What on earth is going on around here? We’ve got an eminently sensible state program that takes DONATED cars and gives them to welfare recipients WHO CAN PROVE THAT THEY NEED THE CAR FOR A JOB, and then pays the insurance, excise tax, and a few other incidentals (including, yes, AAA membership so that if the car breaks down they’re not stranded) so that the recipient can afford the car. Furthermore, the state doesn’t actually handle the cars; that part is managed BY A PRIVATE RELIGIOUS CHARITY that rehabs the cars before passing them along. So, at minimal cost to the state, we have a very successful (80% success rate) program that gets people off welfare (thereby saving a lot of state money) and into jobs that stimulate the economy. And it’s even all faith-based charity-like and stuff. Should be a liberal’s and a conservative’s dream: leverages private donors and a faith-based charity at minimal state cost to help people on welfare get and keep a job so that they don’t have to be on welfare anymore.
The program is so good, in fact, that not only is our own Peter Porcupine stalwartly defending it in the face of the sadly predictable RMG onslaught, but even Christy Mihos has weighed in:
An 80% success rate, which takes people off public assistance is a home-run by anyone’s measure. If all government programs had this success we’d be lowering taxes……….If this happened on your watch as a Rep or Senator–and years later you hammer the program–grow up. Christy
Hear hear! OK, so all the sensible people — even the conservative ones — are for this program, right? And it’s only the doltish Scott Browns and Brad Joneses of the world who are so desperate to get their names in the paper that they’ll criticize any government program, however successful, if asked by the Herald to do so. Right?
Robert DeLeo blasts welfare car program
House Speaker Robert DeLeo yesterday blasted a Patrick administration program that hands out donated cars and taxpayer-subsidized insurance and AAA memberships to welfare recipients – but he stopped short of slamming the brakes on funding for the plan.
“You want to give people a hand, but how far does that hand extend at the expense of the taxpayer?” DeLeo said yesterday.
“I’m reading your article and I’m not sure we haven’t gone too far,” the Winthrop Democrat added….
Oh COME ON, Bob!! Look, I know times are tough. But from all reliable accounts, this is a program that saves the state money. If these families didn’t have cars, they’d still be on welfare. Public transportation sucks or is nonexistent in much of the state, and remember, the recipients have to prove they need the car for a job. Plus, isn’t Christy right? Isn’t an 80% success rate of getting people off welfare at minimal cost to the state “a home-run” that represents exactly what all state programs of this kind should be striving for?
I find it astounding that it’s the AAA membership that has everyone’s knickers in a twist. It’s like $60 a year, for God’s sake. But fine — if you want to find a different road service plan, great. Or if you want to make a serious case that spending $60 x however many participants there are will net the state significant money, and therefore the AAA benefit should be removed from the program, feel free to do that.
But the fact that our “Democratic” House Speaker is trashing a program of this kind makes me seriously doubt that he’s the right guy for the job. Part of what the Democrats are supposed to do is find creative, efficient ways to offer a helping hand to those in need. That’s exactly what this program does, as far as I can tell, and I haven’t seen anything yet that makes me doubt that assessment.
A very disappointing lack of courage on DeLeo’s part. Let’s hope it stops with giving dopey quotes to the Herald.
Let’s look at the quote: “I’m reading your article and I’m not sure we haven’t gone too far” Considering that the article was written in the key of ignorant outrage, it’s no surprise that would be DeLeo’s response. I’m hoping that when he talks to some grown-ups who are in the business of information and not ignorance, he’ll get it right.
<
p>If DeLeo still thinks this in a week, there’s reason to be angered. But for now, it’s just another way to whine about the villain du jour.
But why couldn’t he have said something like, “from the information in your articles, it sounds as though this is a program that gets a lot of people off welfare at minimal cost to the state. Of course we are always looking to eliminate or cut programs that aren’t working, but I’m not sure yet that this program falls into that category.” I’ll give credit to Hillary Chabot who wrote these stories: despite a certain amount of pointless welfare-bashing, they do contain enough information to come to the conclusion that the program works.
he considers facts a little bit heavier than stories from the media and since the Herald also reports he’s referred this to the Chair of Ways and Means, he will shortly hear from Chairmen Murphy and be deluged with information from the lobbyists he trusts from the anti poverty community and he’ll soon figure out that, as JoeS points out below in this thread….
<
p>
<
p>and remember approving this Republican initiative as Chair of Ways and Means. I doubt he’ll bother clarifying his position here though.
<
p>
Are we sure, though, that this program went through HWM? It seems to have been initiated administratively under Romney. Not clear to me that it required legislation.
