First, the Governor, to his credit, has come out unequivocally in support of this sensible program (and yes, it is sensible — more on that in a second).
“It's a program that saves money and enables people who are on welfare to get to work,” Patrick said yesterday, adding it was former Gov. Mitt Romney's initiative. “Either we're serious about getting people off welfare and into jobs, or we're not.”
Well put. That is what it means to be a Democrat: both fiscally and socially responsible.
Second, Yvonne Abraham has a spectacular column in today's Globe. After noting the aforementioned legislative hysteria over the donated car program, she aptly observes:
legislators have their own free ride program. It's called a per diem, and it's a scam. And that particular welfare giveaway isn't going anywhere.
And here's the truly hilarious part:
Naturally, the men most outraged about the car giveaways have been lining up for their own windfalls.
Let's take Scott Brown, for example. First among huffers and puffers, the Republican senator authored one of the amendments to abolish the program. Yet Brown collected $3,926 in per diems in 2008 – in addition to his $76,400 salary. And he's on track to take almost as much this year: As of May 1, he had claimed $1,378 for making the journey to Beacon Hill from Wrentham.
House Republican leader Brad Jones was similarly exercised over the car program, even though it was the brainchild of former GOP governor Mitt Romney. Jones got $3,186 in per diem payments last year. Neither legislator was available for interviews.
Senator Steven Baddour sponsored another amendment to kill the cars program. The Democrat collected $3,458 in per diems last year for his drives from Methuen. His cosponsor Stephen Brewer cleaned up: he claimed $6,660 for trips from Barre last year. So far this year he has gotten $720 in addition to his $76,400 salary.
Total damages to the state last year, according to Abraham: $534,400 — considerably more than the $400,000 or so devoted to the donated cars program.
So the per diem looks like an outstanding opportunity to trim the budget in tough times, no?
I asked Brewer how he reconciles nixing the car program with his own enthusiastic embrace of per diems. “I'm out there earning my living,” he said. “This is a job that never ends, trust me.”
My heart bleeds, Senator, my heart bleeds. But Abraham is not finished twisting the knife just yet.
John Rezende is out there earning his living. Rezende's family spent nine months in a shelter last year after he lost his job and their house burned down. Each month, they got $520 in cash from the Department of Transitional Assistance and $400 in food stamps.
Without the 1996 Chevy Tahoe the DTA and the Wellesley charity Good News Garage gave him, Rezende says he wouldn't have been a reliable employee at a New Bedford nursing home where he works, because it's a 45-minute walk from his house. And he definitely wouldn't have been able to work the night duties and double shifts that turn his $10 an hour into a decent wage. He would still be living off taxpayers' money.
“My life is 110 percent better with this vehicle,” he said.
This year, Rezende will make enough money to pay his own taxes. Too much of which will go to the shortsighted, hypocritical dolts on Beacon Hill.
Game, set, and match. We need more opinionated reporting like this.
Third, the DTA itself has put out some useful information about the program. I have reprinted the entire info sheet at the end of this post. Here are a few highlights:
- Over the last three fiscal years, the program's success rate of getting participants off of welfare has indeed hovered around 80%.
- The annual savings in welfare benefits to the state over the last three fiscal years as a result of moving participants off of welfare have averaged $280,000. In addition, some clients were homeless at the time of their participation, so they received additional state benefits (see the fact sheet for details). And that does not include the benefit to the state of having an average of 46 newly-employed people each year paying taxes to the state and otherwise stimulating the economy. I don't know how much these folks paid in income taxes, but if they paid anything at all, it would seem that this program is either revenue-neutral or vanishingly close to it.
I just see no argument in favor of the position that this program, alone among all the other wasteful or dubious programs that the state funds, merits all the negative attention it has received. Kudos to the administration for backing it. Shame on the pandering legislators who seem determined to kowtow to talk radio simpletons in bashing it, and kudos to Yvonne Abraham for calling them out. Let's hope that common sense and decency prevail on this as we move forward in the budget process.
Here is the full memo from DTA:
About the Transportation Support Program
• In addition to many vital self-sufficiency services, the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) administers transportation supports for Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC) clients participating in a work, education or professional training activity.
