So apparently there’s a state program (under the Department of Transitional Assistance) that takes donated cars, pays for the insurance and other expenses (e.g., inspection, excise tax, etc.), and gives them to folks trying to get off transitional assistance. The program seems to have been pretty successful — according to the Herald, 4 out of 5 participants get themselves off welfare because the car allows them to hold a job. Win-win, right? A small investment by the state (about $6,000 per car) leads to (a) eliminating assistance payments to 80% of participants, and (b) an employed person who pays taxes, in addition to stimulating the economy by buying things. The fact that Mitt Romney initiated this program should suggest that it’s not designed to produce Cadillac-driving welfare queens. According to the Herald,
One single mother living in Springfield was able to nab a $28,000 a year job as a certified registered nurse thanks to the program, said DTA Commissioner Julia Kehoe. The hours of the job initially required her to work nights and weekends, so she never would have been able to take it if she was depending on public transportation, Kehoe said.
Fortunately, Scott “hey kids, go f&#$ yourselves” Brown is on the case. (UPDATE: It’s not just Brown – others in the tiny but merrie band of MA GOoPers are on it as well.)
“I don’t care who started it,” Brown said when told it began under Romney in 2006. “In this day and age, it’s not appropriate. I mean, we’re paying for Triple A? You’ve got to be kidding me.” … “When we’re looking at every last thing and cutting every city and town, we can’t be spending our money on AAA memberships.”
Good call, Scott. Geez, a one-year AAA membership costs all of, what, $63 for new members? It sure doesn’t make sense to be underwriting those kinds of costs for welfare recipients — after all, all that will do is allow them to keep a job, thereby saving the state many times that amount in welfare payments.
Look, some programs don’t work, and they should be cut. And lots of programs that do work may need to be trimmed in the current miserable budget climate. But hysterical overreactions like Brown’s to trivial — and yes, these are trivial — expenses that actually save the state money don’t help matters in the slightest.
With Patrick on the Pension reform case and the Republicans saving us AAA membership, we’ll save tens even twenties of dollars in 2010!
This is the same party that would rather spend $40,000/yr on a prisoner than $10,000/yr on rehabilitation for the same person.
Next door, Peter Porcupine made a very good comment on this that should be read.
<
p>It does suggest that there might be glimmers of hope across the aisle even now.
…but then I noticed that someone insulted Mitt Romney. It’s PP’s sworn duty to patrol MA political blogs and respond to any slights against the Mittster. đŸ˜‰
<
p>Snark aside, it IS an excellent post. Her follow-up is equally good. The other commentators, not so much.
<
p>I also like Christy Mihos’ post:
<
p>
<
p>Exactly right.
Each is dollar inconsequential and either has been responded to by Political showboating.
<
p>Pensions: even Patrick has said he “doesn’t know how much his pension reform will save”. Real answer: not very much at all. Now, there’s serious reform needed for those hundreds of pensions plans in the State, but we’re not getting it.
<
p>Same with AAA to welfare recipients. “Outrageous!”, said the drama-queen to welfare queen.
<
p>”I paid for those drapes myself!”
<
p>etc….
The pension stuff is bad and should be changed. Will it save a lot of $$? Maybe not. But it reflects very poor practice on the state’s part, and contributes to public lack of trust in the government’s ability to spend money intelligently.
<
p>The car stuff, on the other hand, seems to be a good policy, and seems to reflect smart expenditures.
<
p>Therefore, the two are not comparable.
<
p>Those Romney policies survive because they work.
us of the old saw about blind squirrels finding nuts.
(Repeating a bit, sorry.)
<
p>It seems to work like this. Conservative populists regard the government as taking money away from good hard-working people and from brave, risk-taking entrepreneurs. They turn this money into cookies to be handed out. They don’t like the taxation part, but, if cookies are to be handed out, “good” people should get the cookies; one should deserve to get a cookie.
<
p>Giving cars to clients of the Department of Transitional Assistance, by this view, is giving cookies to people who haven’t earned them yet. It’s intrinsically unfair, hence bad.
