Are Texas Prosecutors Reliable?

Are Texas Prosecutors Reliable?

In the article “Texas Prosecutors No Longer Unassailable”, was published April 26 2013 in The Texas Tribune. Refers to all the controversy that has been an issue with Texas prosecutors. Recently Rosemary Lehmberg received a DWI this past week, a former district attorney is facing charges related to sending an innocent man to jail. Another prosecutor is fighting contempt of court charges after refusing to testify in a prosecutorial misconduct inquiry. Travis County is the seat of the state government, and its district attorney has the duty of prosecuting state officials accused of violating ethics and finance laws. In my opinion, how can we trust the state’s officials if they can’t do act responsible enough outside of work, as District attorney they have incredible power, and how are you supposed to trust there judgment or verdict if they can’t keep them selves in line. Lehmberg is 63 years old and still shows no mercy for the law. Who knows how many times she drinks and drives, this time she got caught and she should face the penalties.  She should resign in consequence to her actions; the public is furious and will be able to trust her judgments. This is a huge political argument, and we shall see what happens, because of her position as District Attorney she will probably receive a slap on the wrist, I doubt she will do time. According to the author Ross Ramsey, Lehmberg was moderately intoxicated with bloodshot, watery and glassy eyes. According to the deputy, Lehmberg appeared “excited,” “insulting,” “cocky,” yet “cooperative.” Her childish actions reflect her credibility serving as a state official. She should resign, but she does not intend to.

 

Now or Later?

Now or Later?

            Screening for drugs while collecting Unemployment benefits is by far the most reasonable solution to weed out those not putting effort in seeking employment, and collecting a free paycheck. It is known that over 80% of employers require a pre-employment drug screening with the addition to random screening through out the employees duration with the company. Forrest is led to believe that Unemployment and Welfare Drug Abusers is “more of a stereotype than an actual problem”.

            Senator Tommy Williams addressed the Economic Development Committee on March 13th 2013 to require drug testing for those that are receiving Unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission.  According to TWC stats on pre-employment drug screening fails, the new bill (SB21) would estimate a savings of 13 Million over a five-year period. Provided by TWC, this analysis estimates administrative costs of $501,942 in fiscal year 2014 and $168,503 in fiscal years 2015-2018 which includes an additional 3.4 Full-Time-Equivalent positions each fiscal year to implement the provisions of the bill. Such laws have passed in Arizona, Indiana, Missouri and other states. In Florida, people who receive welfare benefits must pay for their own drug tests. Currently about 20 states prohibit unemployment payments for people who have lost a job because of drug use. More than a dozen states do not allow welfare benefits for someone convicted of a drug felony.

            Now, as you might ask what does this have to do with Tax payers, or those who do not receive benefits. Well as Forrest mentioned that Unemployment Benefits “ are not paid by taxpayers; it’s paid by the employers”. Thus, is partly true. At the moment, employers pay a state tax for each employee. The money pays for state-issued unemployment checks – the first 26 weeks of them, anyway. After the 26 weeks is exhausted Obama implemented a federal extension to those collecting Unemployment. Currently, companies pay their federal unemployment tax on the first $7,000 of each employee’s salary. That rate has been the same since 1983. Once the benefits are exhausted from a company, money is then borrowed from Uncle Sam. Not only does the federal extension put a burden on the system, high unemployment rates work in the same way. Borrowing money is not interest free, and states will require a raised tax to implement the costs. Who do you think will pay for these costs? Just because unemployment rates go up doesn’t mean they will automatically tax the employer to budget costs.

 Those who receive paychecks and buy groceries are all subject to pay taxes. It all comes down to my original point, If you can't pass a drug test, then you typically can't get employed, and I would argue you're not actively looking for employment. Therefore defeating the purpose of collecting benefits and would actively determine who is seeking employment.

As of Today- April 9^th 2013, Arkansas Senate agrees to Drug Test those who are receiving Unemployment benefits. I think we will see a pattern in the near future, it is also one of Governor Rick Perry’s matter of contention to address.

Reference:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/fiscalnotes/html/SB00021I.htm