• Supports include gas cards and public transportation passes, as well as the Car Ownership Program. Started under Governor Romney in 2006, this program connects cars donated by the public to qualified families participating in TAFDC. The program allows families who have no other means to travel to work to transition from welfare to work and off cash assistance.
• Over the past three fiscal years, 180 clients have participated in the program. More than 80% of the participants have moved off of TAFDC, saving the Commonwealth more than $835,000∗ in cash benefits during this time.Recent Successes
• In FY07, 45 eligible DTA clients participated in the program. 39 clients transitioned off cash assistance because of the support. The program achieved an 85% success rate. These successes resulted in savings of cash benefits of over $210,000 for the Commonwealth.
• In FY08, 74 clients participated in the program. 56 clients were able to transition off cash assistance, resulting in an 80% success and savings of cash benefits of over $319,000 for the Commonwealth.
• In FY09, 61 clients have benefitted from the program, with 44 clients transitioning off cash assistance, resulting in a 77% success rate and savings of cash benefits of over $310,000 for the Commonwealth.
o Four of these clients were homeless at the time they received their donated vehicles. With Emergency Assistance shelter benefits and cash assistance, each of these clients had received approximately $40,000 in annualized state benefits. After receiving their donated cars, they cost the Commonwealth $6,000 and successfully transitioned out of shelter and off cash assistance. By participating in this program, these four families alone saved the Commonwealth $136,000.Program Background
• An early version of this program began under Governor Cellucci. The program was o
perational from FY99 to the end of FY02 as a car loan program.
• The current Car Ownership Program was started under Governor Romney in May 2006.
• The vehicle is provided to an eligible family by TransAction Associates, Inc., of Waltham, MA.
• The Commonwealth spends approximately $6,000 per donated car to make appropriate repairs so the vehicle passes inspection and to cover each client's insurance, excise tax, title, registration, inspection, and AAA membership for (up to) one year. The full program costs an average of $380,000 per fiscal year.
• As of FY02, 11 other states offered car donation programs, including New York, California, Colorado and Illinois.Program Eligibility
• The Car Ownership Program is only available to qualified participants of TAFDC. The average monthly cash benefit for the program is less than $500/month.
• Interested persons notify their DTA case manager, who makes a referral to TransAction Associates, the contracted vendor.
• To be eligible for this program, TAFDC clients must:
o be employed or about to become employed (must have a job offer within 30 days of the request);
o have a valid Massachusetts driver's license;
o have no means of transportation (personal or public) to get to work;
o not own a vehicle; and
o not have been sanctioned by DTA for any reason in the last six months.
• The client must be “in good standing” by meeting all of the requirements of the TAFDC program and must be in the process of becoming self-sufficient through employment.Process and Oversight
• In addition to the above criteria, TransAction Associates investigates each client's driving record and determines whether their expected household income will be sufficient to own a vehicle.
• If the client qualifies for the program, the completed paperwork is submitted to the Good News Garage or Four Wheels to Work, nonprofit organizations that:
o Interview the client to match a car with his/her needs;
o Discuss procedures for the warranty, as well as operation and maintenance of the vehicle at the time of vehicle delivery;
o Reimburse the client for the cost of a car inspection sticker;
o Provide a full 30-day warranty on the vehicle;
o Provide cost discounts on approved repairs for the first 30 days of ownership;
o Once the client has completed the necessary paperwork and acquired insurance, he or she receives a car from the Good News Garage or Four Wheels to Work;
o After receiving a car, the client must provide pay stubs each month to TransAction Associates. If no verification is provided, TransAction Associates will not reimburse the cost of insurance after the first six months.
• The Department budgeted for 60 cars for this program in FY09. Due to high demand, the program was suspended in December 2008 after meeting this target.
• In late April 2009, after recognizing savings in other transportation supports, the Department invested additional funding into the program of approximately $30,000, which is enough for a maximum of five cars.
Not only does it help families move off assistance, they also will be contributing additional money to the tax system.
<
p>It might also enable them to experience other opportunities for themselves and their children that may have been outside their reach without transportation.
Would all the problems in the world solved so simply and cheaply.
If somebody can’t tell the difference between an investment in citizens and a giveaway to them, they probably shouldn’t be in government.
Right next to the article is $75M proposed increase in fees on regular Mass drivers. The outrage is that as usual the liberal government will do things (even if it’s the right thing) for a few poor people and then slams car usage among the middle class. You would thing you were running a radon plant and calling Katrina II down on us driving a car in this state the past couple years.
