Congresswoman Calls for Drug-Testing the One Percent, Not the Poor
'We might really save some money by drug-testing folks on Wall Street, who might have a little cocaine before they get their deal done.' — US Rep. Gwen Moore
A Wisconsin congresswoman, "sick and tired, and sick and tired of being sick and tired, of the criminalization of poverty," plans to introduce a bill requiring drug tests for the rich before high-dollar tax deductions are approved.
U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, a Democrat from Milwaukee, told the Guardian in an interview Wednesday that her initiative was inspired by fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan's new "anti-poverty" plan, unveiled last week in front of a Washington, D.C. drug treatment center. At the time, Moore denounced that proposal as "a series of discriminatory policies meant to stigmatize the most vulnerable among us."
She said to the Guardian this week: "When he stood in front of a drug treatment center and rolled out his anti-poverty initiative, pushing this narrative that poor people are drug addicts, that was the last straw."
Indeed, Moore wrote in an op-ed last year:
We don't drug-test wealthy CEOs who receive federal subsidies for their private jets, nor do we tell Pell Grant recipients which degrees to pursue. We don't dictate how senior citizens should spend their social security checks, nor do we force judges or public officials to prove their sobriety to earn their paychecks. Attaching special demands to government aid exclusively targets our country's most vulnerable individuals and families. The implication that those battling poverty are more susceptible to substance abuse is as absurd as it is offensive, and forcing people to choose between feeding their families and protecting their constitutionally protected rights is disgraceful.
In turn, Moore plans to introduce on Thursday the "Top 1% Accountability Act," which the Guardian explains "would force taxpayers with itemized deductions of more than $150,000--which, according to 2011 tax data compiled by the IRS, would only be households with a yearly federal adjusted gross income of more than $1m--to submit to the IRS a clear drug test from a sample no more than three months old, or take the much lower standard deduction when filing their taxes."
Moore said: "We're not going to get rid of the federal deficit by cutting poor people off [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or] SNAP. But if we are going to drug-test people to reduce the deficit, let's start on the other end of the income spectrum.
"We might really save some money by drug-testing folks on Wall Street," she said, "who might have a little cocaine before they get their deal done."
As the Guardian notes, "Most people--including those with high incomes, who qualify for far more deductions and credits than the average person--just don't 'see' tax deductions as a subsidy similar to those given to low-income people in the form of benefits."
But Moore, a mother and grandmother who has spoken about how social safety net programs helped her family rise out of poverty, wants people to know: "The benefits we give to poor people are so limited compared to what we give to the top 1%," she said. "It's a drop in the bucket."
Meanwhile, a ThinkProgress survey of the 10 states that now have drug-test-for-benefits programs in place, publicized earlier this year, "found that they continue to be expensive and not especially effective. All told, states spent another $850,909.25 on the testing regimes in 2015 to uncover just 321 positive tests--in more than one state, none at all."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A Wisconsin congresswoman, "sick and tired, and sick and tired of being sick and tired, of the criminalization of poverty," plans to introduce a bill requiring drug tests for the rich before high-dollar tax deductions are approved.
U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, a Democrat from Milwaukee, told the Guardian in an interview Wednesday that her initiative was inspired by fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan's new "anti-poverty" plan, unveiled last week in front of a Washington, D.C. drug treatment center. At the time, Moore denounced that proposal as "a series of discriminatory policies meant to stigmatize the most vulnerable among us."
She said to the Guardian this week: "When he stood in front of a drug treatment center and rolled out his anti-poverty initiative, pushing this narrative that poor people are drug addicts, that was the last straw."
Indeed, Moore wrote in an op-ed last year:
We don't drug-test wealthy CEOs who receive federal subsidies for their private jets, nor do we tell Pell Grant recipients which degrees to pursue. We don't dictate how senior citizens should spend their social security checks, nor do we force judges or public officials to prove their sobriety to earn their paychecks. Attaching special demands to government aid exclusively targets our country's most vulnerable individuals and families. The implication that those battling poverty are more susceptible to substance abuse is as absurd as it is offensive, and forcing people to choose between feeding their families and protecting their constitutionally protected rights is disgraceful.