<
p>In any event, even if you’re right, why initially give aid and comfort to Brad Jones and Scott Brown by parroting their silly talking points? Why not either say something like what I suggested upthread, or just take the whole thing under advisement?
especially small new programs can be funded out of existing line items but those transfers must eventually be approved by both W&M committees.
<
p>And frankly, I read the headline translating his straightforward question wondering how far we can reach out to give people a hand in this economy as “DeLeo decries the welfare car program”, and dismissed the story as twisted headline welfare baiting.
<
p>Then you made a big deal out of it.
<
p>2. Yes, I’m making a big deal out of it. I do not want mindless welfare-bashing to drive state policy, thank you very much. And if we leave it to the Heralds and the Scott Browns of the world, that is exactly what will happen. DeLeo is being far too go-along-to-get-along on this. As a Democrat, I found his comments embarrassing, and I’m not afraid to say so.
and previously approved by each W&M Committee is being looked at and evaluated through the lens of the current economy. Both Legislative branches are doing it and so is Governor Patrick.
<
p>And that includes looking at every currently funded successful and unsuccessful program that purportedly helps welfare recipients get a job at a living wage. Even if the Republicans and the Herald, who probably had no idea that this program had been developed by their own Governor Romney, try to characterize it as a socialist scheme to redistribute wealth instead of good conservative program that cuts the welfare rolls and gets these folk get good jobs at the same time. (Which was the original goal of the so called “welfare reform” pushed by Clinton Democrats in the 90’s)
<
p>DeLeo has never been a welfare basher, and I think you are being hasty in casting him as one on the basis of one story from a proven welfare basher media source.
Of course the Herald and the good senator from Wrentham knew that Romney established the program. Where is Eric Fernstrom when you need him?
Announcing Romney’s next Expedient address. I am quite certain it will be Excellent.
<
p>That and other sins of omission by the Speaker have me very worried that we have yet another DINO lacking the internal principles and ideologies of a Democrat.
<
p>How ’bout those telecom tax loopholes, Mr. Speakah? How’s that coming along? When you chaired Ways & Means didn’t it look attractive to collect revenues due to the Commonwealth vs. broad based sales tax hikes that will jam another nail in the retail coffin of Massachusetts?
<
p>The House is lost.
How often have we seen politicians and their media stooges traipse out a bogus news story designed to submerge real issues of ethics, law or finance? Could this not be another one of those times?
<
p>More often than not the tactic works.
This program should be off-the-table when discussing ways to balance the budget. But it may be just another diversion from those items that could provide significant budget improvements.
<
p>If a $25K job replaces a $25K welfare grant for 80% of the participants, then spending each $30K on vehicle transportation saves $100K in expenses, a net gain of $70K. The program would be well-served if both the expense and costs avoided were included in its budget, and then the cry may be to expand the program rather than cut it.
<
p>But it is a diversion from the realities of the budget-busters:
<
p>A review of “prevailing wages” could show significant savings, while effectively generating more work and jobs.
<
p>Modification of health-care benefits and pension formulas should create some savings, and more importantly tamp down some irksome issues that drive the taxpayer crazy.
<
p>Health care costs are too high for both the consumer and the State, and moving away from “fee-for-service” may reduce costs by establishing more reasonable incentives.
<
p>There are too many social programs, each with its own overhead. These could be combined to reduce overhead and eliminate unwanted duplication of services.
But why are we paying them Welfare benefits in the first place. That’s the rub to me. We shouldn’t be taking money from one group of citizens to give money to another group of citizens in the first place. That is not the Government’s role in my and many other conservatives opinion.
<
p>If the private enterprises want to get cars and give them to poor people good for them. And if they want to pay the poor people’s car insurance great. This crosses the line the second any amount of government money is used for the program.
<
p>I volunteer with local charities. I help the poor, of my own volition. It is not the government’s role to do so. That’s where you get the response from the likes of my RMG compatriots.
Just because they’re conservatives’ opinions. Approval for the Republican Party in the Northeast runs to single digits.
<
p>Come back and make a policy argument.
otherwise you risk sounding foolish.
<
p>Or maybe obtuse, point-missing sound bites are all the rage.
Okay, let’s spell it out for you.
<
p>My point was that EaBo Clipper posted no more than what his conservative preferences were. That’s all very nice, but it has no weight in this context.
<
p>It might have some weight if he represented a widely held view. He doesn’t. (Hence the polling.)
<
p>It might have some weight if he argued from policy. He didn’t.
<
p>It would certainly have weight if some modern nation state somewhere had tried his fairy-tale libertarianism. None have.