<
p>So what is it, cars good or cars bad? If you admit that welfare moms need the cars, then maybe the rest of us do too! So lay off.
Don’t be a caveman. Cars are neither good nor bad. Cars are tools. Sometimes, an automobile is the right tool. Like, for example, when you live in a place without mass transit and you need reliable year round transportation to your place of employment, which is located more than 1 mile from your home. Sometimes, a bicycle is the right tool. Like, when you’d like to get from an A to a nearby B and the weather, time of day, and cargo load are all appropriate.
<
p>Now, not all autos are equal. Some minimize their environmental impact, their safety hazard toward others, their detrimental impact on physical infrastructure. Others seem to go out of their way to maximize detrimental externalities. We as a society have a vested interest in encouraging you to (a) choose the tool of bicycle/foot/carpool/bus/subway/train when possible, and to (b) choose an auto which minimizes detrimental impacts.
<
p>The gas tax in MA hasn’t gone up since 1991. In 1993 Clinton signed a gas tax increase of 4.3 cents. In the mean time, the USA has gone to at least two wars which just so happen to coincide with keeping the oil flowing. My tax dollars continue to subsidize in enormous amount of coal, oil, and natural gas extraction. Lay off? Get real.
The Blue Mass lifestyle of being car-correct is a function of youth and high income, and is incompatible for a situation of economic vulnerability or the average middle class life.
<
p>You can live this lifestyle if:
<
p>a. you have no children and don’t need to get home to get them out of school or daycare,
<
p>b. you have a college education in technology and so get a job which doesn’t require you to interact with the public face to face, so you can be sweaty/wet from rain and dressed like a biker
<
p>c. you live in Porter Square and work at MGH.
<
p>d. you have no chronic physical problems.
<
p>In short, adhering to your car-correctness is impossible for all but a tiny fraction of the workforce. Many others are in this situation not by choice buy by necessity and no surprise, they tend to have a hard time getting and holding jobs.
<
p>The main effect of governmentizing the Blue Mass car-correct lifestyle will be to hinder the use of cars by the chronic underclass, who by your defense of this program you admit need cars to work!
<
p>
Your comment only makes sense if you think liberals are a bunch of imbecilic extremists.
<
p>Yes, you can dig up odd kinds of environmental purism, but such purism is not represented here. I have no idea who you’re responding to.
<
p>One satire opportunity: write the comment to which Seacraper is actually responding. It could be quite funny.
If you are so reasonable, please oppose Obama’s expensive new standards on cars, which will hit the poor the hardest.
And really, the ratings here… that’s not a sign of Kremlin-style groupthink? I get a mark off for each interesting thing I write. 0 = double plus ungood.
(Excuse the descent into meta.)
<
p>This is mostly a Democratic, mostly liberal blog. In general we mostly agree with each other. That should be unsurprising.
<
p>Personally, I make a point of defending thoughtful conservatives who post here, even ones with whom I disagree, and I avoid giving out 3s or 4s. But if you want a ton of sixes, a Democratic/progressive blog is not where you’re going to get them. Sorry.
<
p>That said, I find the right wing tendency to caricature liberals (Mallard Fillmore, Ann Coulter, “Kremlin-style groupthink”, etc.) distasteful.
and don’t meet those asinine standards of yours. An additional pile manage to have only one car in the family.
<
p>It’s not all or nothing. It’s not “car good ogga booga”.
<
p>Millions in the “chronic underclass” don’t own a car now — they take the bus, the subway, bum rides, use their feet, or ride a bicycle, or some combination of all of those. The fact is that their lives would be better if we as a society improved mass transit, improved sidewalks, and improved bicycle facilities.
<
p>But you’re not interested in reading, in thinking about this, or seeing shades of gray. So, just keep on setting up strawman and demonstrating that you aren’t interested in society changing for the better. Just don’t expect that your arguments are very convincing.
From a program initiated by Mitt Romney.
<
p>David, think since this program was initiated by a Republican governor, is supported by the Democratic governor, and is being attacked by Republican and Democratic legislators, that perhaps this isn’t what it means to be a Democrat or a Republican, but rather just a good American, or maybe, God forbid, a good person?
one of my favorite sayings is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The day Romney initiated the program appears to have been one of those instances for him.
