Posts tagged ‘Transnational Corporations’

House GOP Budget Would Cost States Ten Times More Than Expanding Medicaid | ThinkProgress

House GOP Budget Would Cost States Ten Times More Than Expanding Medicaid | ThinkProgress.

ss on Sep 13, 2012 at 5:00 pm

One aspect of the Affordable Care Act still in contention is the law’s expansion of Medicaid — the health care program for the disabled, seniors, and low-income Americans that’s jointly funded by the federal government and the states. The Supreme Court’s ruling on health care reform back in June determined that states could chose to opt out of the expansion without losing the federal Medicaid dollars they already recieve. Several governors — all of them Republicans — have already taken the opportunity to declare their state will not participate in the program’s expansion.

These refusals are often justified on budgetary grounds: Medicaid’s burden “increasingly shifts to Florida taxpayers in future years” and was “growing three and a half times as fast as Florida’s general revenue” as Governor Rick Scott put it. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal said of the expansion, “I think that is something our state cannot afford.” And Rick Perry, the ever blunt governor of Texas, declared, “I will not be party to… bankrupting my state.”

Ironically, however, a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities determined that the budget Paul Ryan engineered in the House — which was passed by the governors’ own party, and endorsed by Rick Perry and the other leaders of the Republican Governors Association — would cost states’ budgets well over ten times as much as the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

The CBPP determined that between now and 2022 the Medicaid expansion would cost states $73 billion. Over that same time period, the House GOP budget would cut $810 billion from the federal government’s contribution to Medicaid, on top of its repeal of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. The budget would also cut another $281 billion from federal support for schools and other state and local services. A grand total of $1.091 trillion in losses to state budgets.

In fairness to the governors, the Urban Institute ran the numbers and found that the cost of expanding Medicaid would not fall evenly on the states. (It should be noted their estimates only run through 2019.) And the majority of the states either refusing, or leaning towards refusing the expansion, have populations with unusually high portions of people that are currently uninsured but would be eligible to join Medicaid.

But even under the Urban Institute’s worst-case predictions, several of the refusing or leaning-towards-refusal states still see net savings from the new federal dollars that come with the expansion. And for those that still see net costs, such as Texas and Florida, the highest predicted budgetary hit was in the vicinity $2.5 billion. Almost certainly, that comes no where close to matching the damage that would be done if the House GOP’s budget became law.

Meanwhile, the number of uninsured Americans fell by 1.3 million in 2011 — the first time it’s gone down in four years. In no small part, the decrease was due to a boost in Medicaid and CHIP funding included in the 2009 stimulus. If all the states carry through with the far greater boost the ACA’s expansion would bring to Medicaid, as many as 17 million currently uninsured Americans could finally gain coverage.
be found here.


News Wrap: Paul Ryan Attacks President Obama’s Economic Record in Iowa | PBS NewsHour | Sept. 5, 2012 | PBS

News Wrap: Paul Ryan Attacks President Obama's Economic Record in Iowa | PBS NewsHour | Sept. 5, 2012 | PBS.


KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans today offered their own critical take on the Democratic Convention. In Adel, Iowa, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said tonight’s main speaker, former President Bill Clinton, will try to shift attention from Mr. Obama’s economic record.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-Wi.), Vice Presidential Candidate: We’re going to hear a lot of things in Charlotte, but we’re not going to hear a convincing argument that we’re better off than we were four years ago.


We’re going to hear from President Clinton tonight in Charlotte. My guess is, we will get a great rendition of how good things were in the 1990s, but we’re not going to hear much about how things have been in the last four years.

KWAME HOLMAN: Meanwhile, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney continued debate preparations at a private home in Vermont. However, he took a quick trip to an appliance store in nearby Lebanon, New Hampshire, where he spoke with supporters about the needs of small business.

Wall Street hesitated today, after a profit warning from the shipping giant FedEx. The company says it’s being hurt by a slowdown in business, the latest sign that the global economy is dialing back. That was enough to keep stocks in check. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 11 points to close at 13047. The Nasdaq fell five points to close at 3069.

