Beach Peanuts

Ann Romney "Chose" Because She Could Afford To

Last week the entire news cycle was hijacked over the faux outrage from a single remark made by political strategist Hilary Rosen, a Democrat who does NOT work for the Obama Administration. Rosen said: Ann Romney might not be the most qualified expert on women’s economic woes because she’s “never worked a day in her life.” What Ms. Rosen meant by her comment was that Romney was able to choose to stay at home and raise her children because of her wealth, meaning she never had to face the economical consequences of giving up an income in favor of full time motherhood like the majority of American women do.

Never mind the context of what Rosen said. The Republicans and the Romney campaign seized on the opportunity to make this into an issue of phony outrage about whether or not raising one's children constitutes "work" or not. In fact, Ann Romney started a Twitter account in order to take advantage of the situation with this Tweet:

The Key Word Here: "Choice"

With that, the Republican noise machine was up and running and the remainder of the week was spent on a fake war over "working moms" vs. "stay at home moms" and whether full time child care and mothering is considered work or not.

In fact the hopeful "First Lady To Be" (gulp) was so confidant with that ginned up outrage that she took another opportunity to beat a dead horse at an NRA Convention on Friday. (Pardon the equestrian pun there Ann, but you kind of stepped in this one yourself.) She strutted onstage to once again say what important work motherhood is, while also celebrating gun ownership just before turning the podium over to her husband. (See video here.) No doubt her comment on "the shot heard round the world" was meant to serve a two-fold purpose in her mind on guns and motherhood. "Boom."

Boom, indeed.

This morning, thanks to MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes, the Romney talking points that "all moms are working moms" don't exactly hold up with his views.

Yes, once again today's Mitt Romney would have a bone to pick with a past Mitt Romney, in this case the Mitt Romney of January 2012, to be exact. Hayes found a video where earlier this year Romney had a different view of the given "value" of stay at home moms vs. working moms, and the original argument of the economical factors of those choices was brought right back into focus:

But video from earlier this year, aired today on Up w/ Chris Hayes, shows Romney campaigning on the proposition that meaningful welfare reform should require parents with children to get out of the home and into the workforce. Responding to a question at a town hall event in Manchester, New Hampshire on January 4th, Romney described his position on work requirements for welfare recipients as governor of Massachusetts.

“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” Romney said. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that's heartless,' and I said ‘No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

That position has been conservative orthodoxy for years. Republicans have railed against the “culture of dependency” created by welfare programs, campaigning aggressively for policies that would force welfare recipients off the roles and “back into the workforce.”

Exactly. Not only do Republicans and Conservatives have a problem with that so called "culture of dependency," they also have a problem with the word "choice." Whether you're talking as Sarah Palin did about her "choice" to have a child who she knew would be born with Down's Syndrome as opposed to the abortion she briefly considered having, or if you're Ann Romney, who made the "choice" to be a stay at home mom, a choice that few women can afford to make: It's a CHOICE.

Romney is the wife of a billionaire who made his living buying out businesses, gutting them, and putting countless working moms and dads out of work at a profit, so that she could afford that very choice in the first place.

Once again the Conservatives wear their hypocrisy not on their sleeves, but in their pockets, contained in their wallets.

Be it abortion, health care, or being a stay at home mom. "Choices," and their value, not to mention the "dignity" involved, are only for those who can afford to make them.

This, I believe, was the point all along.

Daily Show Comes To Florida, Finds That "Jokes" Are Running The State

Aasif Mandvi of The Daily Show recently came to Florida to "interview" Navy veteran Luis Lebron who refused to submit to a drug test in order to receive public assistance as required under Rick Scott's mandatory welfare drug testing law. (The court later ruled against Scott in favor of Lebron.)

Mandvi later tracked down Rick Scott to make his now famous request that the governor also submit a urine sample for testing, and in front of a room full of reporters during a press conference. Before that he also asked the same of Republican Scott Plakon who said Lebron "should be happy to take the test" on behalf of taxpayers. Scott and Plakon both refused, of course.

When not demanding others "happily" take statistically unwarranted drug tests which he himself refuses, Plakon is busy trying to outlaw imaginary sex and race based abortions there's absolutley no evidence of.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if The Daily Show team started showing up down here more often just for some time "off" because there's a lot more crazy where this came from and "jokes" like Rick Scott and Scott Plakon pretty much write themselves:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Poor Pee-Ple
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

 

Rick Scott's Drug Testing Policy Gets "Tested" By Daily Show

 

Rick Scott's failed welfare drug testing policy has gotten a lot of national attention, but this is a first.

On Wednesday the policy became the "target" of a joke during a budget news conference when the Comedy Central reporter Aasif Mandvi asked Governor Rick Scott to "pee into this cup."

From the St. Petersburg Times:

“You've benefited from hundreds of tho [sic] of taxpayer dollars over the years so would you be willing to pee into this cut to prove to Florida taxpayers that you're not on drugs,'' asked Comedy Central reporter, Aasif Mandvi. It was a reference to the governor’s drug-testing requirement imposed on all state employees and all welfare recipients. 

