And again, pretty ambitious projections. As for his other policies, all good with me. The rail project was a wasteful boondoggle, drug testing welfare recipients is as wise as what New YOrk is doing, which is forbidding them to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or gamble with EBT funds, and scrubbing the voter lists is required by federal law. The federal government also lost its case to keep their databases from Florida officials. If Florida officials were trying to disenfranchise people, they wouldn’t have cared about the accuracy of their records.
I do like this. I feel like this is the only thing the people in my neighborhood spend their money on. Daily trips to the corner store to buy booze, lotto tickets, loosies, cigars, and other items which are marked up considerably, since they’re aware most of their customers walk there and don’t have a vehicle. Welfare recipients shouldn’t be able to waste tax dollars on this crap.
It was one judge, which is not a definitive ruling. If government drug testing is illegal for welfare recipients, how is it legal for government job applicants?
As for it costing the state money, that is just false. In order to believe this falsehood you would have to believe that welfare recipients are paragons of virtue, because they use illegal drugs at a rate lower than the overall population. What actually happened is that drug users simply didn’t apply, which means the state saved a ton of money.
Anyone who has ever been involved in a workplace drug testing program would know that you rarely get positives because drug users don’t apply for jobs where there is testing.
Because a government job is not a protected liberty interest within the ambit of the Due Process Clause, at least until you already have it. Having said that, I am all in favor of drug testing state legislators. Unfortunately, none of the Republican majority saw fit to introduce such a bill.
I’m sure you will be able to offer a citation for your theory about the low rate of positive tests - since there wasn’t a reduction in the number of applications.
The Herald can be as neutral as it wants, if it only counts people who tested positive as “savings”, then it’s an invalid study. Now a Koch-funded study can be biased because it asks questions in a misleading way, but they’d have to be lying about DCF finding a big drop in applicants after the law was implemented.
If applicants did indeed drop by 20% or so, it’s hard to see how that didn’t save money.
What I’m saying, or rather quoting, is that a neutral news outlet reported that a Bush-appointed judge threw out the study entirely because it contained baseless assumptions which completely compromised the validity of the study, making it biased and worthless.
Granted, I spent all of nine minutes lazily looking for anything at all which backs up what your conservative-agenda driven foundation wanted to push on me. All I managed to find so far was that neutral and reputable sources call it bullshit.
They call it BS by only counting positive, or sometimes positive+cancelled, drug tests as savings.
In order to believe that, you’d have to believe that poor people are less likely to use drugs than average, which would contradict oh, about 50 years of social science and statistics.
But hey, it’s unbiased, so critical thinking is unnecessary.
My point is that well meaning journalists can be morons.
So let’s say I pretend it doesn’t cost the state anything in man hours. Aren’t I already compromising the results of my study? Because in the real world, it costs money for man hours.
And if there is going to be court battles over unreasonable searches, those costs have to be factored in.
But I’ll even call those a mulligan. Let’s pretend it’s all on the ACLU, those costs, and ignore those, to be as fair as possible.
But let’s pretend I wasn’t trying to be as fair as possible.
Let’s say I took one month, and extrapolated results from that month, and claimed they were representative of an entire year. Whether they were or not.
From your own linked study:
Do you see what sort of assumptions I, a nobody, know-nothing schlub with barely any interest in this subject at all, can lazily demolish from the comfort of my bedsheets?
Your advocacy group has ABSOLUTELY ZERO INTENTION of conveying the truth to anyone. They intend to cherry pick one month and turn it into a trend using weasel words and extrapolations and assumptions.
Y’know, the kind of crap that can get it thrown out in court by a Bush appointed Judge and made a laughingstock of on a neutral newspaper.
Your move.
I’m sure that many Floridians have extremely strong views about the Cuba embargo, and vote according to those views, but how much influence does the governor really have on that issue? It’s a federal embargo, and so you’d need someone in the federal government-- a senator or representative-- to do anything.
They didn’t cherry pick a month, they used the two months since the law went into effect that they had data for at the time. So far, your unbiased sources have not presented any meaningful data whatsoever. Instead, they’ve chosen to use intentionally misleading statistics. But that’s okay, they are unbiased.
Applications for welfare dropped sharply in the two months after the law went into effect. Those numbers come from DCF, not the Kochs.