The passage of Hurricane Isaac has exposed oil from the 2010 spill along the Louisiana and Alabama coastline. BP acknowledged today that the oily tar came from its record-breaking leak at a Gulf well site. The tar balls and mats had been buried under sand since then, but reappeared after the hurricane caused severe beach erosion. Louisiana has closed one stretch of beach and restricted fishing.

The government of Syria came under new pressure today from two former allies. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the Syrian regime of terrorism. He also criticized the

United Nations for not doing enough to stop the killing of Muslims.

RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish Prime Minister (through translator): The regime has become one of state terrorism. It is now in that situation. Since March 2011, the number of those who have been massacred and martyred in Syria is now almost 30,000. In Syria, the massacres that are empowered by the indifference of the internal community, especially the U.N. Security

Council, are continuing increasingly.

KWAME HOLMAN: In Cairo, Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi also denounced Syria. He called again for President Bashar al-Assad to step down. Meanwhile, The New York Times cited reports that Iraq is again allowing Iran to use its airspace to fly weapons to the Syrian regime.

The Iraqis had shut down the air corridor earlier this year, under U.S. pressure.

A former police chief who touched off a major scandal in China has been charged with defection, taking bribes and abusing his power. State media announced the charges against Wang Lijun today. In February, Wang briefly took refuge at a U.S. Consulate after being demoted as police chief in a city in Southwestern China. That led to the ouster of Bo Xilai, his former boss, as Communist Party leader there. Bo is still under investigation.

Last month, Bo’s wife, Gu Kailai, was given a suspended death sentence for the murder of a British businessman.

In Afghanistan, the military announced today it has arrested or expelled hundreds of soldiers, as part of an effort to stop so-called insider attacks on foreign troops. The attacks come as the U.S. tries to continue its plan to transition out of Afghanistan.

Margaret Warner has the story.

MARGARET WARNER: On a pre-convention swing through Virginia yesterday, President Obama again touted his plans to end the Afghan war.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This November, you get to decide the future of the war in Afghanistan. By the end of this month, I will have brought home 33,000 troops.


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I have said we will end this war in 2014.

MARGARET WARNER: But a linchpin of that promise, to train Afghan forces to take over the fight, faces a new challenge; 45 NATO troops have been killed this year by Afghan troops, 15 just last month, all this just two years before a planned handover of security to full Afghan control.

U.S. and Afghan officials have vowed to fix the problem. And, in Kabul today, a Defense Ministry spokesman said hundreds of Afghan forces have been fired or detained for showing links with insurgents.

GEN. MOHAMMAD ZAHIR AZIMI, Spokesman, Afghan Defense Ministry (through translator): All the Afghan security forces were ordered to use all of their resources in hand to prevent these kinds of incidents.

MARGARET WARNER: And last weekend, the U.S. military suspended training for 1,000 new recruits in special village-based Afghan local police units being tutored by American special forces.

U.S. Army Lieutenant General James Terry said today about a quarter of the insider attacks can be blamed on insurgent infiltrators or their sympathizers. The rest, he said, stem from personal vendettas and cultural miscommunication.

LT. GEN. JAMES TERRY, Commander, ISAF Joint Command: We also understand that a lot of grievances and dispute resolutions are done, frankly, at the barrel of a gun out there.

MARGARET WARNER: Though the U.S. is re-vetting all 16,000 Afghan local police forces, it’s unclear how many of the total 350,000 Afghan troops will be re-screened.

Are US IMF Austerity Measures The Real Goal For Corporatists?

Why are the real rulers of America pushing so hard for the US government to assume the banks private gambling debts?

Experts agree that the banks real losses dwarf any estimates seen so far, and that the eventual bill will be huge.

But, most Americans didn’t create those debts! WHY should we pay? Because the looting of America demands it! Because the bankers have so much power, thats why! The obvious endgame is that after assuming so much debt, not only would all social programs be put on hold indefinitely, eventually the US would eventually default on the deficit, forcing the US into IMF austerity programs.