<
p>My point about what it means to be a Democrat is to call out the maroons who call themselves Democrats but who seem to have forgotten what the party is supposed to stand for. I’ll leave it to others to determine what it means to be a good person.
Scott Brown made one HUGE mistake – he thought Heslam and Carr had and were reporting all the facts. Howie was jsut reading the paper out loud, as is his wont, but Heslam failed to mention the fact that the cars were DONATED until her second or third story. Scott seems dumb to cling to what he now must know is a mistake, and he seems to be banking on the idea that people will only remember the initial clamor, and will not hear about the correct details as they emerge (Sadly, he could be right).
<
p>The ones who scare ME in this are Brewer and deLeo. DeLeo beacuse he actually has the power to kill it, adn BREWER because he’s a member of the Confernece Committee, and he favors taking back the cars AFTER Heslam reported they were donated!!!! And Brewer isn’t a downtown Boston guy – does he have no clue what poor people in Rutland or Charlton actually NEED?
when at least one Republican legislator stands up and supports the program. ‘Til then, ‘fraid not.
<
p>As for when the Herald noted that the cars were donated, I think you’re wrong about the timing. From what I believe is the first article on this story:
<
p>
<
p>Also, the reporter is Hillary Chabot, not Jessica Heslam.
Is that the second time the clock was right?
The plan we actually have is mostly a DiMasi/Travaglini production.
Romney did play an active role in shaping the legislation, particularly the personal mandate part. That’s hard to stomach, but I think a necessary one on balance. Now, he did veto parts of it that would require employer contributions, so he can’t very well take credit for that part.
<
p>Anyway, DiMasi certainly takes the lion’s share of the credit; Travaglini much less so.
<
p>One of the bizarre things in the 08 campaign was watching Romney make very well-stated, eloquent defenses of the MA law when it suited his purposes; and yet his own health care proposal had nothing, nothing in common with the MA law. Strange bird, that Romney.
The text of Baddour’s amendment isn’t online yet, but I don’t think he “kills” the program, just revokes the AAA coverage, and requires the car be turned back in if the recipient loses the job.
<
p>I think those are two fair compromises considering the Senate budget eliminates funding for 77 different line items.
But I have to say that that’s much ado about next to nothing. As we’ve discussed many times, a AAA membership is about $60 a year, so we’re talking about saving the state something like $3,000. Every little bit helps, but still, that’s kinda silly, in the great scheme of things. Further, if AAA membership helps these folks keep their jobs, thereby keeping them off welfare and turning them into taxpayers, well….
<
p>As for what happens to the cars if the recipient loses the job, the cars were donated, right? What is the state going to do with the car when they get it back? Will the state incur any expense in dealing with the car? Would it actually be cheaper to the state just to let the recipient keep it? I really, really hope that Baddour is honestly trying to save the state money, instead of grandstanding for the Herald.
<
p>Finally, I look forward to Senator Baddour’s proposal to eliminate legislative per diems. Still waiting….
that they’ll replace AAA with A Better World car club, and that they’ll take the cars and re-enter them into the program, so the next person on the list gets a crack at it.
<
p>Yeah, I know, I wrote wishing.
to whichever rep will sack up and offer an amendment transferring the per diem line item to this program. Or, for that matter, to any of a number of worthy causes.
Herald
noting that we’ve saved $835,000 over the past three years from the program. Here’s the letter that David posted the text. Warning doc file.
<
p>Herald:
<
p>
<
p>Track record of what? What a dolt!
RE: The Letter. The letter says that the program saved $$ in 2007, 2008 and 2009 of 210K, 319K and 310K respectively in transitional assistance costs. But, the program cost something like $400K per year.
<
p>That’s a savings?
just saying ….
Yes, maybe some additional analysis of more employed persons is what you want and the impact on the economy is needed for you?
How novel it would be for the program to actually justify its existence.
My second bullet point:
<
p>
<
p>Maybe the program still costs the state a few bucks. Maybe it doesn’t — maybe it’s a wash, or maybe it even saves a few bucks. Surely, moving a bunch of people off welfare and into jobs is also worth something other than dollars.
<
p>Maybe. But, until the budget process begins to measure Karma, dollars are still the best measure.
