, a sex-for-hire scam reportedly involving at least one top administrator.
The ESC is currently being investigated by South Carolina’s Legislative Audit Council.
By Billy Bob January 6, 2010 at 12:53 pm
A “cooling off” period of about 50 years before an ex-legislator can hold ANY state-paying job would solve a LOT of this State’s problems. THIS is an article worth pursuing!!!
By YouMakeMeFITS January 6, 2010 at 1:34 pm
This is yet another ridiculous feel good measure that will probably lose the state a lot of money and waste a lot of benefits that could have been distributed to those who needed them while in between jobs in a tough economy. Consider, how the hell are we going to figure out who is and isn’t a drug addict? I know, make them all pass drug tests…O.K., next, how many people who would be getting unemployment are potentially drug addicts anyway 1%, 2%, 5% maybe 8%?
Nevertheless, you are going to have to drug test all 100% of them to incorporate this feel good measure, and not just right after they start, but periodically all the way through the 14 (or 20-28 weeks now?) that they are entitled to benefits. Guess what, those hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of drug tests are going to cost money. Also, the state is either going to pay high priced private contractors – or hire full time employees to administer, talley, read and implement the results of the drug test. Not to mention lab fees.
In the end, this ludicrous feel good measure will certainly cost more than it ever saves.
In addition – what about legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine? If you are on unemployment does that effectively preclude you from having a drink after say 3-4 a.m. on the night before a week day, because you might be randomly tested the next morning by one of the new government lab technicians who test unemployed persons receiving benefits to see if they are addicted to drugs.
When one actually thinks about it – which I am sure the author did not – this is such a stupid wasteful measure, which will inadvertently grow government. Which is exactly why the GOP will probably love it. FITS even now considers this once RINO to be a little more “real” Republican I bet.
By CNSYD January 6, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Question. What makes someone a “drug addict”? It would seem that be difficult. Is alcohol a drug? What about obtaining prescription drugs under false pretense? Does that make you an addict or were you just trying to make money on resale? What about a misdemeanor conviction for possession of “drug paraphernalia”? Does that mean you are an “addict”?Seems that even tobacco could be considered a “drug”? I am not arguing with the intent but the devil is in the details. We don’t need an attorney full employment law as this seems to be on the surface.
By scooter January 6, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Many good comments about the problems with this idea. Also, many people are on prescription pain killers, antidepressants and many other controlled drugs. They will show up in any drug test. Plus a number of people are on Methadone, not only for drug addiction, but also pain mangement. This will show up on urine or hair tests. Also, some addicts can and do work jobs along side you and me. If they are laid off, why can they not get unemployment? They have been working! Is making them homeless going to stop drug use? NO. Addiction is a recognized mental health issue. Punishment is not the answer.
By Justsayin January 6, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Why single out the unemployed who were working?
Why not drug test those that get a welfare check and food stamps?
By Rebel January 6, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Why not drug test ALL state employees? All the time, randomly? Why not drug test kids who attend public schools, people who take public transportation, or call the cops, or have a drivers license, or are the recipients of any public goods and services? Because it’s a lame brained idea! I agree with YouMakeMeFITS, we’ll need an entire arm of DHEC devoted to drug testing, and it will expand government beyond all reason. Unless you’re driving an oil tanker, leave the drug testing to those on parole or probation. I hate the very idea of it for anything beyond law enforcement. I want the government out of people’s lives, not able to intrude on their bodies, especially as those workers paid taxes for their unemployment benefits.
By jerry January 25, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Start with Welfare recipients and food stamp collectors…… that is where the big fraudsters are.