<
p>Conservative populists cannot get over this notion of unfairness and make their way to the policy consequences.
Whereas Liberals regard the proper government function to be that of taking money i.e. taxes, so that everyone, regardless whether they are good or bad, can receive cookies, paid for principally by the wealthier.
<
p>Because the two groups fundamentally don’t understand each other’s view, the very idea of eliminating a cookie based on morality or ignoring morality is anathema.
<
p>
I chose the phrase “conservative populist” with some care. I didn’t mean all conservatives, certainly not you. I held back from naming names or linking to RMG or elsewhere, but, if you like, the very first comment on South Shore Republican’s post on this exemplifies this view.
<
p>I think the mainstream liberal view is that we pay taxes to a government that is supposed to make the society better, i.e., a better place for play, commerce, raising children, and baking cookies. Not shy about our ambitions, we liberals seem to prefer to have everything solved systemically — which is why we don’t contribute to charity as much as social conservatives.
Then, Aesop was a Conservative.
in another post. Helping someone out of poverty upsets the hierarchy.
<
p>To encourage the current hierarchy, we need to punish the poor and make sure the deck is stacked against any upward mobility. Also important to reward the wealthy, by exempting them from responsibility for the financial well being of our communities.
Too many of us prefer to feed fish to the hungry, and pat ourselves on the back for our “compassion” — while steadfastly refusing to teach them how to fish, and relentlessly erecting as many obstacles as possible to their own efforts to buy boats, find docks to sail from, and markets in which to sell their catch.
Well, I think the conservative view you’re describing is of distinctly older vintage: everyone used to have a station in life, rising above that station was hubris. Possibly the Federalists of the 1790s believed this.
<
p>Instead, I think it’s more like a distinction between the innocent and the guilty &mash; or the pure and impure to use the other framework. If a tree falls on and destroys the house of a widow bravely raising her two children, that person is innocent and deserving of help. If a single mother who had enjoyed an active sex life and a shiny Lexus goes bankrupt, then that person is not innocent and deserves her bad fate.
but many times a person’s character is determined by their class.
The responses to natural disasters where there are large numbers of victims are largely by class and income. The idea is often to compensate victims not by need or loss, but to maintain them in the class were they belong.
Another example, the response to the banking crisis. Homeowners are lazy and stupid, and must suffer the consequences of their bad decisions. Those in the banking industry who have engaged in reckless behavior, some of which may be unethical or illegal are considered too brilliant to regulate their salaries?
I find it funny how conservatives aren’t protesting professional sports.
<
p>Professional sports leagues (at least in the US) don’t play “winners” — meaning that whoever wins gets the first chance at the best new players for the next season. Instead, the weakest teams are given first crack at the best new players, and the strongest teams are given last pick.
<
p>Why? Because professional sports leagues recognize that a league dominated by a few fat winners isn’t a viable league. It leads to situations where teams simply refuse to play because they have no chance of winning.
<
p>No one seems to be able to make the link to players in an economy — people who believe they have no chance at winning don’t play the game.
<
p>Oddly, in Socialistic Europe, there is a different method. Teams which lose in a league get banished to a lower league. Teams that win in a lower league are given entry into a higher league.
Howie used the word “Cadillac” six or seven times in his article. He referenced driving to a package store to buy a “forty”. On the radio he described the people getting these “Welfare Cadillacs” as using them to “buy crack”, people driving them were “crack dealers”, having “pit bulls”, they were “gimme girls”, he said that Barack Obama’s Aunt was “definitely eligible” (even though she lives in Boston, an area well served by public transportation) and he topped it off by referencing an Oprah Winfrey promotion where “fried chicken” was given away but coupons were not honored.
<
p>In short, he painted a very clear picture this being a program where “layabout Blacks” got free cars — even though the article expressly states that the cars were targeted to areas not well served by public transportation — and mentioned Lowell, Fitchburg, and New Bedford, communities which have very small numbers (like 3-5%) Black residents, and the article was very clear that these cars were given in exchange for reduction or elimination of welfare payments – in other words, you had to work to get the car (although there was no takeback program on the car if the person quit, the article mentioned that 80% of the people stayed employed, and of the other 20%, they lost the insurance and AAA).
