Mitt Romney, trying to prove he is a conservative’s conservative, stuck his foot in his mouth again. While being interviewed on Atlanta television he was asked about legislation in Georgia at the moment that would allow for the state to test welfare recipients for drugs. Here is the quote Romney gave to the reporter in answering the question.

"States will deal with drug testing with welfare recipients, but my own view it's a great idea," he said. "People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they are not using the money for drugs. I think it's an excellent idea."

When I heard this, it got me thinking, and apparently great minds think alike because Rachel Maddow brought up the same question I had about Mitt’s response to the question. If we are to believe he wasn’t just running off at the mouth, he thinks anyone who is getting money from the government should be drug tested. In saying this, he includes all sorts of people into the drug testing pot. Military and civilian personnel would have to be tested. If you get farm subsidies (that would be you Michele Bachmann since you and your husband did get this) would have to be tested. Oh, Bachmann gets hit again because people taking in foster kids do get money from the government. Oil companies got a bailout, so that was money from the government so drop trough and pee in the cup. Of course, as Maddow went on to explain, every politician, every judge, essentially everyone from the janitor who cleans up a small county building to the President of the United States would have to do a drug test, if we are to believe Mitt really wanted to go as far as testing people getting government benefits.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the government reference was just another famous Mitt Romney slip of the tongue. I’ll give him the benefit and say he only means to test people receiving welfare benefits. The question I would have is why?

As much as Republicans claim they don’t want government interfering in their lives they definitely want government to intrude in the lives of people getting benefits from it. By the Republican formula if you go to the government for help; expect them to literally extract a pound of flesh from you, an arm and a leg, and a pint of blood. Why are they treating welfare recipients as criminals? I have a real problem with this line of thinking because the assumption Republicans use in allowing this intrusion into people’s lives is because they are poor people on assistance, they must have done something that is not allowing them to prosper in America. In their world we need to treat the poor as errant children and show them the way to happiness and prosperity by forcing them to follow the straight and narrow path as dictated by the government.

The welfare recipient as poor person is the narrative Republicans want to pump to Americans because if you think the person getting the money is ‘an other’ you are less likely to protest if the drug plan or other social engineering means testing goes into effect. People never think they will be welfare recipients until they become welfare recipients. Many years ago in California I lost my job. I was very reluctant to get assistance because I felt it was beneath me. I assumed at some point I would get a job, but after exhausting the kindness of friends, the bank account of my parents and draining my own meager saving I signed up for unemployment. Even though I was actively looking for a job, part of the deal I had to do to get the unemployment check was to attend a job boot camp. If I didn’t attend I would lose the money. They were very strict about recipients going to these meetings, and the people who were at the meetings weren’t strung out drug addicts. They were much like me; people who had lost their jobs and had been out of work for a few months, needing temporary help. Honestly, we were treated like ignorant children and it was very demeaning.

I remember this time when we were told he HAD to go to a job seminar which would teach us how to fill and send out applications. Some of us had job interviews on the day of the seminar. We were told if we didn't attend we would lose our benefits, no exceptions. Think about that; we had interviews lined up for a job, but we had to guess if going to job interview would guarantee us a job, thus we didn't need unemployment benefits, or go to the seminar and possibly lose a job because we had to learn something we already knew.

I haven't known many people that enjoy being unemployed. It is a myth perpetuated by people who have an agenda to cut funding for people who might need it. I remember when I lost my job out here and I was unemployed for over six months. It wasn't fun and it wasn't a guarantee every week I would get the needed check. Sitting around doing nothing wasn't fun. Checking for job openings wasn't fun. Feeling like a loser, feeling like you are a failure isn't fun. I had it lucky because I didn't have a family depending on me. Sure, emotional support in that time would have been nice, but think of the pressure of not having a job and your significant other is wondering why you can't find work. You worry about the bills getting paid. With all the pressure going on, there are people who want to put up more barriers and hoops for people to jump through. That is shameful.