Hey All,
As some of you know, I've spent the last year submitting poetry to a variety of organizations holding contests. I currently have a submission in with Matter Press' The Journal of Compressed Arts. I'm not sure if I'll win the competition, but I was pleased to receive an email inquiring about the use of my "compression statement" (part of the cover letter) on the Matter Press blog.
You can check out my compression statement at:
http://matterpress.com/blog/2012/01/14/compression-monique-finley/
_____
I'll keep everyone posted on this and the other competitions! Oh, that, reminds me: I didn't win the Tennessee Williams Festival Poetry competition, just follow the link if you'd like to see who did win! Congrats to each of the finalists!
15 January 2012
07 January 2012
Now Vitter Wants to Drug Test Welfare Recipients to Save Tax Dollars
Dear Fellow Non-Pols (FYI: Citizens, not politicians),
I received another update from Sen. David Vitter. This time he thinks it would be a good idea to start drug testing welfare recipients, now, as a basic concept this sounds like something that makes sense. What you're not being told is where the money for the drug testing would come from and which drug testing companies would profit from states requiring drug testing for welfare. In one scenario, the money might come from the welfare funds themselves, which amounts to less aid to less people. In another scenario, the drug testing could be paid for through a raise in taxes, which means citizens might be paying for more bureaucracy.
Creating a new requirement for recipients and then creating another invasive function for the government is NOT actually a fix for the issue of "government waste and fraud." In fact, the suggestion is purely designed to increase "waste and fraud." It is a typically Vitter move and it mimics the attitude of the "professionals" within our entire political system:
1.) Blame the Poor (let'em eat cake)
2.) Work the Shit out of the Middle Class ("work or become poor")
3.) Corporate Welfare for the Rich (plus, Coddle the Ubër Wealthy)
If Vitter really wanted to save tax payer dollars, he'd want to confirm whether or not there is a problem with welfare recipients and drugs.
_____
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients (FL Case Study)
Let's take Florida (a state whose recent history is filled with "government waste and fraud") as our case study in implementing a drug testing requirement on welfare recipients (2% tested positive, 2% didn't test, 96% tested negative for drug use). So, Gov. Rick Scott's claim that welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than non-welfare recipients really is meant to point the "government waste and fraud" finger at the impoverished who have the gall and audacity to seek government assistance. Fortunately, Judge Mary Scriven "issued a temporary injunction" that the governor plans to appeal. Apparently, Judge Scriven was concerned about the violation of privacy, illegal search and seizure, and the targeting of one class of people receiving government aid (recipients of other government funds--scholarships, contracts, etc.--are not required to drug test). And, as expected, Gov. Rick Scott, continues to claim the law is meant "to help children and get parents back to work..."
Remember earlier, when I mentioned a couple of ways to pay for this program? Well, Gov. Rick Scott decision was to make the applicants pay for the testing, if they passed the drug test the government would reimburse them. So, the 96% of applicants who paid an average of $30 per drug test were supposed to be reimbursed that money. Basically, the Florida government paid for pointless drug testing. Let's dig a little further; let's check out his information on the State of Florida's official website. Remember a few sentences ago, when I mentioned other recipients of Florida govie funds aren't required to drug test? Well, according to the Govenor's website, agencies falling under the Governor's "purview" are/will be subjected to drug testing. Take a look at Gov. Rick Scott's Executive Order No. 11-58 (pdf).
What would Gov. Scott have to gain from pushing forward legislation that targets the poor as well as government employees and also benefits drug testing facilities, labs, and product lines through guaranteed government funds?
Scott and Solantic.
From the Tampa Bay Times: "A few days before he took office in January, Scott moved his shares in Solantic Corp., a chain of 32 urgent care centers, to the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust. Scott co-founded Solantic in 2001 and was involved in its operation until last year. His wife's trust now holds enough stock in the private company to control it."
From Wikipedia: "Solantic, based in Jacksonville, Florida was co-founded in 2001 by [Rick] Scott and Karen Bowling...Solantic opened its first urgent care center in 2002. It provides urgent care services, immunizations, physicals, drug screening, and care for injured workers. The corporation attracts patients who do not have insurance, cannot get appointments with their primary care physicians, or do not have primary care physicians. Solantic is intended to be an alternative to the emergency room care that these types of patients often seek, or for not seeing a doctor at all...In 2006, Scott said that his plans for Solantic were to establish a national brand of medical clinics. In August 2007, the company received a $40 million investment from a private equity firm and said that it expected to open 35 clinics by the end of 2009, with annual revenues of $100 million once all these clinics were open, compared to $20 million at the time. As of March 2009, Solantic had 24 centers, all located in Florida....Solantic was the target of an employment discrimination suit, which allegedly claimed that from a Scott-directed policy to not hire elderly or overweight applicants, preferring 'mainstream' candidates. It was settled for an undisclosed sum on May 23, 2007."