<
p>Howie Carr is as sickening as Jay Severin – he’s just smarter, and never actually explicitly states that other races are inferior.
The Jay Severin of Deerfield Academy?
I had missed the original Herald story on this program, which features equally mindless quotes from House minority leader Brad Jones and Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. They’re outraged that people are trying to get themselves off of welfare by taking jobs that require them to use a car … even though the car was donated … and all the state’s doing is picking up incidental expenses … and without the car they wouldn’t be able to take the job which would mean they’re still on welfare … wait, why were we upset, again?
<
p>I mean, check out other stuff in the Herald story:
<
p>
<
p>Outrageous!
<
p>And what seems to make our Republican friends really mad is that if the recipients go back on welfare, they don’t have to give the car back, even though the state does then stop paying the insurance and other costs. Remember, the car itself was donated — it didn’t cost the state anything.
<
p>Wait, what’s the problem, again?
<
p>I would so love to see the Herald’s editorial staff call these nitwits out on this. Not holding my breath.
getting taxpayer reimbursement for his car. According to this piece from WBZ, Jones received $3,200 in taxpayer-funded per diems last year to commute to his job at the State House. And from where, you ask? The wilds of Berkshire County? Nope. Jones is from North Reading, and is less than five miles from at least two commuter rail stops.
<
p>I’d rather my tax $$ go to helping pay for insurance for someone with no public transportation option to get to a job instead of so Brad Jones can drive from N. Reading into Boston every day.
Strip the AAA coverage.
<
p>”AAA is a lobbyist for more roads, more pollution, and more gas guzzling.” — Daniel Becker, Sierra club.
<
p>”A press release that garnered extensive national media attention for its surprising results is based on flawed research and is a gross misrepresentation of reality”, according to the Magliozzis. “It’s time we made the roads safe once again. We’d like a retraction and an apology from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.” — Click and Clack, Car Talk
<
p>”‘Federal regulators should refocus efforts to cut air pollution away from automobiles’, the motorists’ advocacy group AAA said today”. — “Clearing the Air – 1999,” a study performed by AAA.
<
p>AAA has lobied against rails to trails, against cell phone usage restrictions, against CAFE standards, against air pollution regulations for autos, against auto safety standards, against gas tax money earmarked for public transit, etc etc etc. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts shouldn’t be paying any money to AAA, because contrary to their assumed mission of helping disabled drivers get a tow and providing triptiks, they actively lobby against environmental, efficiency, and public transit initiatives.
Obviously Brown is not just talking about AAA coverage. He wants to kill the whole program — Herald says “Republican Sen. Scott Brown vowed to abolish an expanding state program handing out donated cars to welfare recipients.”
<
p>Seems to me the bulk of the state’s expense in this program is paying for the auto insurance. I assume you’re not opposed to that?
I’m not missing the point — I just zoomed in on a sub-point. I don’t think the state should make an effort to give money to AAA due to it’s lobbyist behavior. If MA wants a better world, it ought to secure the services of A Better World Club instead of AAA for auto emergency response (and lots of other things too, of course).
<
p>As for the program itself… it smells like effective government action to reduce the amount spent on social services while pumping the economy and helping someone stand on their own two feet. That sounds pretty great to me.
I would assume that a donated car isn’t the best set of wheels out there. At $65 for a year, this is cheap insurance for when the car dies. Otherwise someone in such a financial position might not be able to even afford a tow to a local garage.
<
p>Given that it sounds like the state pays for any repairs in the first year, it almost sounds like the AAA is insuring the state, not the driver.
<
p>The entire Herald article was slanted. The article said that — gasp! — around 20% of the people wind up back in welfare. In other words, 80% of them use this program to get off welfare.