Programs like Social Security and Medicare typically are eliminated in these national default situations.

Is the goal to force the US into the same kinds of IMF austerity programs that have caused riots in so many other nations?

Certainly, the US, which has been at the lead in pushing for these measures elsewhere, would not be able to escape having its own medicine applied to it.

Inquiring minds want to know.

“In economics, austerity is when a national government reduces its spending in order to pay back creditors. Austerity is usually required when a government’s fiscal deficit spending is felt to be unsustainable.

Development projects, welfare programs and other social spending are common areas of spending for cuts. In many countries, austerity measures have been associated with short-term standard of living declines until economic conditions improved once fiscal balance was achieved (such as in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, Canada under Jean Chrétien, and Spain under González).

Private banks, or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may require that a country pursues an ‘austerity policy’ if it wants to re-finance loans that are about to come due. The government may be asked to stop issuing subsidies or to otherwise reduce public spending. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as ‘IMF conditionalities’.

Austerity programs are frequently controversial, as they impact the poorest segments of the population and often lead to a wider separation between the rich and poor. In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.[1][2][3]”

The whole trickle down economics thing has been disproven mathematically. But people like Bush and unfortunately, now even Obama keep bringing it back in different forms again.

Tags: cashfortrash, IMF, International Monetary Fund, ponzi scheme (all tags)



Sort by

The Real Goal

 Perhaps allowing the world to slide into a prolonged deep economic depression would be the more prudent course, as I’m sure it would hurt the very rich while helping poor people across the globe.

by QTG 2009-03-21 08:53AM | 0 recs

Trickle down economics

So you believe in trickle down economics?  As the New York Times said..

“In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up”

Did you realize that the banks knew that the loans were bad when they made them?

How does that figure into this?

by architek 2009-03-21 09:03AM | 0 recs

Re: Trickle down economics

 And you believe that MI and FL were stolen?

by QTG 2009-03-21 09:07AM | 0 recs

And you are living in the past

if you don’t understand the immediate meaning of the IMF austerity programs and how they would steal our future from ALL of us.

We must not assume any more of this toxic debt!

by architek 2009-03-21 09:20AM | 0 recs

Serious question:

Are you actually advocating policies that would cause even more extreme and prolonged economic calamity than is going to happen anyway – just to give yourself more opportunities to trash Obama?

(Now that I asked it, it seems more like a rhetorical question.)

by QTG 2009-03-21 09:30AM | 0 recs

No way..

I like Obama. I just think he’s got some kind of mistaken idea that the people want many things they obviously don’t.

Or something.

Its not being responsible to buy these toxic assets the way he’s doing while letting so many other pressing problems go unaddressed.

Still, I agree with what all of you keep saying in that Obama was a far better choice than McCain/Palin.

Even with the many problems that I saw coming due to his trying to be all things to all people.

I was also happy to see a black person getting to be President, even with all the problems they are giving Obama to clean up. He is doing very well except for his embrace of trickle down and the unwillingness to consider single payer when its the only way to fix the healthcare crisis legally. (the stuff he’s suggesting is against the WTO treaty)

Obviously, black people are impacted a LOT by things like our lack of universal healthcare.

Maybe the healing represented by having a black person as President will reduce some of the major issues many of them have with stress-caused diseases even as those same issues increase in other people.

One can only worry when thinking about the future and the economy.

BTW, I never considered doing anything other than voting for a Democrat.

Also, I admire smarts when I see it.

Whoever thought up the caucus crossover voter strategy, pure genius.

by architek 2009-03-21 01:20PM | 0 recs

Re: Are US IMF Austerity Measures The Real Goal Fo

Beware of anyone who throws around demagogic terms such as “the real rulers of America” and “corporatists” – an undefined enemy is an imaginary enemy.

by rfahey22 2009-03-21 09:47AM | 0 recs


I will do that..

BTW, I’m not the only one terrified by corporations and their frequent amorality.

The founders of this country were too.

by architek 2009-03-21 01:22PM | 0 recs

They were?

