2012 Presidential Election: Voting For Obama, Remember What It Felt Like?

Romney and the conservatives (note the distinction?) would have you believe America is in decline.  That our nation is on the brink of disaster, and that it's all President Barack Obama's fault.  Don't believe it.

DO believe this is an on-going attack on the hopes and dreams of Americans.  And why not?  It was the then Senator Barack Obama's message of hope that inspired us to believe America was still great and that we could fix what was wrong with America.  And so if we continued to be inspired, have hope, and believe things can change for the better, this presents a threat to the status quo the "right" wants to maintain.

I recently was feeling discouraged about the prospects of the 2012 election, but then began to remember what it felt like to be inspired and vote for Barack Obama...here's (hear) my tale.  I hope it (re)inspires you:

Are Willard (Mitt) Romney's Claims Of Credit For 2002 Olympics' Success Hypocritical?

G.O.P. Candidate (again) for President of the United States, Willard (Mitt) Romney claims credit for success of the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City.  In fact, it appears its one of the pillars of his "qualifications" to be Commander-In-Chief.

But is this claim just more GOPocrisy?  More Mitt Romney flip-floppery?

It certainly is a topic of discussion that has taken hold recently.  And with Mitt Romney losing ground to Rick Santorum, its a topic that can't help his efforts.

I found this article in the Boston Herald.  Their headline reads, "Mitt Romney says he turned around Olympics.  Did he?"  Well before we dive right into the whole messy deal, I would like to offer my answer: "Yes, I think he did."  BUT - that is not why I am posting about this.  Rather, I would like to focus on Mitt Romney's hypocritical position on Federal hand-outs (my term, not his).

My Facebook Friends And Mitt Romney In Favor Of Drug-Testing Welfare Recipients

I have, in the past, argued with “friends” on Facebook against the idea of drug testing welfare recipients.  My assertion has been that, constitutionally-speaking, it’s wrong.  Worse yet, it’s racism.  And if it’s not racism, then its AT LEAST discrimination against the poor.  My personal belief is that people still unfairly associate welfare with minorities; therefore, the attack on welfare recipients is an attack on minorities.

(image is licensed under WikiMedia Creative Commons License)

And now, Republican candidate for President, Willard (Mitt) Romney, has indicated he is in favor of testing ANYONE who receives government funds.  The context, of course, was that he agrees with Florida's law to drug-test welfare recipients.  In agreeing with that policy though, he included anyone receiving government funds:

But I digress.  Back to drug testing welfare recipients.

The state of Florida passed a law mandating welfare recipients be tested for illegal drugs in their system.  This has resulted in 2% of those recipients being tested positive and loosing benefits. TWO PERCENT.  The overall rate of drug use in Florida is 8%.  EIGHT PERCENT.  Therefore, the argument that welfare recipients are more likely to abuse drugs is just false…an attempt to demonize the poor.

Of course, in Florida’s case, it can be argued that there are improprieties with that state’s governor having ownership in a drug testing company that provides the testing.  Similar to the accusations of Arizona’s governor having a financial stake in the privatized prison system, therefore having a financial interest in the passage SB1070.

Now drug testing welfare recipients legislation has been introduced in other states too: Hawaii, Indiana, to name a few.  However, I have not noticed the same fevered push to drug test other recipients of government funds.  Congress is not mandated to be drug tested.  None of the bailed out banks were required to be drug tested.  Where is the fairness in that?  If the argument is that anyone receiving government assistance should have to be drug tested to make sure they aren’t using government money for drugs, then EVERYONE who receives any money from the government should have to be tested.

Yes, I am aware that some will argue that reason for the low percentage of welfare recipients who test positive in Florida is because the law itself dissuades recipients from filing in the first place.  REALLY?  Do these people who argue this point really believe that argument?  If I have no job, no source of income or assistance, am I going to decide to keep using drugs I cannot afford to purchase since I have no income or assistance, opting to not receive those benefits just to keep using the drugs I cannot afford?  Explain the logic!  I saw one very informed observer breakdown the numbers even further (unsubstantiated): The 2% of Floridians who fail (and loose benefits) save the state $48,200 per person per year.  Multiply that by the 38 people who failed and that equals $1.83 million.  Seems significant, doesn’t it?  UNTIL you learn that the cost of administrating the policy/program is $178 million.  So much for saving money for the tax-payers of Florida, huh?

(image is licensed under Wikimedia Creative Commons license)

So setting aside the “fairness” issue of drug testing welfare recipients, the next time you “like” a Facebook post or page about “mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients”, ask yourself why you think it’s really a good idea.  You may not like the answer you come up with if you’re honest because it really has nothing to do with saving your tax dollars and more to do with the opening paragraph of this article.