Who is Karen Bowling and what is she doing now? From the Florida Governor's website: "Karen E. Bowling, 56, of Jacksonville, is the deputy chief administrative officer for Jacksonville Mayor Alvin Brown. She succeeds Emily Smith and is appointed for a term beginning August 30, 2011, and ending May 31, 2014...Previously, Bowling was chief executive officer of Solantic Walk-In Urgent Care from 2001 to 2011. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Jacksonville Electric Authority, the Florida State College at Jacksonville Foundation, Associated Industries of Florida and Crime Stoppers of North Florida. She is also on the advisory board for the Jacksonville Humane Society. She received an associate degree from Florida State College at Jacksonville and a bachelor’s degree from the University of North Florida."
Does Mayor Brown know of Bowling's long time connections and business relationship with the governor? Is her position yet another example of the corrupt crony capitalism that continues to plague our nation?
Let us recap: Governor Scott moved his shares of Solantic to a trust in his wife's name. His former co-founder is now "deputy chief administrative officer for Jacksonville Mayor Alvin Brown". Executive Order 11-58 requires government agencies under the "purview" of the governor's office to begin drug testing new hires and conducting random drug screenings of previously hired, while also requiring drug testing of welfare recipients (who, as it turns out, aren't actually using drugs at a higher average than non-recipients).
With an appeal promised and the injunction only a temporary reprieve, it seems this issue is not resolved. Which also means that the governor is prepared to spend even more tax dollars fighting for a "law" based on erroneous numbers and rife with class discrimination. So much for helping children and parents.
_____
With out further ado: Vitter. Senator Vitter has now hopped on the Gov. Scott band wagon, as you can see in the letter below. What is ridiculous is that Vitter wants to do this on the national level...right, because it's worked so well for Florida...only, that's what proponents argue, "it worked great for Florida." As you can see from the numerous links above, that attitude is a fallacy. Yet, when the corporate elite and political elite (i.e., rich) decide to target the impoverished (i.e., unwealthy citizens) facts seldom come into play, generally they toss about unfounded accusations and unsubstantiated blame in order to instigate and hate monger.
So, in his traditional style of unfailing incompetency, Vitter has once again proposed a "solution" that solves nothing, creates more problems, and ultimately serves to further stigmatize the impoverished. Good job asshole!
From U.S. News: Vitter's opinion on Drug Testing Welfare Recipients. By the way, Vitter doesn't just want to drug test welfare recipients, he also wants to cut funding to federal assistance programs. He also admittedly paid for a prostitute (a crime) and has never been "punished" because the prosecutor never brought charges. And, for one last piece of reading amusement, Vitter was deemed "one of the most corrupt members of congress."
I received another update from Sen. David Vitter. This time he thinks it would be a good idea to start drug testing welfare recipients, now, as a basic concept this sounds like something that makes sense. What you're not being told is where the money for the drug testing would come from and which drug testing companies would profit from states requiring drug testing for welfare. In one scenario, the money might come from the welfare funds themselves, which amounts to less aid to less people. In another scenario, the drug testing could be paid for through a raise in taxes, which means citizens might be paying for more bureaucracy.
Creating a new requirement for recipients and then creating another invasive function for the government is NOT actually a fix for the issue of "government waste and fraud." In fact, the suggestion is purely designed to increase "waste and fraud." It is a typically Vitter move and it mimics the attitude of the "professionals" within our entire political system:
1.) Blame the Poor (let'em eat cake)
2.) Work the Shit out of the Middle Class ("work or become poor")
3.) Corporate Welfare for the Rich (plus, Coddle the Ubër Wealthy)
If Vitter really wanted to save tax payer dollars, he'd want to confirm whether or not there is a problem with welfare recipients and drugs.
_____
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients (FL Case Study)
Let's take Florida (a state whose recent history is filled with "government waste and fraud") as our case study in implementing a drug testing requirement on welfare recipients (2% tested positive, 2% didn't test, 96% tested negative for drug use). So, Gov. Rick Scott's claim that welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than non-welfare recipients really is meant to point the "government waste and fraud" finger at the impoverished who have the gall and audacity to seek government assistance. Fortunately, Judge Mary Scriven "issued a temporary injunction" that the governor plans to appeal. Apparently, Judge Scriven was concerned about the violation of privacy, illegal search and seizure, and the targeting of one class of people receiving government aid (recipients of other government funds--scholarships, contracts, etc.--are not required to drug test). And, as expected, Gov. Rick Scott, continues to claim the law is meant "to help children and get parents back to work..."