What corporations were our founding fathers terrified of exactly? British Tea and Knickers Incorporated?

by DTOzone 2009-03-21 09:37PM | 0 recs

Corporations are unable to say no

Groupthink.. Irving Janis

Yes, barbaric British corporations, and other colonial corporations that savaged their respective fiefdoms.

by architek 2009-03-21 11:49PM | 0 recs


I always thought King George III was a person…tell me architek, how is Parliament doing on the FTSE 100?

by DTOzone 2009-03-22 12:29AM | 0 recs

Its a sign of ethical collapse

to put meeting numerical targets ahead of ethics.

by architek 2009-03-22 07:01AM | 0 recs

WTF are you even talking about now?
by DTOzone 2009-03-22 11:52AM | 0 recs

Boy are you desperate

to change the subject

by architek 2009-03-22 08:18PM | 0 recs

Re: They were?

That would be the British east India Company, the guys whose policies forced the Boston Tea Party.

by David Kowalski 2009-03-22 11:54AM | 0 recs

Re: I’m SO There

if we get to dress up like Indians!

by QTG 2009-03-22 02:17PM | 0 recs

Corporate personhood

is where we went wrong. That was ths nations biggest mistake.

Ad it wasn’t even done legally The Santa Clara opinion was a scam.

Nobody ever voted on corprate personhood. We need a referendum on such an important issue. Corporations can’t die, they can’t be put in jail. They cannot be responsible.

Money is not free speech. What the hell is going on?

Repeal Santa Clara!

by architek 2009-03-22 08:13PM | 0 recs

Ah yes

I forgot the British East India Company took it upon themselves to exempt themselves from the tea tax and monopolize tea in the colonies…I mean not like Parliament had anything to do with THAT.

by DTOzone 2009-03-22 05:39PM | 0 recs

You needed to buy a stamp to do anything

Sort of like the ACTA, (which the Obama folk wont let be discussed.. like they are discussing now finally in Europe..)

For more, visit and other sites..

Treaties are above laws, on the level of the Constitution.

Secret treaties should be illegal.

BTW, WTO seems to ban many of Obama’s halfway healthcare proposals. Nobody has even discussed this except for Public Citizen, but it seriously threatens the whole idea of a public alternative for health insurance.

Was that planned? Who knows, nobody.

by architek 2009-03-22 08:17PM | 0 recs




Are US IMF Austerity Measures The Real Goal For Corporatists?.

5 Reasons the ‘Geezer Empire’ of Billionaire Republicans Are Showering Romney With Cash | | AlterNet


May 29, 2012  |  


Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

What would the world be like if the Republican Party’s most influential billionaire backers got their way—if “the geezer empire struck back,” as New York magazine writer Frank Rich put it in a recent piece about this posse of unbelievably wealthy white men who have written million-dollar checks to GOP super PACs and non-profits in 2012.

Beyond the usual GOP jeremiads—cutting taxes and government spending, shredding safety nets, eviscerating federal regulation and privatizing whatever remains—many of the GOP’s biggest moneymen have specific issues and goals, often business-related, and would expect a Romney presidency to advance those agendas.

There is no shortage of amazing reporting on top GOP donors, such as Rich’s overview of these "Sugar Daddies" or The New Republic’s profile of 80-year-old Harold Simmons. Add in reports from watchdogs, such as the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group, and what emerges is a jaw-dropping class of mega-wealthy, alpha-male vulture capitalists who would barely blink at the human or environmental consequences of cashing out.

The 2012 campaign has been awash in Republican billionaires who have discovered they can write checks—small for them at just a million or two—and are fawned over by political consultants urging them to go for the jugular. Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts is one such political newcomer. He backed off a $10 million race-baiting plan to smear Obama with remarks by his former pastor, but is now investing in a movie where the guilt-by-association is tied to Obama’s absentee Kenyan father.

Other newcomers include William Koch, an avid sailor who has opposed a wind turbine farm off Cape Cod and now grouses about Obama being too regulation friendly, even as the New York Times editorializes that his record reining in corporate excesses is “mediocre.” 

