I’m listening to the testimony on HB 1076. Is DiSanto really citing facebook views and facebook likes as support for her bill?
It wasn’t convincing then, either.
And here comes the expert, who seemed a bit scattered….
I love the part where this 2nd gal testifying wants to add to the bill that people testing positive are sent for addiction counseling…. Her very profession… And notes they’ll probably qualify for indigent care.
So.. she wants an amendment for an expansion of government to be expanded even further, have a huge drain on county resources, only to end up in her pocket!
And now we have Florence Thompson, a big supporter of Lora Hubbel, testifying in favor of it. Yeah… need I say more?
Oh God. Sen. Betty Olson is talking about how the reservations have rampant drug problems, and people went to her saying “if they had to drug test, they wouldn’t get their welfare checks.” And she keeps saying “these people.” Please. Stop.
And she’s comparing the drug test to voting, talking about driver’s licenses, and having to prove who we are for voting. “We always have to prove who we are to get..” Aside from the fact, poll tests were also found unconstitutional, Betty. Jeez.
Lynn Valenti, DSS – Opponent.
Federal Law apparently prevents testing for SNAP. Oops… And 86% of people on TANF are children, 79% of them live with people, who are not their parents.
Adult TANF recipients are required to work, and they’re probably being tested anyway. But barring that, private employers are not subject to due process as states are. (Cites my Florida case).
Huge fact – IN OUR STATE, DRUG FELONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TANF.
Talks about other state’s experience on suspicion based testing, and considerable administration costs against catching so few to make it not worth it.
Drug test cost is $45 each for people making $7000 a year.
State will have to spend money defending what is clearly an and absolutely unconstitutional law, and it does nothing for getting people off of drugs, aside from no evidence of prevalence of drug abuse among TANF recipients that’s any different than the general population. And alcohol use is even lower.
Terry Dosch – represents 18 Behavioral Health agencies, statewide.
Says it lacks merit. Imposes impediments to people receiving the care that they need. And also reiterates that no evidence of prevalence of drug abuse among TANF recipients that’s any different than the general population.
Rep for Presentation Sisters from Aberdeen –
Finds it unnecessary, offensive, etcetera.. Says it seems that it is focused find on those on drugs, than assisting those in need. (Rep. DiSanto, you’re making the nuns angry.)
Lynne DiSanto – Going back to public feedback, and her facebook responses, and regurgitating her tropes on the measure, and how people will supposedly “clean up in preparation of the test,” And repeats previous testimony despite it’s prion refutation.
Rep Sly talks about reservation statement. Asks Valenti – Does State have jurisdiction over SNAP TANF on reservations. “Yes… we do have quality assurance in place, and office of fraud & recovery investigations unit. We have a very low incidence of fraud in this state. If issues, we investigate, if fraud, not allowed to participate.”
Rep. Soli – Proponents say will help people who are identified as addicted. How would treatment be paid for? DiSanto – “Federal Government doesn’t allow us to drug test SNAP. Medicaid in SD only covers substance abuse for pregnant women and adolescents. A few programs, but limited. Costs prohibitive.”
Rep Lana Greenfield – SNAP & TANF; for sponsor – other areas where the welfare could be affected? “specifically addressing SNAP & TANF, nothing else.”
Rep. Chip Campbell – for Valenti – questions on numbers… If benefit to the state, SNAP would be the area to focus on? Valenti – “SNAP a Federal Government Program. Federal Law prohibits additional conditions on eligibility. Drug testing is prohibited as a qualification. It’s off the table. Not legally permissible. Would put federal benefits in jeopardy.” Campbell noting it happened in Wisconsin, and the state sued the federal government for clarification.
Haugaard – Hawaii reviewing possibility of drug testing. Talking about numbers and costs for DSS. Coming to point in time where we’ll have to limit services. Should provide services without accountability. DSS is a creation of the state in more recent years. Churches need to step up to the plate and do these things. Appropriate to have the discussion. Wants to move this to the House floor.
Rep Lana Greenfield – also wants to move this to the floor for further discussion. Who are we protecting and who are we serving? Not protecting police, ER people who have to contain these people, not protecting families. Children suffering, kids come into classroom and can’t focus on classes. Need to move this on to the house floor.
Call for action….
Haugaard/Greenfield – do pass. Haugaard, we should move this to the House floor. Discussion that should be aired out.
Sly/Soli – Defer to 41st day. We recognize there is an issue in the state, but it doesn’t just reside in TANF/SNAP recipients. Lots of other public assistance going on. Pell grants, tax subsidies, etc. A lot of public assistance dollars go out from the state, but this is a narrow focus on people who are struggling to get their lives together.
Munsterman – Voted in past, but there’s a lot more data now. Or more wiser. Now more states with a track record. Not worth the squeeze. Put to 41st.
Soli – I wish this could work. But this plan is not going to advance this for any of these folks. We find someone who is addicted, but no funds for treatment? It’s a black hole. Drug rate use is lower among this population. Send to 41st day, but refocus on what’s keeping people in poverty.
Haugaard – Controlled substances defined by statute. Deterrent factor worthwhile.
Roll call vote puts this measure – 41st day – 9 ayes, 4 nayes.