This is "Fracking" Ridiculous

     The “Fracking” process is becoming very popular with oil and gas companies, and we are probably going to see even more of it here in Texas soon.  This is because Texas Legislation is in the works to help streamline the process that requires companies to get a permit before being allowed to use fracking.  If you don’t know what fracking is, it’s the latest and greatest way to poison your drinking water! Although, oil and gas companies will tell you it’s a technological breakthrough in drilling techniques to extract oil and gas from the ground.  There’s a lot of evidence out there that shows there are a lot of negative after effects of fracking on the environment.  The biggest concern is the contamination of drinking water.  

     Currently, there are no laws that govern fracking as it pertains to the safety of drinking water, but the new legislation is supposed to change that.  “Under the agreement, companies submit their fracking practices to an independent review. If a company is found to be using recycled water in most of its fracking operations, limiting the amount of gas it flares and taking other steps to reduce air and water pollution, it receives certification for having met the agreement’s environmental standards”(TheStatesman).  Some of the problems I see with this are that the permits will be given to an independent company for review instead of a government agency.  This could lead to corruption.  Not to say our government isn’t capable of corruption, but I feel there would be stricter regulations if the process were to go through the government.  Second, it destroys all the headway made by environmental agencies that are trying to get rid of this process.  The only reason Texas allows fracking is because it brings in revenue.  Oil companies like Shell and Chevron are trying to market this process as being safe for the environment, but I can’t see how pumping out tons of chemicals into the ground can be good to the environment.

     While this bill looks to be a step in the right direction, it’s actually a step back.  The bill does put some regulations in place that will help protect our drinking water, but the best policy to protect our drinking water and the environment would not to allow Fracking at all.  

     Some of the other concerns fracking brings are the effects it will have on small towns, and the amount of water the fracking process takes.  If you would like to read more about this, you can find it on the Statesman website.

     

Abusing the System Part 2

     This is a revision of my Blog 6 post, or my Blog 6 part two.  I’ve tried to post this in the comments section, but apparently it’s too long.This is my rebuttal to Doug Warzon's post "Now or Later" from his  blog The Texas Nationalist Mindset, and which originally started on his post, "No more Free Rides."  The original topic on hand is that drug testing will stop people that are abusing unemployment and Welfare benefits (i.e. the people buying lobster and porter house steaks).  Drug testing is only going to catch people that are abusing drugs, not the people abusing the system.  One really doesn’t have anything to do with the other. The only way to curve what people by would be to limit food stamps to purchase only certain foods that were on a list, a lot like how the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program works.  WIC recipients have a card they swipe when checking out and if the items they are purchasing are not on the list, then they are not paid for by WIC, they would then have to pay out of pocket for those items.

     Drug testing for unemployment benefits sounds good in theory, but it just isn’t going to work. The numbers Doug mentions in his rebuttal, “According to TWC (Texas Work Force Commission) stats on pre-employment drug screening fails, the new bill (SB21) would estimate a savings of 13 Million over a five-year period…” are inflated and unproven.  The stats for employment drug screening fails are for everyone in the state that goes through TWC, not just the ones collecting unemployment benefits.  Not everyone who’s unemployed can file for unemployment, only people that have been laid off, or let go by no fault of their own are eligible for unemployment, but Senator Tommy Williams is using the total amount of people seeking work through TWC as the total number of people seeking unemployment benefits.  Even Senator Wendy Davis knows that the statistics aren’t correct, “You know very well that those statistics don’t exist … because the law has not been passed”(NYTimes). Furthermore, the 13 million over a five-year period is questionable, and based on the numbers that Florida has received, extremely inflated.  Lets talk about Florida for a minute since Doug uses it in his argument.

     Doug says, “In Florida, people who receive welfare benefits must pay for their own drug tests.”  This is only partially true.  While Florida did require (They are no longer doing it because a judge has put a temporary ban on the law. you can read more here.) individuals to pay for their own drug tests, he failed to mention that the state reimburses the individual after results come back negative.  Since July, 7,030 people have passed the drug screening, and out of that, only 32 have failed (Miami Herald).  That equates to 0.4% of the people who take the test fail.  As a result of these low numbers, Florida is actually loosing money, rather than saving unemployment benefits.  It cost Florida taxpayers $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, and that led to a state net loss of $45,780 (MiamiHerald).  This is a perfect example of why drug testing is not going to save the state any money, nor is it going to stop people from abusing the system. This is the result of a state basing a problem on a trivial idea rather than fact.  Moreover, it’s irrelevant that the state pays for unemployment after 26 weeks because 0.4% isn’t going to even put a dent in those numbers.

     Like I stated before, there are people out there abusing the system, and there are people that use benefits and also use drugs, but the numbers do not warrant implementing a costly drug program.  Not only will the costs eventually be passed down to the taxpayers, but it also makes it more difficult for the people who actually need the benefits to receive them.  Some might say, “it’s only $40 for a drug test...” but when someone can’t afford to buy groceries for their children, or put a few dollars in the gas tank to get to work (that is if they’re lucky enough to have a car), $40 is a lot of money, even if they’re going to get reimbursed.  Depending on how long it takes to reimburse them could be the difference between eating and not eating.  They should set it up to where you only pay for it if you fail the test, that would take the burden off the upfront costs and still have the same affect, but this is besides the point.  Back to the “original” post, none of this is going to stop people from buying lobster and steak with food stamps, or save taxpayers money regardless of what “numbers” they predict (Florida’s a perfect example). 

Abusing the System

     The idea that many welfare recipients are abusing the system is more of a stereotype than an actual problem.  Of course there are people out there that abuse the system, but implementing drug testing as part of the solution isn't going to fix the problem—it’s only going to cost the tax payers more money. 

      Doug’s post on "No more Free rides" suggests that drug tests used as part of the screening process for unemployment and welfare programs will save the state/ tax payers lots of money by weeding out all the “druggies” that use these programs.  The problem with this is that unemployment benefits are not paid by taxpayers; it’s paid by the employers (i.e. the company that laid that person off) through taxes that the employer pays to the government.  So, having someone do a drug test to get unemployment benefits that they have already earned, and which taxpayers didn't provide, is only costing taxpayers money, because now they have to pay for all the drug tests.   Doug also mentions, “most companies perform background checks, pre-employment drug screening…” this is exactly what we should do, which is  to leave the drug testing up to the companies hiring the individuals that were laid off, and not the State government. 

     That leaves welfare recipients.  Would drug testing people who receive aid in Texas result in lowering the cost of welfare programs?  The short answer is no.  This idea that individuals on welfare are poor, good for nothing, druggie, lazy, government fund sucking people is far from the truth.  It’s a stereotype.  And although there can be some truth to stereotypes, the percentage of people fitting this description is quite low. There’s an article in the Austin Chronicle that talks about this bill and some of the information is very interesting.   The number of people on TANF in Texas is around 114,000 people, which is about 0.4% of Texas’ population, and of that, 85% of them are children.  So, now looking at the numbers and the fact that unemployment benefits are paid by the employer, are there any legitimate reasons to start a drug screening process?

     While it is sad that there are people out there that abuse the system, and how I would love nothing more than for them to receive justice, drug testing hundreds of thousands of people, which would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, is not the answer.  The money saved by the very small number of people that might test “positive” on a drug test is in no way going to counteract the costs of implementing a drug screening program.  Though, it would be good to catch the people that are abusing the system, it’s not worth the price tag; not to mention that it would only weed out the abusers that used drugs.