<
p>If you ask any conservative whether a program that would get 80% of its cases off welfare was a success or a failure, I doubt they would say it’s a failure. Yet that is what we are being asked to believe here because that is the slant the article is written from — that we should be outraged because 20% of these people wind up back on welfare, so we should just scrap the whole thing and let 100% of them stay on welfare.
… privatization! Road service is outsourced to AAA for cheap, but a Republican is against it, all in the effort to score cheap political points.
<
p>These guys couldn’t get traction wearing Velcro.
I’m a AAA member and there have been times I’ve been quite glad for it. What you call their “assumed mission” is exactly what they do for their members. The incidental discounts are a nice perk too.
all seem to offer road service plans. The ones I’ve seen have all been much cheaper than AAA. I use the AARP plan. The only special benefits of AAA that I wound up using were the maps and trip planning. Now I use Delorme state atlases and a GPS navigator; both are better than the AAA offerings. As for the discounts, every time I tried to get one, I was told that they were “already included” in the price I was quoted. In other words, the motel or whatever wasn’t going to honor the discount. I wrote to AAA a few times about that, but nothing visible happened.
<
p>I don’t think stomv is disputing that AAA does provide road service; he’s just pointing out that they spend a lot of money and effort promoting automobile use and fighting against all manner of alternative transportation.
People join AAA for roadside assistance and triptiks. The vast majority of AAA members have no idea that AAA also lobbies against any and all legislation that would restrict the individual choices for motorists, even if we as a society think that it might be a good idea to do so (cell phones while driving, CAFE standards, air pollution limitations, crash safety requirements, etc).
<
p>And yes, there is an alternative. A Better World Club offers very similar services to AAA, and lobbies for green initiatives involving transportation to boot.
FWIW, here is the original Romney administration memo from 2006.
<
p>More at my site.
Guys like Jones take money for commuting to work and then bash the Governor on spending money for…well…anything the state spends money on.
Binienda and Fresolo car pooling to the state hous, both claiming per diem expenses, and that’s ok? Of course it is! They’re democRATS! THEY’RE ENTITLED. Silly me.
I don’t think you’ll find us progressive Democrats to be quite so tribal.
<
p>Compare on a national level. When Bush was popular, one heard not a peep of criticism from Republican quarters. Not a peep and not even about his deficit spending.
<
p>A number of folks on the liberal side have been criticizing Obama for his policy on banking, his overemphasis of bipartisanship, and his Afghanistan policy.
<
p>We’re just not that tribal.
if reps are abusing the program then nail them. I have no love for those guys. But my point is that Jones complains and opposes spending on human needs but collects money for commuting into Boston.
is that the legislative and executive branches are battling over which taxes to raise and how much. Everyone agrees we have a massive budget deficit. We keep hearing about how budgets have been “slashed” and service cuts will be “draconian.” While matching donated cars with people on transitional assistance may be a valuable program, the list of perks that go with the free car (yes, AAA coverage is a perk) is hardly draconian. In fact, it raises the question of just how much or how carefully state budgets have been slashed.
<
p>Before raising taxes in a recession, our government leaders have the responsibility of making sure that every, single government program has been carefully evaluated for cost savings, no matter how small. They have a moral responsibility to use our limited money most effectively, especially in an economic downturn as severe as this one. Every dollar spent on AAA memberships and auto insurance is money not going to police officers and schools.
Putting aside stomv’s objections for a moment, providing AAA coverage seems completely logical to me. The state is giving otherwise unemployed people donated cars. Donated cars are not in tip-top shape: That’s why they’ve been donated! For the program to work, drivers cannot feel that they risk being stranded as they drive to a graveyard shift job.
<
p>This is a program to save the state money, after all.
how draconian we should be. It is about what we can afford and what we cannot.
<
p>Even if this is a highly effective program, we can no longer afford it (at least the “extras” that are tax-payer funded – excise tax, inspection, AAA memberships).
<
p>Last I read, the state budget deficit is in the billions of dollars. The proposed increased sales tax revenue doesn’t even rise to the level of $1 billion.