These all-too-predictable political screeds and their billionaire promoters appear as babes in the political woods, actually, when compared to the GOP’s more seasoned big moneymen who have used campaign cash and lobbying to win government intervention on behalf of their private fortunes. In contrast to fulminations against Obama’s anti-colonial heritage or supposedly anti-capitalist inclinations, several billionaire Republicans know exactly why they are investing in Mitt Romney. 

1. Irradiate North America’s Biggest Aquifer?

Harold Simmons has come a long way from his hardscrabble rural Texas roots and schoolteacher parents. In March, he told the Wall Street Journal in a

5 Reasons the ‘Geezer Empire’ of Billionaire Republicans Are Showering Romney With Cash | | AlterNet

Senate Republicans Ask JP Morgan CEO For Marching Orders: ‘What Do You Think We Need To Do?’ | ThinkProgress

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon appeared before the Senate Banking Committee today to discuss the bungled trade that has cost his bank billions and reignited interest in the Volcker Rule, which is meant to rein in risky bank trading. During the course of the questioning, Dimon denied that he had called new bank capital requirements “anti-American,” which he had, and explained that he would be happy to get an apartment in Washington, D.C., so that Congress could consult him on financial regulations.

For the most part, the questions Dimon faced were not of the tough variety. In fact, Republicans on the committee were more interested in asking Dimon how Congress could make regulation more accommodating to the banks. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) even asked “what should the function of our regulators be?” Here are several other examples of Republican senators asking Dimon how he’d like his bank to be regulated:

SEN. BOB CORKER (R-TN): We’re here quizzing you. If you were sitting on this side of the dais, what would you do to make our system safer than it is and still meet the needs of a global economy like we have?

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID): Many people say our primary focus from our perspective in terms of policy should be to make sure the banks are properly capitalized. Should that be our primary focus and what other areas of oversight would be the most effective for us in terms of our regulatory structure?

SEN. JIM DEMINT (R-SC): I would like to come away from the hearing today with some ideas on what you think we need to do, what we maybe need to take apart that we’ve already done, to allow the industry to operate better.

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS): And you said something else that really sort caught me by surprise, and that was this testimony that nobody got all the parties in a room with people in your industry — Democrats, Republicans, and folks affected — and talked about what was needed and what really needed to be fixed. Did I hear you correctly there? Did you volunteer to be part of that conversation?

Watch it:

Just a few senators, including Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), took the opportunity to press Dimon on what went wrong at JP Morgan. If nothing else, the bank’s trading disaster makes the case for strengthening the Volcker Rule so that banks can’t gamble with taxpayer-backed money.





Senate Republicans Ask JP Morgan CEO For Marching Orders: ‘What Do You Think We Need To Do?’ | ThinkProgress.

Lobbyists, Guns and Money –

Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Related in Opinion

Charles M. Blow: A Mother’s Grace and Grieving (March 26, 2012)
More on Law and Legislation »

Readers’ Comments

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

And in case you were wondering, no, the kind of privatization ALEC promotes isn’t in the public interest; instead of success stories, what we’re getting is a series of scandals. Private charter schools, for example, appear to deliver a lot of profits but little in the way of educational achievement.

But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.

And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren’t just about generating immediate benefits to the organization’s corporate sponsors; they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Think about that: we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.

Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.



Lobbyists, Guns and Money –

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawl After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers

First Posted: 01/27/2012 5:36 pm Updated: 01/27/2012 6:27 pm




Video , Class Warfare , Temporary Assistance For Needy Families , Drug Testing , Indiana Drug Testing , Unemployment Drug Test , Welfare , Welfare Drug Testing , Politics News

share this story




Get Politics Alerts

Sign Up

Submit this story

A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.

“There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill,” said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

“I’ve only withdrawn it temporarily,” he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare.

McMillin’s bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse “reasonable suspicion,” either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office.

In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials. Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday.

“After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill,” Dvorak said. “If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. … If we’re going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money.”

Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office.

McMillan, for his part, said he’s coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.

“I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent,” he said. “Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test.”

Also on HuffPost:







Get Alerts



Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!