At the Taxpayer's Expense

  1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42717,00.html


    Another example of hard-working, responsible people having to pay for other's irresponsible and regretful decisions......


    It never ends.

    •  
  2. 12 Comments

  3. by   Stargazer
    Oh. My. Dog.

    That is maybe the DUMBEST government program I've ever seen. And trust me, the bar is set VERY low.

    Love the line about how it's all about "meeting the needs of my constituents." Hey, I need a big-screen TV, a bigger apartment, a new computer, and perpetual upgrades for First Class whenever I travel. If I move to Capps' district, will I get it?
  4. by   bhart
    I don't "talk" much, but I just had to say, Oh. My. Dog. Indeed!
  5. by   PhantomRN
    Actually I dont have many qualms about the program. There are many gang members who place LARGE tattoos on their faces to qualify them to belong to a gang. If after they grow up a little and want to change their lives a blaring tatoo on them will bar them from a decent job with out question.

    Now I would not agree with them removing tatoos that can be hiden under clothes, but the very visible ones that would impede someone from starting a new life I am all for their removal.

    I would rather have a pay a few bucks to allow them to start a new life, than have them unable to find a job and start doing petty theft to eat,,,,then stealing big items,,,,,then home invasions......then caught and put in prison that costs roughly 20-50,000 a year per prisoner now.
  6. by   night owl
    Now Suzy, you've got to be kidding with this one, but I know you aren't. What kills me is David Williams, the vice president of citizens against government waste being so concerned about why someone in Arizona or Wisconsin having to pay for this program...Why the he** should ANYONE pay for this garbage EXCEPT for the person (former gang member) who's having it removed??? Gee, I've got a mole that needs to be removed. Maybe if I move to Santa Barbara, do you think the feds will pay for that too? Probably not because I'm not a former gang member. Gee. Give us a break Uncle Sam!!!
  7. by   Q.
    PhantomRN,

    I can see where you are coming from with this - and I agree that tatoos can prevent someone from getting a job and in trying to turn their life around. And yes, I can see the math in that it is cheaper to remove the tatoo than pay for them to live in prison. But, despite that, I still have a problem with paying for it because....well.....why should I? I mean, how expensive is it? They had the money to GET the tatoo, they should have the money to get it removed.
  8. by   fergus51
    I think it wouldn't bother anyone if the money had to be repaid. Then the ex-gang member gets a job and it wouldn't cost taxpayers an arm and a leg. I think the reason it can bother people is that it seems like free money
  9. by   donmurray
    I'm with Phantom on this one. Think of it as an investment, which saves your taxes going up, paying for their jail time etc. You may just save on insurance rises, and have less need for home security equipment, in the long term.
  10. by   nurs4kids
    Originally posted by fergus51
    I think it wouldn't bother anyone if the money had to be repaid. Then the ex-gang member gets a job and it wouldn't cost taxpayers an arm and a leg. I think the reason it can bother people is that it seems like free money
    I'm with fergus. Some type mandatory repayment would make me feel much better. How about 6months public service and THEN we'll remove it? How about this guy going to schools WITH his tattoo intact and talking to kids, telling them what he's been through and what he's having to do to get rid of it?? If someone's serious about changing, then they'd be willing.

    Are we sure this is done to benefit the patient, or is it another case of "politicts in motion"...benefiting the doc and the politician??
  11. by   kaycee
    I agree there should be a payback of some sort. It says they do have to complete 16 hrs of community service. I don't think that's enough. Maybe if she wants this service for her constituents it should be paid for on a state level. Let her constiuents pay for it if it's what they want. Not the rest of the country.
    This is really so ridiculous I can hardly believe it.

  12. by   night owl
    I feel sorry for those who screwed up their lives by getting a tatoo
    ON THEIR FACE. But I still don't see why you and I should have to pay to have the dang thing removed. Community service or not, like Suzy sez, " They had the money to GET the tatoo, they should have the money to get it removed." I'm really getting tired paying for other people's STUPIDITY. If you did the damage, then you pay and have it fixed...very simple. The 16 hours of community service will do them good anyway. Think of all the damage they caused when they were "out there"...robbing people, shooting and killing people and children with their stupid tatoos all over their faces...come on. They should be paying back the citizen doing more than community service, but I STILL feel that you and I should NOT have to pay for them just because they want to "turn their lives around." I say good for them. {{{claping my hands}}} My luck, they'll have a better paying job than you or I and I should have to pay for this ridiculous program...NOT
  13. by   Q.
    Not to mention, (and I again bring up my father).....

    HE is trying to "turn his life around" too - no one is paying for THAT but his family. And there would DEFINITELY be a benefit to having the tax payer's foot the bill....one less drunk driver on the road.

    It just doesn't make any sense. Why is it that certain groups are afforded all these "gimmee" programs and others aren't? Not that I think the taxpayer's SHOULD pay for my father...but c'mon, let's at least be consistent in our stupidity.
  14. by   CATHYW
    ...IF there was a way to get the money withheld, i.e. from income tax reimbursement, or something of that nature. If one was to wait for the "constituents" to repay the money, how long do you think they might have to wait to see any of it?

    I've never liked tattoos, but have friends and family who think they are "it." The government has not encouraged any of them to get tattoos; therefore, the government should not pay for their removal.

    This compassion/sympathy/empathy, whatever, with gang members who get their faces tattooed is the same type of thing that fueled Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." That was the implementation of the type of "gimme" programs that you see in government today. "Constituents" and politicians felt uncomfortable with what they saw in everyday society, so they decided to throw money at the problems, in hopes that they would either go away, or turn into something acceptable. We are now supporting a large segment of society whose GRANDPARENTS were the first recipients of that societal guilt and government largesse.

    I'm with Suzy-folks must be (or become) accountable for their own actions. As someone else noted, it is not the responsibility of someone in Arizona to pay to have a tattoo removed from someone in Georgia, that they don't even know.
    Last edit by Cathy Wilson, RN on Jan 16, '02

close