Definitions

It seems like an infinite struggle to determine an equitable share of the tax load between the upper and middle classes in the United States. Last December, our holiday season was marked with the threat of raised taxes against the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts for our wealthiest neighbors. Well, the fat cats celebrated a happy new year last year, with their hard-earned tax dollars safely tucked away in their pockets (oops! I meant trickled down to the rest of us, of course), costing the U.S. treasury millions of dollars every day.

This holiday season, middle class taxes are on the table again, and if Congress doesn't act in the next 21 days, they will be raised. Whether or not this will actually happen should be enough of a concern for working families during a time of year when money seems to be slipping through their fingers, but unfortunately, there's more.

Our Congress is mulling the idea of leaving our taxes be, but they're also considering a slew of riders onto this slight concession that are, to say the least, terrifying. On the republican chopping block to pass this year's spending bill:

-The right of the Washington D.C. government to fund abortions for poor women*

-Federal funding for needle exchange programs, which are effective in reducing HIV transmission**

-EPA's ability to regulate methane emissions from farms and designate new wetlands for protection, and a limit on their regulatory power in CO2 emissions, coal ash, and oil refineries

-Federal funding for family planning services, and implementation of more grant-incentivized abstinence-only sex education

-The ability of Cuban-American citizens to visit family in Cuba

These riders are completely ideological, and for the most part will have no major effect on the federal budget (government funding of needle exchange, for example, is largely symbolic and very few dollars are actually spent on supporting these programs). And while it's unlikely that all of them will pass this time (although the D.C. abortion ban already has), the fact that they are continually discussed is a frightening thing. Removing evidence-based practices such as family planning services, and plowing forward with inept ideological principles, such as abstinence-only education will have serious implications for our nation's already sub-par health status. Limiting the power of our government to protect us from environmental hazards because such regulation would hamper the market-justice of top polluting corporations is something like evil, and keeping families separated because of some archaic political agenda is simply cruel.

Personally, when I read about these measures taking place within a government that is supposed to represent my voice, I feel marginalized. I feel terrorized. And despite calling my representatives, signing petitions, occupying my city and writing this blog, I feel voiceless and powerless against their acts of injustice. Now, I know that our nation's political definition of "terrorism" involves murderous intent and a heaping amount of racism, but what if the term also applies to continuous and prolonged threats against our rights, our health, and our vitality? When a body is acting out of ignorance and ideological extremism to the ultimate peril of a vulnerable group, what do you call it?

Fail

The state of Florida has started requiring that recipients of welfare benefits in that state submit to drug testing before they are able to receive their entitlements. This law impacts new applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, who incur the cost of these drug tests, and are reimbursed only if they pass.

Despite the fact that this new bill is questionable at best in its constitutionality, it is highly discriminatory, based on the presumption that poor people in need of benefits are likely to be drug users. This is purely a stereotype, as a 2001 pilot testing study in Florida found no significant difference in drug use among aid recipients. And in a state where the unemployment rate is among the highest in the country, the government is compromising the ability of families to survive by failing to provide a valid harm reduction model.

Consider the children who are impacted by this new law. If a parent is denied their welfare checks because of a failed drug test, which has now cost the family up to $70 of crucial funds, where will money for the child's food and clothing come from? For their educational materials? Under the law, a parent is supposed to be able to name another adult who can receive benefits on behalf of their child. But in an environment where support is low and resources are limited, this answer may become more of a problem than it is a solution.

It seems as if the agenda of this new law aims more to deter families from applying for benefits than it does to deter drug use. In the absence of a drug therapy or rehabilitation program to accompany the testing subjection, what choices will a despondent parent have to support their family and get back on their feet? If drug use was actually a critical concern of the Florida government, the position of these individuals would be considered before applying such a harsh invasion into their privacy.