<
p>My comment ended by inviting him to speak to policy.
is that the government does not take person A’s money and gives it to person b.
<
p>That is my public policy position. How is that not a public policy position. Or do all public policy positions need to involve the government doing something. If that is the case then you’ve won your argument by the way you’ve framed it. Seems like cheating to me.
as described here.
The last Republican President flew in about $9 billion of taxpayer money to Iraq and gave it away with no receipts.
<
p>Governments give and take money all the time–they give my money to policemen, firemen, emergency medical technicians, Navy SEALs, forest rangers, Halliburton, ADM, the government of Pakistan. How much of our money has Dave Petraeus paid Sunni tribesmen not to shoot at American soldiers in Iraq?
<
p>Since governments give and take money all the time, the question should be “Does the taxpayer see a benefit from this car program?”
<
p>Eabo needs to divert us over to “the government does not take person A’s money and give it to person B” because Eabo knows he’ll lose the argument if we ask whether the car program spends our money wisely.
A supplement to Godwin’s – if you cannot win an argument about an entirely unrelated matter without mentioning Iraq – you lose.
They commit the worst foreign policy mistake in memory. They support it enthusiastically. Now, when we meanies mention it, they get all hurty and sad.
<
p>One reason to mention Iraq is that it emphasizes the moral bankruptcy of the Republican leadership. Is there a Republican Senator — still in the party — who has said as much as “oops”?
<
p>Until you guys either find the WMDs or take responsibility, get used to hearing about Iraq a lot.
<
p>It defines you.
Welcome to The Nasty Girl, Mass GOP edition.
<
p>I’m sure in the next installment we’ll learn that PP was the first independent elected to the Republican State Committee and that she was forced to write this and this and even this at gunpoint.
I’ll recap: Eabo asserted his principle against govt taking $ from A to give to B.
I asserted that govt does this all the time, and listed ways they do it–some wasteful, some valuable. I really don’t think I have invalidated my own point by mentioning the Iraq War as an example of wasting taxpayer money. The car policy is a good one, and Eabo’s principle is ridiculous as a reason to argue against the car policy.
“Responsibility” doesn’t apply to Republicans. Ever. Republicans always act from the purest of motives, so when their actions result in catastrophe, it must be someone else’s fault – usually gay people or Bill Clinton. Or both.
Were this a generic Republican, I’d say you hit the nail on the head.
<
p>To be excessively fair, Peter Porcupine asserts that Massachusetts Republicans are not like the national ones, that state policy differs sharply from federal policy, and that Iraq in discussions of state policy carries the same relevance as Sri Lanka.
<
p>I suspect this is nonsense.
<
p>I see little evidence that Massachusetts Republicans differ from their colleagues elsewhere, and much evidence that they are the same.
When you consider how A got the money in the first place. It is but the remuneration for goods or services that are of value to others. Have you really earned yours? Some part of what you may think you have “earned” is part of that “service” to others, you are providing it as money instead of work. Some of that is a duty, supplementary portions can be charitable.
… for dismantling the U.S. Military, which necessarily takes person A’s money and gives it to person B.
<
p>Absurd on its face. Try again.
Shall we also use volunteers to teach school – no more government money to pay teachers?
<
p>Shall we layoff every single human services provider?
<
p>Your post does not make sense to me, at all. As to this particular program, I don’t think all the information published about it, put together, gives me enough information to even figure out what this program is and how it works.
(shorter EaBo)
It’s a disagreement as to the role of government. You can put words in my mouth if you want.
The radical kind of libertarianism you propose is as absurd as it is unpopular.
before federal government intervention, charity took care of the less fortunate. As the ever increasing burden of taxation has taken more and more from private citizens the ability of those citizens to give to charity has gone down, and the more people rely on the government. That is a fact. Let’s go back to the McKinley administration if it means less government control of my life.
“Before federal intervention” = “before the New Deal”.
<
p>I’m not sure what planet you just arrived from but the idea of replacing a reliable social safety net with the unreliable and capricious form of funding called charity is foolish and cruel.
<
p>I commend you for your charitable contributions. Your policy prescriptions, not so much.
Republicans didn’t used to say anything like this, but suddenly it has become all the rage. EaBoClipper is not alone.
<
p>What has caused this? The loss of the moderates? A belated decision that Ron Paul was right all along? A decision that anything a Democratically-controlled government does is ipso facto wrong?
<
p>It’s all very weird. The Greens shall soon be our opposition party in Massachusetts — unless the CentralMassDads of the world form one before then.
He’s kind of a radical libertarian McKinleyite too, isn’t’ he? What kind of party are you thinking he’d form?
I’ll let him speak for himself.