Scott looked straight at him, didn’t miss a beat and said: "I’ve done it plenty of times.”

Mandvi then attempted to hand the sealed, official-looking collection cup to the governor. "We could all turn around that's fine,'' he said.

At one point  Mandvi persuaded other reporter to pass the cup to the front row but Scott ignored it and asked again. "I hate to keep harping on this, would you pee in a cup?" Scott shot back: "You don't get to run this."

Aasif Mandvi has local roots, he moved to Tampa at age 16 and studied at the University of South Florida.

Scott Overreach: Court Erred, "Unjustified In Blocking The Will Of The People's Elected Representative"

Remember when Gov. Rick Scott unveiled those severe budget cuts last February? To justify those deep cuts, he said this:

"As long as 1.1 million Floridians are out of work, we can't afford a government that runs wild with taxes, regulations and excessive spending." 

Then he proceeded to spend  superfluous amounts of the state's money; the taxpayers money, on things that had nothing to do with the budget, but did have a common theme. It seems that no amount of money is too excessive when it comes to infringing on the rights of Floridians.

Scott is suing on your behalf, and on your dime, to block the Affordable Care Act.

He's suing on your behalf, and your dime, to block your voting rights.

Another way Scott chose to spend taxpayer money "wisely" was on mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, apparently on the false premise that all the poor in need of public assistance are also drug addicts. Because they are presumed guilty until proven otherwise, those being tested must first spring for the cost of the test, and on the "rare" occasion that the test results are positive, the testee is not reimbursed by the taxpayer.

The problem with this is that positive test results are not just "rare." They're nearly unheard of. Since the testing began in July, a mere 2 percent tested positive.  The end result for yet another brilliant idea from "Gov. Fiscal" is that the testing costs the state more than it saves.

Luckily for those of us who prefer checks and balances, Scott is not quite the "Supreme Executive" that he purports to be, and the courts step in when needed, which is pretty often since Scott bought his way into power last January, and this case is no exception. Here the ACLU and the Florida Justice Institute stepped in, and the court ruled against Scott in favor of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran who refused to take the mandatory drug test when he applied for temporary assistance to support his 4 year old son. Lebron qualified for benefits but refused to waive hes Fourth Amendment rights because he felt the law was wrong and unfair, and said "I defended the Constitution. Now I am asking the Constitution to defend me.”  The judge agreed with Lebron and issued an injunction blocking the tests.

From Mother Jones:

....Federal court Judge Mary Scriven put a halt to the tea party Republican's marquee plan, concluding that "the wholesale, suspicionless drug testing of all applicants" for Florida's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment.

 "Though the State speaks in generalities about the 'public health risk, as well as the crime risk, associated with drugs' being 'beyond dispute,'it provides no concrete evidence that those risks are any more present in TANF applicants than in the greater population," Scriven wrote in her ruling against Florida's government. "It is not enough to simply recite a governmental interest without any evidence of a concrete threat that would be mitigated through drug testing."

Apparently Judge Mary Scriven was unaware of Rick Scott's own job description:

Governor: "Simply reciting a Governor's interest without any evidence." 

So naturally Rick Scott, exercising his self proclaimed "Supreme Executive Power" is appealing that ruling. His reasoning?

From The Tampa Tribune:

"The court erred in rejecting the state's arguments, and was unjustified in blocking the will of the people's elected representatives," Scott said.

"Blocking the will of the King people's elected representatives?"

No facts.

No reasoning.

The court "erred" because Rick Scott said so.

"It is not enough to simply recite a governmental interest without any evidence of a concrete threat that would be mitigated through drug testing."

 

Cross posted at Daily Kos

Scott Signs Forced Drug Testing Law For Welfare Recipients

With a stroke of Rick Scott's pen, welfare recipients will now be forced to submit to drug testing in order to get benefits. Scott signed the controversial forced drug testing into law today. Under the new law, Scott says taxpayers are protected from wasteful spending, his one size fits all talking point used to justify his spending cuts.

"The goal of this is to make sure we don't waste taxpayer's money," Scott said. "And hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs."

Before they can receive benefits, recipients will have to submit blood, hair, or urine samples for the tests. They'll also have to pay for the tests themselves out of pocket until the results prove that they aren't drug users. Only then will the state reimburse them. Should they test positive, they will be banned from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for six months, and three years if a subsequent second test is also positive.

The law is controversial for obvious reasons, and will face  challenges from ACLU Florida. The organization has suggested they may sue the state over the law.

ACLU Florida has suggested they might sue the state over the new law. A statement from the group's state director today did not mention legal action, but said they would have an announcement tomorrow about Scott's executive order forcing drug tests on state employees.

"Once again, this governor has demonstrated his dismissal of both the law and the right of Floridians to personal privacy by signing into law a bill that treats those who have lost their jobs like suspected criminals," Howard Simon said in his statement. "This wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug use."

According to Scott's new law, there is at least one way for applicants to avoid the drug testing.

Simply don't apply for benefits.