Legler isn’t the sharpest bowling ball in the shed.
If freshman legislator Rep. Ken Legler has his way, Texas’ already stingy unemployment insurance benefits will reach even fewer jobless Texans. The Pasadena Republican’s House Bill 1135 would mandate drug testing for people filing to collect unemployment insurance and deny payments to those testing positive.
Legler says his experience as a business owner led him to author this bill. “One of the things that bothered me more than anything was when a person used to come in and apply for a job,” he says. “My HR person would say, ‘I’m gonna send you down for a drug test.’ And then it comes back positive. And then they keep collecting unemployment insurance.”
Unemployment insurance has been hot at the Legislature this session. The feds have $555 million in stimulus funds for Texas’ fast-dwindling Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund—but only if the Lege expands eligibility. In 2008, Texas insured just 20 percent of its unemployed, earning the rank of 48th in the nation. On March 12, Gov. Rick Perry said he would turn down the feds’ $555 million.
Expanding eligibility would stimulate the economy, says Don Baylor, senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank. When the jobless receive benefits, they are less likely to face foreclosures or need Medicaid or welfare. What’s more, Baylor says every dollar the state pays in benefits creates $2.15 in economic activity. “By suppressing people’s ability to get benefits,” he says, “you are also suppressing Texas’ ability to emerge out of the recession.”
Legler says workers who have used illegal drugs are not “physically able to work” and shouldn’t collect unemployment. “Unemployment insurance is employer-paid insurance that helps workers who are unemployed for no fault of their own. If they fail the drug test, right there, it’s their own fault,” he says.
Rick Levy, legal director at the Texas AFL-CIO, says Legler’s reasoning misses the point. “We should be doing everything we can to get people back to work, not devoting precious resources to ferret out the drug-using unemployed.”
Pre-employment drug screening typically costs $25 to $75. Texas had 884,422 claims for benefits in 2008, and the comptroller recently reported that Texas lost 75,800 jobs in January. You do the math.
Legler says he hasn’t worked out how the state would pay for the drug tests yet. He wants the state to pay for those who pass, but people who fail would pay their own way. “I think the person needs to know there’s consequences,” Legler says.
In that spirit, Legler has also authored House Bill 1136 to exclude people from benefits if they are fired for violating their employers’ drug-testing policies.
Legler isn’t the sharpest bowling ball in the shed.
Neither are people who believe that sitting on your tail end all day recieving money for someone elses hard work. That wil not stimulate anything but laziness. But I guess thats what most people want. They can keep getting their unemployment check as long as they are unable to get a job but keep applying. So what this bill does is create the promise of consequence. If you use, you loose. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law. We should be doing everything to get people back to work, Rick Levy is right. So tell me how extending benifits so that people can stay on unemployment, and be a drag on the economy and affording people the oppurtunity to NOT work, will get them a job? But tell me how this will stimulate the economy? What about the people who are working and their tax dollars go to support some guy sitting on his tail all day. Nothing hacks me off more than driving by government housing and seeing kids toys thrown in the yard, and Chrysler 300’s parked in the driveway. All this while I bust my butt to make a living. Your tax dollars at work lefty’s. Its not stingy, its common sense.
A liberal is anyone willing to take away what is not theirs and give it to someone else.
And as John Kenneth Galbraith correctly observed, “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
Interesting perspective. Is it selfishness? Or Self interest? Being an economist your boy Galbraith ought to know the difference between the two. Tell me how not wanting to pay tax dollars for someone to sit around and do drugs rather than getting a job and being a productive memeber of society is being selfish? I dont mind helping people who genuinely need help. But you have to show some effort and a little bit of self motivation also. Sitting around and smoking weed all day rather than working and making something out of yourself is not someone in need.
Deep in the Senate's version of the massive TXDoT bill is a provision that, if not stripped out in conference committee, will allow local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to install license plate reading cameras on Texas highways. The technology - already in widespread use in surveillance-crazy Britain - is very powerful, enabling the government to automatically photograph the license plates of moving vehicles and check the information against databases. If the system finds a "match," officers can be alerted.
Continue reading »
Karen Hall’s knees still haven’t recovered from gathering signatures door-to-door for an amendment to Bryan’s city charter. “Democracy is a messy business,” she says, “but we like it.”
Continue reading »
After she lost her first campaign for a House seat from Houston in 2006, Kristi Thibaut showed up in Austin anyway. What she encountered, as she lobbied unsuccessfully for lower utility rates with fellow ACORN activists, was almost enough to make her wonder why she'd wanted that seat in the first place.
Continue reading »
Sometimes our legislators don't even know what's in their own bills. This morning, Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Van) discussed his House Bill 1165 before the Defense & Veterans Affairs Committee and it was evident that he hadn't read - or maybe didn't understand - what all was in it.
Continue reading »
Comments