<
p>With local aid being slashed, and the potential for teacher and police lay-offs, our government officials have to defend every single penny spent on state programs.
<
p>The question to ask is not: “is this a good program worth funding or not?” If we evaluate programs that way in this environment, we’ll never balance the budget.
<
p>The question to ask is: “Is this program worth giving up a teacher’s position at a school?”
<
p>These are hard choices, no doubt. But as a taxpayer, I don’t want to see a teacher at my kids’ school cut because of state aid cuts while this program continues (the tax-payer “extra” pieces; not the overall prgoram). We can certainly disagree about those priorities. But this must come down to the relative merits of state spending (not the absolute merits).
The question is, “Does paying the excise tax, inspection, and AAA cost more than welfare payments to the recipient?” The whole point is to get people off welfare, isn’t it? Doing that will save your teacher’s job; paying out welfare won’t.
IF the people in question could not accept the vehicle without the extras included (AAA membership, excise tax, inspection) it would perhaps be wise to put taxpayer dollars toward them.
<
p>However, do we know that the people receiving the cars absolutely need this level of assistance? Your argument assumes that a person on welfare would turn down a free, working car because they couldn’t scrape together the excise tax and inspection cost. What about a loan program from the state for these costs? They could pay back $10 a week from their pay. Peter Porcupine in another thread suggests asking AAA for a waiver or reduced fee for these folks. There are options other than taxpayer dollars.
<
p>Plus, for all we know, recipients would be perfectly happy to accept a free car even if they had to pay for these extra expenses. In this case, everyone would win. The person would have a real sense of ownership (they paid the excise, the inspection…it’s really “their” car). The taxpayers would no longer be footing the bill for expenses that were not necessary for the program’s success. And the program continues doing good work.
It’s about doing a little bit to be sure that the car is effective for getting the person to work reliably, so they can keep their job.
<
p>From the state’s perspective, it’s short money — AAA, etc. cost very little when compared to the cost of welfare.
<
p>If a person takes the free car, but then struggles to keep it roadworthy or road legal, that’s pretty wasteful. For little additional marginal cost, the benefits seem pretty good.
<
p>
<
p>Could the program be improved? Sure. Get AAA (or A Better World Club) to offer a bulk rate discount or somesuch. Get better at screening the applicants (so the 20% failure rate is reduced). But $10 a week? What are the transaction costs on that? And really, with minimum wage at $8/hr, you want to clip $10 off of a $320 paycheck (before SS, Medi, etc are taken out)? Why bother? The overhead is high, the revenue low, and bureaucracy non-trivial. Instead, lets work on getting these former welfare recipients into stable jobs paying living wages, and help the transition into a more stable lifestyle. That’s how we get to a safer, happier society — not by dinging the former welfare recipients $10 a week.
Gary’s questions on the other thread are really key here. One role of management, after all, is to measure and evaluate. Private businesses too often maintain projects, products, or services whose promise never translates into profits. Without objective measurement, feel-goods crowd out rationality and promising money pits persist unimpeded.
<
p>Here too, we are having a debate over hypotheticals and educated guesses. Stomv’s argument about roadside insurance do seem very reasonable to me, but this is an old program now. We shouldn’t be guessing.
Ultimately, this is a transparency in government issue. Taxpayers have no way of knowing what they are getting their money’s worth on and where it is being wasted.
<
p>It’d be good to change that.
Stomv – as soon as I hit post I thought twice about my loan idea…if this were a huge state program, there might be merit. However, as it stands, you are right. The costs would certainly not justify it.
<
p>KBusch – your point is exactly on target. I read Gary’s comments on the other thread and agree totally. I am all for programs that reduce costs and help transition people off of state assistance. But I do think it’s fair to scrutinize every cost, especially in this evironment. It is possible for a program to be effective, yet inefficient (you could get the exact same good result with lower costs). Bottom line – transparency in government. Everyone would benefit from that.