Remember earlier, when I mentioned a couple of ways to pay for this program? Well, Gov. Rick Scott decision was to make the applicants pay for the testing, if they passed the drug test the government would reimburse them. So, the 96% of applicants who paid an average of $30 per drug test were supposed to be reimbursed that money. Basically, the Florida government paid for pointless drug testing. Let's dig a little further; let's check out his information on the State of Florida's official website. Remember a few sentences ago, when I mentioned other recipients of Florida govie funds aren't required to drug test? Well, according to the Govenor's website, agencies falling under the Governor's "purview" are/will be subjected to drug testing. Take a look at Gov. Rick Scott's Executive Order No. 11-58 (pdf).
What would Gov. Scott have to gain from pushing forward legislation that targets the poor as well as government employees and also benefits drug testing facilities, labs, and product lines through guaranteed government funds?
Scott and Solantic.
From the Tampa Bay Times: "A few days before he took office in January, Scott moved his shares in Solantic Corp., a chain of 32 urgent care centers, to the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust. Scott co-founded Solantic in 2001 and was involved in its operation until last year. His wife's trust now holds enough stock in the private company to control it."
From Wikipedia: "Solantic, based in Jacksonville, Florida was co-founded in 2001 by [Rick] Scott and Karen Bowling...Solantic opened its first urgent care center in 2002. It provides urgent care services, immunizations, physicals, drug screening, and care for injured workers. The corporation attracts patients who do not have insurance, cannot get appointments with their primary care physicians, or do not have primary care physicians. Solantic is intended to be an alternative to the emergency room care that these types of patients often seek, or for not seeing a doctor at all...In 2006, Scott said that his plans for Solantic were to establish a national brand of medical clinics. In August 2007, the company received a $40 million investment from a private equity firm and said that it expected to open 35 clinics by the end of 2009, with annual revenues of $100 million once all these clinics were open, compared to $20 million at the time. As of March 2009, Solantic had 24 centers, all located in Florida....Solantic was the target of an employment discrimination suit, which allegedly claimed that from a Scott-directed policy to not hire elderly or overweight applicants, preferring 'mainstream' candidates. It was settled for an undisclosed sum on May 23, 2007."
Who is Karen Bowling and what is she doing now? From the Florida Governor's website: "Karen E. Bowling, 56, of Jacksonville, is the deputy chief administrative officer for Jacksonville Mayor Alvin Brown. She succeeds Emily Smith and is appointed for a term beginning August 30, 2011, and ending May 31, 2014...Previously, Bowling was chief executive officer of Solantic Walk-In Urgent Care from 2001 to 2011. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Jacksonville Electric Authority, the Florida State College at Jacksonville Foundation, Associated Industries of Florida and Crime Stoppers of North Florida. She is also on the advisory board for the Jacksonville Humane Society. She received an associate degree from Florida State College at Jacksonville and a bachelor’s degree from the University of North Florida."
Does Mayor Brown know of Bowling's long time connections and business relationship with the governor? Is her position yet another example of the corrupt crony capitalism that continues to plague our nation?
Let us recap: Governor Scott moved his shares of Solantic to a trust in his wife's name. His former co-founder is now "deputy chief administrative officer for Jacksonville Mayor Alvin Brown". Executive Order 11-58 requires government agencies under the "purview" of the governor's office to begin drug testing new hires and conducting random drug screenings of previously hired, while also requiring drug testing of welfare recipients (who, as it turns out, aren't actually using drugs at a higher average than non-recipients).
With an appeal promised and the injunction only a temporary reprieve, it seems this issue is not resolved. Which also means that the governor is prepared to spend even more tax dollars fighting for a "law" based on erroneous numbers and rife with class discrimination. So much for helping children and parents.
_____
With out further ado: Vitter. Senator Vitter has now hopped on the Gov. Scott band wagon, as you can see in the letter below. What is ridiculous is that Vitter wants to do this on the national level...right, because it's worked so well for Florida...only, that's what proponents argue, "it worked great for Florida." As you can see from the numerous links above, that attitude is a fallacy. Yet, when the corporate elite and political elite (i.e., rich) decide to target the impoverished (i.e., unwealthy citizens) facts seldom come into play, generally they toss about unfounded accusations and unsubstantiated blame in order to instigate and hate monger.
