9 Comments for this article

Tags: , , , , ,


RALEIGH, NC (AP) — The North Carolina General Assembly is returning to work to consider whether to override Gov. Pat McCrory’s first two vetoes.

The legislature is scheduled to reconvene in Raleigh at midday Tuesday, more than five weeks after it adjourned for the year. The state constitution required McCrory to call legislators back when he issued the vetoes.

Republican lawmakers say they’re poised to override the vetoes by the GOP governor on bills to require drug-testing for some welfare applicants and broaden an exemption for employers to avoid using the E-Verify system to check the legal status of new workers. Both bills passed earlier by veto-proof margins. McCrory says the bills are bad and can be fixed next spring.

The House didn’t plan to get down to formal business until late Tuesday afternoon.

(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comment on this Story

  • Vog46

    There’s nothing wrong per se it’s just that for those states that have done this have discovered a rather inconvenient fact – very few of these “dead beats” are using drugs and the cost of the program outweighs the supposed benny of getting druggies off welfare.
    Now then again we have to be careful here as well because we can’t just check everyone because that has been determined by the courts to be illegal search and seizure (I don’t like that court ruling either – but it is what it is). And, on TOP of that this law has no law enforcement aspect to it. If caught the resident gets a year to clean up their act with no report made to law enforcement. Test positive again and you get thrown out but again – no report made to law enforcement. This is as bad as the gun buy back with no questions asked.
    The question now becomes are the Republicans willing to take the heat for a program that will more than likely be a waste of money?


  • GuestUSMC

    What is bad about a bill that makes welfare deadbeats pass a drug test just like the taxpayers had to pass so their money could be stolen by the government and redistributed? Also what is wrong with a bill that ensures a job applicant is not an illegal criminal? This state and entire nation is going to Hell on a rocket sled.

  • Vog46

    The constitution guarantees our right against unreasonable search and seizure by? the government.
    A person pulled over has to be pulled over for a reason -weaving, speeding, going too slow. The cops have a suspicion based upon observation.
    A private company can set policy based upon empirical evidence that drugs impair judgement and can result in unsafe actions. They therefore can set a drug screen as a reasonable tool to use to screen potential employees. Many company’s also test for drugs if and employees suffers and on the job injury. Remember they are NOT the government
    As for prisoners DNA? Supposedly you lose many rights in prison,m including the right to vote. I suspect they can force a DNA sample for all prisoners but I’m not sure.
    Do I like this? No, but it is what we have to live with. In FLorida suspicion based drug testing for welfare (which is what we will be doing – resulted in less than 3% positive tests and less than 2% repeat positive tests. The less than 2% thrown off welfare did not “pay for itself” and Florida is LOSING a goodly sum of money on the program.
    All this from a non lawyer…..:-)


  • GuestUSMC

    OK, Vog….I understand about the unreasonable search and seizure. However, if you refuse a breathalyzer, your license is automatically suspended, whether or not you have been drinking. Why can’t this work with welfare? Let drug testing be part of the rules. You refuse, you don’t get money. What about forced DNA checks for felons? What about forced drug tests to keep your job? How is welfare different?

  • Vog46

    From a political standpoint the veto is interesting. It is abundantly clear that the Legislature is “corporatizing” as much of North Carolina government as they can.
    This means they are going to try to get to performance based results of some kind.
    If they had looked at Florida and other states they would see the results they want don’t coincide with this legislation. I believe in this case the Governor is right, it’s bad legislation.
    But the legislature also has fallen for the lie that people on welfare are just black, Hispanic, drug addicted takers when in fact the rolls are full of people who break that stereotype. Remember our unemployment rates is the 4th highest in the country and going the wrong way. So it stands to reason that our welfare rolls would be higher and more diverse than many think.
    The Legislature thinks otherwise….


  • Break the Trend

    The problem is generations of people are depending on welfare. They consider it a job. It was intended to be a hand up not a hand out. Put a time limit on the benefits like unemployment and make them work towards a goal of education and ultimately finding a job. We need to raise minimum wage in this country as well. When you can live better on welfare than you can on minimum wage you have a huge problem. There isn’t any incentive to move up.

    That being said, while you are in the system you should have to follow a certain set of rules. If you don’t like the rules then don’t go into the system, pretty simple. Instead of drug testing, which I agree is a waste of taxpayer money, start taking away their benefits for violation of the rules. Example, if you or someone living under your roof commits a crime you loose your benefits. I am pretty sure you will see parents start taking responsibility for their kids when they stand to loose something.

  • Vog46

    If a parents income is the determining factor for GETTING Welfare, you want the child’s behavior to be a reason for kicking them OFF welfare?
    Good luck with that one.
    I tend to agree that ALL parents need to take responsibility for their kids but to use the ids behavior as justification or removal when the income was the reason for getting welfare seems just a bit disingenuous to me.
    Of course you’re belief that generations of people depend on welfare is also wrong. Our welfare rolls have swollen dramatically since the recession of 2007/2008. And with unemployment rising again it would figure to continue to swell the welfare rolls.


  • Guest2020

    The market should determine the wages, not the government. When you raise minimum wage, you just push people out of jobs because the employers cannot afford the raise. If people have a job where they don’t make enough, then they have the option of either find a better paying job or to take on a second job. Raising costs for employers is not the solution. They already have enough on their shoulders with Obamacare.

  • Break the Trend


    You are correct in what I want. Accountability from everyone receiving free benefits. What a crazy thought I know. Here’s one even crazier, take away their right to vote after a period of time if they want to continue living off of the taxpayers dime. Insane I know. I’m on a roll now, let’s even hold them and anyone living under their roof accountable when they commit crimes. Let’s kick them out of their free housing, take away their free phones, food stamps, healthcare and check. Wait, I just thought of one, let’s make them ineligible for welfare unless they have at least a high school diploma or a GED. Okay I will stop now but could certainly go on and on. If you are an able body person and “choose not to work and contribute to society” then you should loose some of your rights. These people are easy to spot. They are the ones that have been living off of the system for years.

    As part of a solution to at least get us headed in the right direction, I would want to increase the minimum wage so it’s actually a livable wage. There are many of these types of jobs out there but people living on welfare would loose too much if they took a minimum wage job at the current rate. There is no incentive to change their lifestyle. As I said at the beginning of my last post we need to be giving people a hand up not a hand out.


    We can just continue to give them a free place to live, free food to eat, free healthcare, free phones and by the way a few dollars for essentials. Let’s not forget, there isn’t any time limit as to how long you get this free stuff. You can have it for as long as you need it.

    Now you tell me which one of these ideas sounds the most insane?

    And Vog, I’m not crazy enough to think our fine government would ever make any of the changes I suggested above. After all, why would they?


Related News