<
p>A government program that costs 400K and, measuring all costs, saves $300K per year is not a good program, unless expectations for the near future are otherwise.
<
p>
But you have to add the “feels good” factor.
So you spend a $1 and get $1.75 in savings and that isn’t enough justification for whether this is a good program?
<
p>First youse guys criticize lefties for not using facts and logic to justify their stances, and then when they do, you still pooh-pooh it.
<
p>
Just read the memo
<
p>
<
p>Later in the memo:
<
p>
<
p>So, recap: The program saved $839,000. The program cost $1,140.
<
p>Successful program?
<
p>
Obviously, $1,140M is the cost; $839K is the savings.
<
p>But the question is this: how much should one pay to get someone off welfare?
<
p>My Answer: something less than the welfare costs.
<
p>Based on the facts within the memo, this program costs more.
<
p>
As I point out below, you’re missing most of the story. The point is that a one-time investment of $6,000 in the car, in about 80% of the cases, gets folks off welfare for good. That saves roughly $450-500 a month for however long the family would otherwise have been eligible. I don’t know how the eligibility rules work these days, but I’m fairly certain it’s not capped at a year.
<
p>So, for FY07: 39 clients => $210,000 in savings. Doesn’t it stand to reason that in FY08 the state saved something like another $210,000, even though those 39 clients were no longer counted as participating in the program (presumably, because they still had the car and were still working, even though the state wasn’t fronting any of the expenses any more)?
<
p>I’m making some assumptions here, but they are more reasonable than yours (you are assuming that the savings last for only a year, and you are ignoring any tax benefit to the state from additional employed people).
Assume a 100% long-term success rate. Say! The program may pay for itself.
<
p>Assume a 0% long-term success rate. Hmmm…dud program
<
p>Who knows? Apparently not you, nor I, nor the person who wrote the memo.
… that the ‘welfare recidivism’ rate would be a ‘getable’ statistic for the population in question (program users). From that you can compare it to the calculated ‘payback’ period, which would tell you the answer.
<
p>One thing is clear, however,… as long as nobody has done that calculation, people can’t go around asserting that the program has or hasn’t paid for itself.
minor point:
<
p>
<
p>Still wrong. $1.140M, or $1,140K, is the cost.
you omitted this, re FY 09:
<
p>
<
p>So, to recap: the program saved (at least) $839,000 + $136,000 = $975,000.
<
p>And then next year, the program saved another several hundred thou, because those folks are still off welfare, at no additional cost to the state.
<
p>And then the next year, another few hundred thou.
<
p>Looking better and better….
First, the $136K was included, so no, we’re back to $839,000.
<
p>But assuming that:
<
p>-next year programs saves another hundred thousand
-then the year after, and the year after
<
p>(nevermind that there may be recidivism)
<
p>Seriously, if the purpose of the memo was to justify the expenditure, don’t you think they might have mentioned the success rate over time and factor in those cost.
<
p>But no. Again, read the memo.
<
p>Say! Let’s assume that monkey fly out their butts! Then, everyone who gets a new car can sell monkeys and turn the cash over to the state. You’re right, the program works. With certain assumptions.
removing 44 clients from the welfare rolls only saves $310,000. Is it because they don’t come off welfare on day 1 of the FY? It surely cannot be that welfare benefits are merely $7045 per year. If it is the transition period that mutes the savings, then the State must look further than one year at a time to support the economics of the program.
If it were just about dollars, we’d cancel welfare all together. Look ma, no expenditures!
<
p>Now, obviously, there are some who’d support that. But it’s not seriously on the table, nor should it be. Given that reality, the car program is eminently sensible, even assuming (contrary to fact) that your numbers tell the complete story.
Under that theory of governance, there’s not a reason for cost justification whatsoever. Makes spending easy and fun!
<
p>If a program may do good, it’s worth any dollar amount.
This I’ll have the last word. What it shows is that a program can perpetuate itself and even draw supporters, even in the absence of money justification simply because it has good intentions.
… decided that non-cost merits don’t merit anything, then so much for NASA.
or rather, you’re differently winged.
<
p>
<
p>That’s how Republicans measure. Me, I don’t. I measure public good. Will it make my air cleaner? Will it foster culture? Will it provide recreation?