… transparency and costs are in conflict. The efforts to scrutinize every cost necessarily come with costs themselves. One of my thoughts when reading what gary said on his calculated ‘per car’ cost of the program was that this probably comes from the overhead of running the program itself part of which is the ‘scrutiny’ process within the program itself. It occurred to me that the per car cost might be high because the overhead costs, as a percentage of overall costs for the program, tare probably high owing to the lack of being able to achieve any economy of scale.
they perhaps should have detailed that, too. What is the marginal cost of giving out 1 more car? 100? 1000? Giving out 1 fewer? 10? 100? Giving some sense of how the program would scale helps to better understand it’s costs.
Facts we know,
<
p>-first, Patrick’s budget proposes to increase the funding from $400K to $430K. That’s from the Herald story.
<
p>-Then, from research, we find that there are ‘about’ 60 to 65 cars awarded in 2008 through Dept of Transitional Assistance by the state and that the cars are donated to and repaired by a 501(c) called ‘Good News Garage’.
<
p>-A quick scan of the Good News Garage (via Guidestar.org, registration required) Form 990 show large public support and reasonable salaries and no apparent relationships between ‘Good News Garage’ and the other entity that subcontracts for the State called “Transaction Associates”.
<
p>-Department of Transitional Assistance has the transparency of a brick. Other than a budget of $68M, it’s really hard to figure out, quantitatively, what they do.
<
p>-What is clear is that the average monthly payment to a TAFDC recipient is $480.
<
p>-So, the question of what is the cost of giving out the next car is a good prospective question, but in retrospect, reviewing last year, based on the scatter of facts, the program was at best a wash. i.e. cost per car of $500 per month; max savings per month of $480, and that’s assuming 100% success if you define success as complete dependency from TAFDC as a result of the car.
<
p>-BTW, these programs are not new at all. Just as a bit of tax history, taxpayers were abusing the hell out of these programs for years, by giving junkers to charities and claiming Blue Book as a tax write off. The charity was sending them to a crusher and pocketing a few hundred dollars for the scrap. Win, Win. IRS got wind of it and issued regs that allowed Blue Book, ONLY if the recipient actually used the car in its exempt purpose.
<
p>-Enter “Transaction Associates”. Transaction Associates is a for profit company run by some transportation consultants. A great idea! We can take your donated car and funnel it through a charity that will actually use it; you get the full Blue Book deduction. (this part is my speculation).
<
p>-Transaction Associates owned “Four Wheels to Work”, a company that was a conduit to take the donated car and find a user. Transaction Associates spun out “Four Wheels to Work” in 2006 as a standalone 501(c)(3), and then Transaction Associates got the contract to operate the Transitional Assistance car giveaway program. At what price, I don’t know, but a speculative guess is that most of the $400K goes to Transaction Associates.
<
p>-“Four Wheels to Work” and “Transaction Associates” have many common officers and employees. Nothing wrong with that on its face, but it’s interesting to speculate why someone in the for profit biz of giving a car to the poor is also in the non-profit biz of giving a car to the poor business.
<
p>Facts we don’t know,
<
p>-Cost of the program, including inside government plus outside contractor costs;
<
p>-Success defined. Do we even know what “success” means in the context of this program?
<
p>-Success measured. Not a clue.
I appreciate the comments, though you don’t (likely can’t) answer my question about marginal cost.
<
p>Furthermore, it’s saving $480 in direct welfare payments, but there’s clearly more value to the program than that.
* If you’re working, you just might be paying more taxes
* If you’re working, you’re gaining a work history useful for getting raises… and thus paying more taxes
* By working, you’re also adding to the economy — others are also profiting from your work either financially or tangentially because of the work you’re doing
* The car is also useful when it comes to helping the children — medical, school and after school programs, etc. It may also help allow for spending more time with the kids, also important for their development
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know how to put a value on that, but I’d gladly take a fiscal “wash” and pick up all those benefits in the process. It’s a better outcome for society.
and the cost of the car program is roughly equal to what the welfare payments would be, that ends along with the state’s payments into the car program after a year. At that point, the state is saving $480 a month for every recipient who stays off welfare.