In turn, Moore plans to introduce on Thursday the "Top 1% Accountability Act," which the Guardian explains "would force taxpayers with itemized deductions of more than $150,000--which, according to 2011 tax data compiled by the IRS, would only be households with a yearly federal adjusted gross income of more than $1m--to submit to the IRS a clear drug test from a sample no more than three months old, or take the much lower standard deduction when filing their taxes."
Moore said: "We're not going to get rid of the federal deficit by cutting poor people off [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or] SNAP. But if we are going to drug-test people to reduce the deficit, let's start on the other end of the income spectrum.
"We might really save some money by drug-testing folks on Wall Street," she said, "who might have a little cocaine before they get their deal done."
As the Guardian notes, "Most people--including those with high incomes, who qualify for far more deductions and credits than the average person--just don't 'see' tax deductions as a subsidy similar to those given to low-income people in the form of benefits."
But Moore, a mother and grandmother who has spoken about how social safety net programs helped her family rise out of poverty, wants people to know: "The benefits we give to poor people are so limited compared to what we give to the top 1%," she said. "It's a drop in the bucket."
Meanwhile, a ThinkProgress survey of the 10 states that now have drug-test-for-benefits programs in place, publicized earlier this year, "found that they continue to be expensive and not especially effective. All told, states spent another $850,909.25 on the testing regimes in 2015 to uncover just 321 positive tests--in more than one state, none at all."
A Wisconsin congresswoman, "sick and tired, and sick and tired of being sick and tired, of the criminalization of poverty," plans to introduce a bill requiring drug tests for the rich before high-dollar tax deductions are approved.
U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, a Democrat from Milwaukee, told the Guardian in an interview Wednesday that her initiative was inspired by fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan's new "anti-poverty" plan, unveiled last week in front of a Washington, D.C. drug treatment center. At the time, Moore denounced that proposal as "a series of discriminatory policies meant to stigmatize the most vulnerable among us."
She said to the Guardian this week: "When he stood in front of a drug treatment center and rolled out his anti-poverty initiative, pushing this narrative that poor people are drug addicts, that was the last straw."
Indeed, Moore wrote in an op-ed last year:
We don't drug-test wealthy CEOs who receive federal subsidies for their private jets, nor do we tell Pell Grant recipients which degrees to pursue. We don't dictate how senior citizens should spend their social security checks, nor do we force judges or public officials to prove their sobriety to earn their paychecks. Attaching special demands to government aid exclusively targets our country's most vulnerable individuals and families. The implication that those battling poverty are more susceptible to substance abuse is as absurd as it is offensive, and forcing people to choose between feeding their families and protecting their constitutionally protected rights is disgraceful.
In turn, Moore plans to introduce on Thursday the "Top 1% Accountability Act," which the Guardian explains "would force taxpayers with itemized deductions of more than $150,000--which, according to 2011 tax data compiled by the IRS, would only be households with a yearly federal adjusted gross income of more than $1m--to submit to the IRS a clear drug test from a sample no more than three months old, or take the much lower standard deduction when filing their taxes."
Moore said: "We're not going to get rid of the federal deficit by cutting poor people off [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or] SNAP. But if we are going to drug-test people to reduce the deficit, let's start on the other end of the income spectrum.
"We might really save some money by drug-testing folks on Wall Street," she said, "who might have a little cocaine before they get their deal done."
As the Guardian notes, "Most people--including those with high incomes, who qualify for far more deductions and credits than the average person--just don't 'see' tax deductions as a subsidy similar to those given to low-income people in the form of benefits."
But Moore, a mother and grandmother who has spoken about how social safety net programs helped her family rise out of poverty, wants people to know: "The benefits we give to poor people are so limited compared to what we give to the top 1%," she said. "It's a drop in the bucket."
Meanwhile, a ThinkProgress survey of the 10 states that now have drug-test-for-benefits programs in place, publicized earlier this year, "found that they continue to be expensive and not especially effective. All told, states spent another $850,909.25 on the testing regimes in 2015 to uncover just 321 positive tests--in more than one state, none at all."