Dear Friend,
As we face a national debt that recently zoomed past $15 trillion, I think we can all agree that reducing wasteful spending should be one of our very highest priorities. That’s something I’ve always fought for as I’ve represented you in Washington.
One step we can take to combat government waste and fraud is requiring drug testing for recipients of federal welfare benefits. Regular, random screenings would push addicts to seek the help they desperately need and would prevent your hard-earned tax dollars from being used in wasteful, destructive ways..
Even the strongest supporters of welfare would have to agree that government programs should not encourage lifelong dependency, and that the children and families associated with addiction would benefit from ending this cycle of destruction.
I recently wrote an op-ed for U.S. News and World Report in support of this policy position. Click here to read the full article, and let me know your thoughts by contacting me through my web site at www.vitter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
David Vitter
United States Senator
So, in his traditional style of unfailing incompetency, Vitter has once again proposed a "solution" that solves nothing, creates more problems, and ultimately serves to further stigmatize the impoverished. Good job asshole!
From U.S. News: Vitter's opinion on Drug Testing Welfare Recipients. By the way, Vitter doesn't just want to drug test welfare recipients, he also wants to cut funding to federal assistance programs. He also admittedly paid for a prostitute (a crime) and has never been "punished" because the prosecutor never brought charges. And, for one last piece of reading amusement, Vitter was deemed "one of the most corrupt members of congress."
13 December 2011
U.S. House Betrays U.S. Citizens with H. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Update, 1-2-2012: President Obama signed NDAA FY2012 into law over the New Years holiday weekend. Here is the link to the presidential statement released concerning Obama's "serious reservations". If his reservations are so damn serious, why sign it, why ask for the provisions? Sounds more like he's paving the way for codified authoritarianism. Remember: the Nazis were obeying the law.)
Fellow Heroes, as promised:
H. 1540 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 vote and bill from govtrack.us
I pay a good bit of attention to the news, yet, I don't remember hearing about this passing in the House of Representatives back in May of 2011. I did, however, hear about the senate version of the bill passing in December of 2011 (yeah, that's now in case you were wondering). To learn more about the senate's betrayal of America follow this link. This is the House's version of a bill that declares the United States military can arrest anyone inside the United States that the government declares a terrorist. Peaceful Occupy protesters in London are currently being labeled terrorists (see my S. 1867 post).
H. 1540 passed the House of Representatives with 322 Ayes, 96 Nos, and 13 Not Voting.
That's 322 Traitors to the People.
96 Heroes to the People.
And 13, Absent to the People.
The 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the People peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While the First Amendment exists as a complex sentence, its components are actually quite simple, regardless of what the courts may have decided over the years:
- Congress CANNOT make laws "respecting an establishment of religion"
Religious tolerance is law: Congress cannot push for one religion over another, to do so would be to establish a state-sanctioned religion. Every law that grants religious organizations special privileges is in violation of this amendment. (Sorry to break that one to America, I know it comes as a surprise).
- Congress CANNOT make laws "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"
Religious tolerance is law: Congress cannot prohibit religious followers from practicing their religion. There are many religions and the people who follow these religions have the right to do so without prohibition from the government.
- Congress CANNOT make laws "abridging the freedom of speech"
Free speech is law: Congress cannot create laws banning speech. Hate to break it to everyone but speech can be negative or positive (hate or love) and congress has no right to ban any of it. Isn't that great? Doesn't that suck? And, yet, isn't that one of the things that makes this an awesome place? You have the right to say whatever you want. Holy Shit, what a novel concept that totally goes against politically correct speech and every hate-speech law that exists.
- Congress CANNOT make laws "abridging the freedom of...the press"
Free press is law: Congress cannot create laws preventing the press from reporting the news. Which means all those federal organizations created by congress to monitor and police airwaves (FCC, etc.) are actually in violation of the 1st Amendment's free speech and free press clauses - oops.
- Congress CANNOT make laws "abridging the freedom of...the People peaceably to assemble"
Peaceful assembly is law: protesters can peacefully assemble and congress has no legal standing to create law that criminalizes that peaceful assembly. Yet another reason why it is imperative that protesters remain peaceful during these trying times. Bring your tents (thank you Wall Street Occupiers)! Wear your tents (thank you Melbourne Occupiers)!
- Congress CANNOT make laws "abridging the freedom of...the People...to petition the Government for redress of grievances"
Petitioning the Government for redress of grievances is law: which means that Congress is in breach of the 1st Amendment when attempting to pass legislation meant to hinder the people from petitioning their government - NDAA allows indefinite detention of anyone (citizen or non-citizen) within the United States. By this law the United States Government reserves the "right" to determine who is a terrorist (Occupy movement - ???), in essence, the U.S. Government can decide that peaceful protest to petition the government is a terrorist action.
