Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Company we -- -- -- -- show for quite enough.
Various times and we would -- reacted to a judge McMillan is Indiana State representative district 68.
And you have a bill as it -- serve about.
Having people who are getting government help government assistance to be drug tested is that correct.
-- correct -- past seven out this week.
So if people who get government help.
Should be tested for drugs.
Should -- to player to reach people in government brakes oil companies get government breaks -- kids poor people.
Well I understand yards didn't and I don't want -- summit was singling out -- people.
But the fact that -- I think there's a distinction random checks are given the people who we respect probably we expect it -- -- on our investment.
It isn't the same thing the wealthy people who get.
Tax breaks oil companies get tax break they expect the governor expected to do business in this country.
And and bring in tax revenue from others so is not the same thing.
Yeah I agree we expect that the work hard to say they're incalculable way to determine whether or not that's working.
We're talking about folks who are receiving benefits -- -- needed help keep a light on -- not accountable -- to determine where that might be instead.
Why the presumption that because they're people who happen to be -- need to keep the lights on why the presumption that they are more likely to be drug users -- people another associate demographic categories.
Well my mind is actually a presumption that this says that a worker at the presumption that these are people who are incredibly difficult argument to help.
And it's important bit to understand that the purpose of the legislation -- know there's some stuff around the country that is has certainly get purposes.
But this particular bill designed to help those people and to get them into treatment programs.
If they have a substance abuse problem.
But -- that the government playing doing social engineering something that we you know liberals like me get accused up.
You're saying within a -- get into treatment what you're really saying is we want to finance using drugs -- then stop giving new.
Assistance because we think we'll save money that way when they tried it in Florida.
They found out that it cost the state money in fact there's even a constitutional challenge to it and indeed your state Indiana may indeed lose money in the same proposition.
Well first of all the report on implement -- program where plummeting completely different program and in your right -- -- -- constitutional problems there and what we Indians have the benefit to learn island from the Portuguese spoken what's happening in Arizona and Missouri and wish you.
Well -- they were testing everybody and we're certainly not doing that -- met with sports and and the problem and an equal protection problems there.
What we're doing here were saying you're eligible to receive and then there's the written test which you can take this does not sure whether or not there's a propensity -- -- drugs.
And it that just comes back and says that there's a propensity that we're gonna bring them and test some folks defeat -- that you are.
What if -- says you can't -- we take a test.
But I if they don't -- take a written test -- to completion of getting their attendant benefits for politics to test -- they're gonna get the benefit.
Why is a condition and only the poor people rather than the condition to people who have other government subsidies and other government breaks who aren't so for this is directed at people.
Of lower income who don't have the political clout to fight back.
Well -- -- all the political clout but back as a whole bunch of organizations out there groups we see them all cons that are gonna stand up and fight for the rights to those individuals not I applaud them do it.
But -- can't say you're not targeting people of certain income here.
-- it certainly.
But what it is doing is it's it's targeting people that -- before do so by definition palpably excited about the social safety net we want to be able to help people.
But we want to make sure that will provide mental facility that we are helping people that they're using it for the purposes -- -- -- When you wanna help middle income and richer people who -- also a drug users only their differences that you get prescription drugs has taken -- -- doctors their -- and prescriptions on any helped him.
I would help everybody and as that's like gotten this fielder being in -- so politics is not open it.
I never thought I'd be doing a bit -- it -- -- -- help people but there are certain people are fighting to adjust and let's face it does need more help than others and then they.
-- you're presuming that if you're poor and need government assistance are more likely to be drug use.
I certainly am not mr.
called I hope that we will see a huge return on -- but I hope that there's not a bunch people out there beating drugs but it.
I would I guess I'll ask the questions -- king -- possibly justify using drugs is a good decision mean for anybody.
I'm not I'm not justified in using -- a good decision I don't know how you justify targeting.
A group of people silly because they are blow incoming government assistance.
When once again there are many other groups that get government assistance in different ways but they're not being targeted in this way.
But then again there's there are certain groups there.
We expect to return on investment parliament in an effort.
Yea you expect to return on investment firm rich companies from oil company you expect -- -- and investment.
From people who get mortgages and their property values go up and yet these people all get government assistance in different ways but they're not being targeted for drug -- They're certainly not that.
They're not people who are saying I mean my neighbors -- just to keep my lights on my neighbors -- -- to keep a roof over my head of the third month.
They're getting government assistance for other reasons.
They're getting other I mean we look at all the loopholes.
In the tax code that the PS some people -- most allegedly to close.
Because some people get goodies the government not such as poor people would get government -- -- people of all and you know we'll get breaks all over the place but.
These this is you're targeting a particular economic group here which seems like discrimination against the -- you understand that argument.
To understand your -- we have a philosophical.
And that argument I appreciate that I think George talk about these kinds of things were people who.
But come together -- -- have a real your -- Yeah I really -- these things that I guess what I'm saying it is.
What we have these individuals who who really need this help.
It's not just help that they need.
Keeping the lights are important reporter -- whatever the social safety net is designed to provide for them.
Couldn't help getting out of that cycle and it was such of them it's their children because I believe that we see this cycle of poverty that continues to repeat itself.
Why not just offer help to people who would like to get the help without having to take a testament condition of losing their benefits.
Well I mean not that there's not a little bit of a carrot and stick to -- streaking happened.
Security is very very -- in the -- is still setup and the stick is very very -- there's nobody ever absolute benefits under the bill that we passed.
That they couldn't pick themselves up and they can get treatment programs and they can use the benefits that they received and to do those things.
But I could happen to believe it is the with the way that the human -- setup that there's not some sticks somewhere the people are -- properly incentivized to demand -- care.
You know in Florida when they tested a little over 4000 people with and it just two point 6%.
We're drug users and the cost the state more to conduct a test and was saved by actually denying the benefits so.
You may find the same thing there and if that's the case would you then agree to stop this.
Yeah -- cannot make that commitment to people before we get into the air and then thorough financial officers that -- is that it's not something is working out.
But I'm happy to stop and I hope that's the case that I'm going to be clear that.
Financial analysis isn't just limited -- saying hey we we tested.
5000 people in only 200 -- back.
There's there's also some things about the weather people continue to apply or not.
But whether or not it's it's really working and -- -- working you'll see positives which you might see people getting back company.
On the they're back into the work force.
You know the legislative services agency says it's gonna Custer state one point 19 million dollars.
That's correct yeah yeah yeah.
Well we get breakdown that -- -- one -- one million dollars 635 stealth mode is a onetime cost approaching.
To get -- -- is not to be able to implement the programs and -- to remove that it out about 535000.
Dollar and antithetical to somebody did at the district number sure -- savings of one point 576 million dollars so it's probably not going to be here return.
I don't know it's not targeting the four we obviously have a philosophical difference but I really do appreciate the debate sir.
Appreciate you coming on the program and cheerleaders and -- watch and see how it plans out so I really appreciate you the thought humanly tonight.
You know look kicker -- admit there's other things we need to discuss some the develops and that the question cannot be happy continue to -- Thank you sir appreciate your time.
That Indiana State rep but -- McMillan.
Filter by section