<
p>Those things rarely show up as dollars in the budget when you measure the benefits, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not valuable.
<
p>Dollars are not the best measure.
<
p>
<
p>On this, we disagree. I value the additional benefits — in this case, helping people transition away from welfare into work; helping a mother have transportation to allow her more time with her family; to allow her family more access to things like parks and sports and after school programs and visiting relatives; to help a family have better access to doctors and nurses and other medical services; helping a marginally employable worker build a resume and skills, etc. All those things have value. They all help make the recipient’s life better, as well as the lives of his or her dependents. I think those things are valuable, and am willing to take a “loss” on the balance sheet to provide those things.
Nicely put, stomv, so I’m reluctant to disagree. After all, I’m a public good kind of person.
<
p>Three things:
<
p>That position makes it practically impossible to evaluate any program. Gazebos are good! Jobs, a view, scenic architecture, political cartoon fodder. Dollars aren’t the best measure afterall.
<
p>How much should society spend to potentially get a person off welfare? If the State is paying $500 per month for someone on welfare, do you want the state to spend $7000 per year to get them off welfare to ‘potentially’ get them off the roles?
<
p>Because DTA has done their math and have unequivocably shown that this program has cost DTA, more money than it has saved DTA. Read the memo: DTA has spent $1140 to save $839, and have not explained why the extra money generated ‘public goods’.
<
p>Apparently, DTA doesn’t have to explain, and left it to your imagination:
<
p>
<
p>Other than imagining these items, how do you know the car giveaway did any of this? How do you know the people didn’t end up on welfare the very next year? If dollars aren’t the best measure, do you have any objective information AT ALL, that says the people on this program otherwise benefited.
<
p>Sorry, but I think the agency spending money has the burden to justify the presumed benefit. Otherwise, the program ought to end.
I asked the Commissioner. They didn’t.
<
p>We don’t know what happened to the other 80%. We have no idea.
… don’t know the time frame for the 20%’s ‘recidivism’. If it’s 20% within 3 years, that’s three years of welfare savings.
Granted, we don’t know if the program succeeds or fails. I agree. We don’t know the recidivism. Lots we don’t know.
<
p>Where we disagree is, I wouldn’t spend money on a program where success hasn’t been demonstrated. You apparently, will. Call it your Faith, I guess.
<
p>
Yes we do have an idea of what happened to the other 80%. Because I asked the Commissioner of DTA this afternoon, like I just said. She told me that DTA was extremely conservative in their numbers so that they could not get called out on them. Therefore, before putting any success stories in the fact sheet, they made sure that none of those people had gone back on welfare.
<
p>Happy? If not, I suggest you call the Commissioner yourself. She’s very nice.
If the DTA Commissioner told you the program saves money, then it must. End of story.
<
p>Pelosi didn’t know about water boarding; Clinton didn’t have sex with that woman; Nixon, not a crook….
… capricious to say it saves money based on what he said than to so it loses money based on the memo.
I did not ask her whether the program “saves money.” I asked her whether any of the people listed in the memo as successes from any fiscal year (07, 08, or 09) have at any time gone back on public assistance. She told me that they have not.
<
p>That’s a fact — actually, it’s one of the facts you have been asking for all along. If you don’t want to accept it, that tells me that for all of your number-crunchiness, you actually aren’t interested in numbers. Rather, you’re interested in manipulating numbers to advance ideological points. I would find that very disappointing.
<
p>I ask DTA how the savings were calculated, and she said the $210,000 was a maximum “to date” calculation, meaning that the calculation took into consideration savings not only in that year, but in subsequent years based on how much they would have received had they been on the program the maximum time i.e. their “clock time” in her words. So, the $380K spent in 2007 saved $210K, by their calculation.
… what is the projected buyback period before it starts paying for itself, assuming cumulative trends continue.
Now, let’s try to figure out how much those 39 clients have put back into the state’s coffers since FY07. Income tax paid, sales tax they otherwise wouldn’t have had the bucks to spend, for starters. Tough to measure, but almost certainly non-zero. What’s a reasonable estimate? I don’t know — you’re the tax guy. Let’s assume that, on average, each of those 39 folks is earning, I don’t know, $30,000 a year? $40,000? What’s a reasonable, conservative estimate? How much does a typical wage-earner in that bracket pay in income tax? I have no idea, but maybe you do. How much does that earner tend to spend in sales tax? Again, I don’t know.
