I can’t imagine it’s much fun to be Representative Lynne Hix-DiSanto lately. Because if you take a look at this morning’s Rapid City Journal, and her public facebook page, to say she’s taking a beating on the controversial House Bill 1076 is an understatement.
Aside from my own guest column in opposition to the big-government measure, another columnist took aim directly at the Representative, noting…
“..Lynne DiSanto is a liberal. She supports giving a hand to those in need, like ranchers and agriculture interests and single mothers who can’t make ends meet. She also wants big government to step up in the most intrusive ways imaginable and do virtual cavity searches of anyone who needs something to eat in her bill to require drug testing of welfare recipients.
She told them drugs and alcohol are not healthy. Now she wants us to have big government test their pee before they get a hamburger. It’s liberalism gone wild. Some places call these kind of people Democrats. It’s classical social liberalism at its finest, whatever else it might be.”
And as much opposition to the bill as there was in the newspaper this morning, that pales into comparison to the reaction she’s getting on her public facebook page, where she’s proclaiming:
I have a group which is waging an online campaign against me, due to my drug testing welfare recipient’s bill. They are mostly women, and advocate for women’s issues and for the plight of minority groups.
Read that here. And, there, you can read a litany of on-line responses.
However, one thing caught my attention in particular in the exchanges she’s having. If you recall her comments on the measure originally, referring to why she introduced the bill, she noted it as a very personal thing..
I was a 20-year-old, single mom when my first son was born. I received welfare including food stamps, WIC and child care assistance. I worked full time and attended night classes during this time. I have all the respect for people who are utilizing these government safeguards to better themselves and become independent and self-supporting. However, if you can afford drugs you can afford food. The taxpayers do not need to subsidize your drug habit.
Read that here. Just a few days ago, she was declaring that she was in that position herself, and that “taxpayers do not need to subsidize your drug habit.” That seemed to be a pretty strong affirmation of ownership on this bill.
But fast forward to this comment left late last night:
After affirming her ownership of the bill, now she’s telling the world…
When I agree to carry a bill it is my responsibility to present it and carry it through the process. It’s like being a lawyer and taking on a client. You do your best for them. You have to understand that it’s part of my job….. If you would’ve attended the cracker barrel event at the school of mines you would’ve heard me speak to the bill and address most of the concerns people have last Sat. I am aware of what they are, and all of them have been brought up and discussed by me to the legislature. It is a process, the bill may die over those issues.
Departing from previously declaring “if you can afford drugs you can afford food. The taxpayers do not need to subsidize your drug habit,” she’s now couching her advocacy for it by saying “when I agree to carry a bill it is my responsibility to present it and carry it through the process. It’s like being a lawyer and taking on a client.”
What? Is it just me, or is by declaring she’s “like a lawyer” in this matter constitute her abandoning her ownership of HB 1076 faster than passengers on the Titanic decided a smaller boat would do just fine?
As I’ve noted, there are ways to make sure actual drug users don’t abuse the system without resorting to the nanny state. Pass a measure to cut off benefits upon conviction of a drug crime. Others do it, and manage not to run roughshod over our rights, and expanding the nanny state.
But as far as what the legislature has in front of it right now in the form of HB 1076? I’d want to get away from this big government measure too.
–Pass a measure to cut off benefits upon conviction of a drug crime.
How is that not more nanny state gov’t?
DiSanto is a poser.
She thinks she’s the next Kristi Noem. She’s not and she’s clueless.
She’s running around session talking about what a martyr she is. She wants to take the arrows and get the love from Gordon Howie. She’s an attention seeker and this is what she wants.
Russell didn’t sign up for her bill because he has intelligence.
DiSanto sounds more like the Queen of Mean than she does Kristi.
I have asked her on her FB to respond to the points made by Mr. Powers and the results of these laws tried in other states………. I don’t expect her to do that and would not be surprised if my comments were removed and I was blocked for actually asking such questions