Drug testing welfare recipients makes sense
My employees and I are coal miners. We are, as we should be, required to pass drug-abuse tests prior to and during our employment. If we fail, our rights to work in the coal mining industry are terminated by the state, as they should be.
Why should my taxes be used to pay welfare to drug addicts who doctor-shop with their Medicaid benefits and seriously expand the drug problem?
Your claim that drug addicts' families would suffer if welfare benefits were denied ("Wrong approach to drug abuse," Jan. 19) is also true for one of my employees' dependents. The $18 million cost of the testing would be recovered many times over by the savings of criminally obtained welfare benefits.
Digital Access For Only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
The only thing accomplished by career recipients receiving illegal welfare is another generation of the same caliber.
Drug abusers who use welfare benefits to obtain illegal drugs are criminals. The cost of the benefits that they illegally receive should be used to benefit legitimate welfare recipients.
This newspaper is way out of touch with reality when you continually harp about the cost of jailing drug dealers and users. The real cost of drug abuse is the deaths of our citizens and the dangers imposed on them through robbery, murder, impaired driving, etc. Other costs are the misery of family members and anxiety of all Kentuckians not being able to enjoy their homes, which are frequently invaded by these criminals. This especially affects our senior citizens who live in fear in their own homes.
Desensitizing the drug problem is not the answer.
Who decides which people deserve healing? A single critical illness sends a family that is living from paycheck-to-paycheck — but still making it on their own — into poverty and onto welfare.
If I didn't have health care insurance and there wasn't a COBRA clause (that I am able to pay additional money for) to dropping a child from health care coverage at 21, either my son would be a cripple for life or my wife and I would be without sufficient funds to retire.
True story: A young woman in Louisville recently had a baby, and a complication several weeks after the delivery resulted in her becoming paralyzed. Immediate rehabilitation therapy would have given her a normal life. But, because she had no health insurance, she will be an invalid for the rest of her life. She will be on federal disability for the next 50 years — tax supported not tax generating.
The biggest issue, in my opinion, to the health care "insurance reform" act is pre-existing conditions.
If there truly is a Moral Majority, it would not deny health care to those with pre-existing conditions, those who are barely able to pay their monthly food and utility bills, or the unemployed (through no fault of their own). Wouldn't health care be better than welfare?
A significant portion of the current law was taken from earlier Republican proposals. All of this is partisan politics as usual. Do away with the two-party system because the independents and middle class are never represented.
Just come in legal
No one says not to come here; what is said is come in legal.
Tell me how many people came past the Statue of Liberty and got a fake Social Security number. Now tell me how many from Mexico came past the statue.
If you feel like you are slave labor being paid by ugly Americans then go back and work at home. You want the rich land owners to pay your taxes, but what about the Americans employed by the same people? Should they have their taxes paid also?
Once again, a person wants the benefits from being in the United States without the responsibility to pay their share, like all citizens here do. If you want to be in the United States, then live within its laws.
Remember, nobody is saying not to come; just to do it in the proper manner and not by smuggling people in or dashing across the border.
Blinded with science
"Some people posing as scientists also embrace creationism" should have been your headline for the ramblings of David Menton, Andrew Snelling and Georgia Purdom ("Some scientists also embrace creationism," Jan. 10).
Just because one has been through the training to get the scientific degree does not mean that one is a scientist. Being a scientist, with or without degree, means applying the scientific method to investigation and then coping with conclusions drawn from all evidence (pro and con) available and presented.
It also means defending your conclusions and satisfactorily answering the questions of other scientists in the field.
There is no room for personal beliefs or conjecture.
Menton, Snelling and Purdom may present their evidence of a God-created universe and a list of scientists who have reviewed and commented on their work.
Just as a matter of information: If an adult Amphicoelias fragillimus showed for the 375-day ride on the ark, Noah had some problems. A. fragillimus could tip the scales at 150 tons and require the equivalent of more than 400 bales of hay per day, or 150,000 bales for the trip, assuming A. fragillimus' digestive system was as efficient (40 percent) as the more modern African elephant's.
A bale of hay weighs about 65 pounds and occupies 7 cubic feet. My bible gives the dimensions of the ark as approximately 498 by 75 by 44 feet. This would mean it would take more than three arks just to haul the food needed for one species.
I recognize that the interest in the BBVA Compass Bowl that Kentucky played in was limited mostly to participants, and that might explain why we were stuck with the B-team announcers.
But I cannot accept the fact that they spoke several times about the All-American Pitt player sidelined due to injury (with camera trained on him) and the fact that the father of the Pitt quarterback was a former All-American, but did not mention, to my knowledge, that there was an All-American actually playing in the game for Kentucky.
I think that was feeble and disgusting even if the announcers were not first-teamers. Randall Cobb is not only an All-American, he was also a finalist for the Paul Hornung Award and was one of the two or three best players on the field, if not the best.
Besides questionable play-calling and poor special=teams performance, it is hard to understand why Cobb touched the ball only eight times. Maybe this is why I'm a spectator and not a coach, but it seems that the way things were going they would at least get the ball in the hands of their All-American. That is, assuming they remembered he was one.
I will never forgive ESPN for not mentioning Cobb's attributes. The announcers were clearly unprepared, uninterested or both. I would not be surprised if such shabby treatment was a factor in Cobb's decision to jump to the NFL.