<
p>DTA didn’t estimate any of this stuff because they are trying to be extremely conservative. Politically, that makes good sense for them. But there’s no reason for us to be so constrained. And if we’re to have an honest debate about this program, we need to go beyond simple cash-in vs. cash-out.
Was at 7.8% in March of 2009. Are you assuming that the jobs would not be filled by other unemployed people if they were not filled by the beneficiaries of this program? If the jobs are otherwise filled then MA would still collect all that tax revenue. Should the state be spending money in a tight budget year to further saturate the job market? It might be cheaper to continue to pay welfare to one person without a car and to stop paying unemployment to another person who already has the means to get to a job in that area.
…exist independently of people’s ability to work in your world?
But let me elaborate. If there are high employment levels and the economy is booming then it seems like a good idea to spend money on a program to get more people from the welfare rolls to employment. If employment is stagnant and jobs are hard to come by then it seems like a bad idea to spend money on a program to further saturate the job market. In theory, it could work like this:
Good economy:
Choice A – pay welfare to person X
Choice B – pay for this program to get person X off welfare
Bad economy:
Choice A – pay welfare to person X
Choice B – pay for this program to get person X off welfare and pay unemployment to person Y
<
p>The fact that jobs are harder to find in a bad economy adds to the cost of the program. But, as you’ve said, it’s impossible to know whether the numbers work using only the available information. But in theory, Senator Baddor could be right that this program was worthy at it’s implementation and has worked to a degree, but is now a program that should be cut given the budget and the current economy.
… it makes no sense to give out Pell grants or education loans in a situation where jobs are hard to find. Indeed it’d makes less sense to to provide any service that tried to ‘enhance’ employment opportunities from the labor side. I guess that means more tax cuts.
Pell grants and educational loans help a recipient’s employment chances upon completion of an educational program that usually lasts several years, and help a recipient acquire permanent training/qualification that will last a lifetime. A car helps someone get to a job right now and helps the person for as long as the car functions. Apples and oranges in terms of governmental economic programs. And I have no idea what tax cuts have to do with anything. Let’s just discuss this program at this time without the red herrings you’re throwing out.
… that you provided was that “…it seems like a bad idea to spend money on a program to further saturate the job market.” That would extend to any “program [that] further saturate[s] the job market.” I was just extending the reasoning.
<
p>Now you seem to want to distinguish between the permanence of education and the impermanence of the car. The important part isn’t the car, it’s the job. The reality is that as long as employment is a problem for an individual, all kinds of expenses become problematic, including transportation. The hope is that once lifted out of the catch 22 of ‘can’t afford to keep a car running while not having a job and on welfare’ and ‘can’t get a job without a car’ would allow them to get the initial income to star the cycle of earning money and paying bills, including transportation costs. The car isn’t meant to be permanent, the ‘ability to fend for oneself with the benefit of employment’ is (hopefully).
Starting with the DTA’s shortfall of $170,000 (cost over benefit 2007), and
<
p>generously assuming a tax on the income of 5.3% and
<
p>generously assuming that those 39 people who transitioned off wouldn’t have transitioned off if it weren’t for the magic car, and
<
p>assuming that the 39 people received no other public assistance,
<
p>then if each one of them earned about $82,000 in the next year, then the program would breakeven.
<
p>82,000 x 5.3% x 39, or
41,000 x 5.3% x 39 x 2 years, etc….
<
p>Try selling it yourself: Hey guys, we gotta great program here. It’ll cost you $170K per year net and it’ll take two or three dozen people off transitional assistance. Granted they may be off transitional assistance anyway because, you know, it’s transitional. But, anywazz, lets spend the money, and if the 2 or three dozen leave welfare and if all of them get a job paying the Mass median income or more then the Program will break even in 2 years. If not, well, easy come, easy go.
<
p>And more upside, it provides 1) a great tax deduction for anyone who wants to get rid of a junker and take a Blue Book value tax deduction 2) a sweet contract for TransAction Associates Inc. to earn a few bucks.
<
p>This is why we’ve hired 200 legislators. It’s their job to assign a value to public goods like I mentioned. Those might be worth $0 to you; they’re worth much more to me, and our 200 legislators ultimately pick a value and decide to fund or not. These legislators also understand that measurement has costs, and eventually the cost of measurement becomes too high to precisely record and analyze all the data; experience, common sense, and empathy do play a role.