In addition to the numerous ways NDAA shreds the 1st Amendment, citizens will also lose their Constitutional Rights guaranteed by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments with the "indefinite" detention clause. The 15th, 19th, and 26th are arguable since they each deal with voting rights, but I strongly believe that a person being held indefinitely, is indefinitely denied the right to vote.
So, now that you know the many ways that Congress is using NDAA FY2012 to fuck citizens out of their Constitution Rights, why don't you take a minute and sign the damn Petition to OBAMA to VETO the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (S. 1867).
Please share this petition with as many people as you can.
And, remember, the only way to protect our right to free speech is to use our voices to speak our minds. Stay strong through this winter Occupiers you're doing your country a great service! Stay safe, stay peaceful! Stay loud and proud!
Fellow Heroes, as promised:
H. 1540 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 vote and bill from govtrack.us
I pay a good bit of attention to the news, yet, I don't remember hearing about this passing in the House of Representatives back in May of 2011. I did, however, hear about the senate version of the bill passing in December of 2011 (yeah, that's now in case you were wondering). To learn more about the senate's betrayal of America follow this link. This is the House's version of a bill that declares the United States military can arrest anyone inside the United States that the government declares a terrorist. Peaceful Occupy protesters in London are currently being labeled terrorists (see my S. 1867 post).
H. 1540 passed the House of Representatives with 322 Ayes, 96 Nos, and 13 Not Voting.
That's 322 Traitors to the People.
96 Heroes to the People.
And 13, Absent to the People.
The 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the People peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While the First Amendment exists as a complex sentence, its components are actually quite simple, regardless of what the courts may have decided over the years:
- Congress CANNOT make laws "respecting an establishment of religion"
Religious tolerance is law: Congress cannot push for one religion over another, to do so would be to establish a state-sanctioned religion. Every law that grants religious organizations special privileges is in violation of this amendment. (Sorry to break that one to America, I know it comes as a surprise).
- Congress CANNOT make laws "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"
Religious tolerance is law: Congress cannot prohibit religious followers from practicing their religion. There are many religions and the people who follow these religions have the right to do so without prohibition from the government.
- Congress CANNOT make laws "abridging the freedom of speech"
Free speech is law: Congress cannot create laws banning speech. Hate to break it to everyone but speech can be negative or positive (hate or love) and congress has no right to ban any of it. Isn't that great? Doesn't that suck? And, yet, isn't that one of the things that makes this an awesome place? You have the right to say whatever you want. Holy Shit, what a novel concept that totally goes against politically correct speech and every hate-speech law that exists.
- Congress CANNOT make laws "abridging the freedom of...the press"
Free press is law: Congress cannot create laws preventing the press from reporting the news. Which means all those federal organizations created by congress to monitor and police airwaves (FCC, etc.) are actually in violation of the 1st Amendment's free speech and free press clauses - oops.
- Congress CANNOT make laws "abridging the freedom of...the People peaceably to assemble"
Peaceful assembly is law: protesters can peacefully assemble and congress has no legal standing to create law that criminalizes that peaceful assembly. Yet another reason why it is imperative that protesters remain peaceful during these trying times. Bring your tents (thank you Wall Street Occupiers)! Wear your tents (thank you Melbourne Occupiers)!
- Congress CANNOT make laws "abridging the freedom of...the People...to petition the Government for redress of grievances"
Petitioning the Government for redress of grievances is law: which means that Congress is in breach of the 1st Amendment when attempting to pass legislation meant to hinder the people from petitioning their government - NDAA allows indefinite detention of anyone (citizen or non-citizen) within the United States. By this law the United States Government reserves the "right" to determine who is a terrorist (Occupy movement - ???), in essence, the U.S. Government can decide that peaceful protest to petition the government is a terrorist action.
In addition to the numerous ways NDAA shreds the 1st Amendment, citizens will also lose their Constitutional Rights guaranteed by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments with the "indefinite" detention clause. The 15th, 19th, and 26th are arguable since they each deal with voting rights, but I strongly believe that a person being held indefinitely, is indefinitely denied the right to vote.
So, now that you know the many ways that Congress is using NDAA FY2012 to fuck citizens out of their Constitution Rights, why don't you take a minute and sign the damn Petition to OBAMA to VETO the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (S. 1867).
Please share this petition with as many people as you can.
And, remember, the only way to protect our right to free speech is to use our voices to speak our minds. Stay strong through this winter Occupiers you're doing your country a great service! Stay safe, stay peaceful! Stay loud and proud!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Dudeism