<
p>There’s a reason that accountants aren’t often the decision makers in an organization gary.
Is the money we are spending on our roads worthwhile? Can you tell me the precise return on investment on that spending? If not, should we stop our road monies?
<
p>Is the money we are spending on our police force worthwhile? Can you tell me the return on investment on that spending? Since you can’t, should we stop spending on cops?
<
p>Programs should be evaluated the way that you describe, however measuring with dollars should not be the only way to measure a program because things are not black and white, and it is impossible to know every single cost and benefit of every single program, especially the more complex ones. Obvious failings should be pointed out, but a very narrow dollar deficit should not trump everything.
<
p>If the number of people getting off welfare was 10%, I doubt anyone here would support this program. The fact that it is getting 80% of its participants off welfare — directly eliminating their welfare payments in an amount that is similar to the amount spent on the program, and indirectly helping the state in ways that are perhaps not directly measurable, but are intuitively apparent — is what makes it a good deal. I think that most people can figure that out, just as most people can accept that spending money on roads and bridges has a positive impact on this state without having to actually see the precise numbers to believe that.
<
p>The people who oppose this mostly seem to use the same kneejerk approach to their opposition — the “morality/jealousy” meme, as in “hey, why does some lazy slob on welfare get a car, I want one too”. That’s hardly a fact-based position. Kudos to you for trying to bring facts to your side, but I still get the sense that you arrived at your position first, and then are using your “measurement” point to back up your kneejerk reaction, because you are so obviously ignoring the multi-year benefit of getting someone off welfare.
The savings is not a one shot deal, just the costs. So you would take into account all those who have employment via this program into account. That’s all years of the program to determine savings. In addition, we have the jump in the economy and taxes paid by those who were one getting assistance.
<
p>I’m still going with Brown = Dolt!
But quantify the argument.
<
p>The standard fare now, is for the government proponents to say “show me where to cut costs,” knowing that, because of the Massachusetts inpenetrable budget detail, cost cutters simply can’t do it.
<
p>Rather, it should be the advocate who’s making the claims of a valuable program to show me the money.
<
p>Read the memo. It’s clear. The program saved $300K directly and cost $400K. That’s not savings. If it’s your position that it also brought in taxes from labor, then show me the money.
if we didn’t have the program, we would be paying $835,000 in welfare that we do not do now. If you take 80%, $668,000? Just because you don’t like the program success doesn’t mean you get to ignore it. We invest $400,000 in a program that will next us $900,000 in savings this year. Plus the program will save more next year and more people are working. If we remove the program we instead pay assistance to person who would have been working with the program.
<
p>It’s very clear, take off the blinders.
As all of you are aware, we are facing an unprecedented economic crisis. The DTA program being discussed on this thread is one which I generally do support, and one which has been successful for many people. However, in times like these, even those who are receiving assistance from the government need to make sacrifices. We simply cannot afford the extras in the economic climate we are in.
Senator – In addition to your amendment to eliminate per diems, I look forward to you other amendment eliminating the pre-tax transit pass so popular with House and Senate staff, and the TAP (Transportation Access Program) which provides reduced fare MBTA access to the handicapped and indigent on train lines.
<
p>After all, we wouldn’t want to target just the RURAL poor!
Doesn’t that save us money on welfare payments? Doesn’t DTA want to help people get back to work? My theory: you saw a chance to score cheap political points with the “talk radio crowd”, the type of guys and gals who like to call up sports programs to argue the significance of Manny’s Dominican heritage in his steroid use (I happened to hear some crackpot babbling thusly the other day before getting hung up on when he strayed too far into into Severin territory) You know who I’m talking about – some call them bigots or racists, perhaps you call them your base, Steve. What sacrifices had the legislature made, by the way?
A very weak response to the thread, sir.
After all, times are tough and choices have to be made…
We simply cannot afford the extras in the economic climate we are in.
<
p>So exactly what reform savings are to be included in the FY 2010 budget? It appears that eliminating this program without deleting the budget line item will cost about $300K. Wrong direction!
<
p>But there are much bigger fish to fry, it just requires more effort to reel them in.