The ten percent one gave at church went to many social programs. The early hospitals in Lowell for instance were funded by the Catholic Church and people were taken in regardless of ability to pay. The French in Lowell also privately took care of orphans without the help of the state through the Franco American Orphanage. Social institutions existed before the states intervention.
First off, tithes are a capricious manner with which to provide social services because their distribution depends on amateurs with theological predispositions. Doubtless poor Jews in medieval Europe were unaided by tithes. Why shouldn’t similar prejudices and capriciousness enter their distribution now? Orphaned kitty cats attract many more donations than homeless alcoholics.
<
p>Nor did tithes disappear due to taxation. Tell that to the Mormons who still pay them. Various martial arts cults have tithing schemes as do some Christian denominations.
<
p>But the real answer to your game of make believe is: so what?
Before federal government intervention, seniors struggled to eat, children worked in factories, and women died in garment factory fires.
<
p>Heck, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was published after McKinley. That you and other conservatives want to “go back” there is exactly why you’re on the verge of becoming a rump party.
Otherwise you would not have given gary’s excellent set of questions a 6. Gary’s comment presumes that the program has a worthy goal but points out it is untested. Your point in this thread is that the goal is unworthy to begin with. So whether it is effective or not should not matter to you.
<
p>But it apparently does matter to you.
that if he had a clunker he’d give it to a CHARITY to give it to some poor dude. His and my points are not mutually exclusive.
Nobody is saying that the GOVERNMENT is buying and distributing cars – except perhaps Jessican Heslam and those foolish enough to swallow her story whole. The state is involed with taxes, insurance, and titling.
<
p>And again the AAA is new – but I posted an idea on RMG about asking AAA to continue to memberhips, or limited memberships, as part of the new policy making AAA offices into branch RMV offices.
is PAYING FOR the Insurance and for the repairs to the cars to get them to work. That is in the article and has not been debunked. It is not a good use of government money Peter. If your charity on the cape wants to get the donated cars, fix them with your own money, give them to a disandvantaged family, buy that family car insurance and finally have that family pay taxes like any of us would have to do on a gift like this then fine. The government should not be involved at all in this. One dollar of government money used for this is one dollar too much.
Besides, if these people have recently fallen on hard times, but previously worked, they have paid their taxes. Therefore, they are absolutely entitled to get some assistance from the public treasury. Remember, this ultimately BENEFITS the state because it gets people back to work and paying taxes again. Sounds like a win-win.
Suppose I have a junker and want to get a tax write-off, then I give it to a charity who uses the State’s agent to give it to some poor dude.
<
p>But, regarding the Herald article, I don’t know how you can conclude it saves the state money. It’s not like follow-up info in the article is very illuminating. For all we know, the poor dudes could be scamming the car and leaving the State; they could be getting the car and dutifully supporting a family of 12. There’s just no info to conclude that it’s a good or bad program. Typical. There’s simply rarely follow-up on all these feel-good programs.
<
p>An 80% success rate? How’d Christy Mihos figure that. The article said 20% ended up back on welfare. That’s not 80% success, it’s 20% failure with 80% unknown. Based on the article.
<
p>A Romney program. I’m not so sure. Transaction Associates Inc. is the private contractor running the show here. They’ve been in the “Four Wheels for Work” biz for over 10 years. The government memo referenced in the article is 2006, but that’s when the program was moved from Department of Transportation to Department of Transitional Assistance, probably as a result of some decent salesmanship by Transaction Associates, Inc., a company that appears to exist on Federal and State Grants, all in the transportation.
<
p>Wonder how much TransAction Associates is getting from all this? $400K, to give away 65 cars per year? Give me $400K, I’ll give away cars.
“You must fax or send in pay stubs each month to show you are employed.”
<
p>link
You know, contrasting 2 polar opposites: ‘scamming the car’ versus ‘ getting the car and dutifully supporting family of 12’.
<
p>Besides, if you don’t fax in the pay stubs, you still keep the car, right?
If there’s a paystub, there’s a SS number to track. No way to hide.
You do get to keep the car. But the car was donated. The state’s expenses consist of paying incidentals, and that stops if you lose your job (or stop faxing in pay stubs).
It’s the states responsibility to see to peoples needs or the church if they see fit. There should be a complete absence of any communication of goods, services or revenue between any political entity and a religious entity.
This is a typical George Bush scam. What would the ACLU have to say?
To whatever story started all this?
…here and they also provided you one over on RMG.
<
p>What are you really looking for?
Is that bad? I may have something to add if it is the program I am thinking of.
is here.
The UVM and HUD did a study of this program back in 2006. A summary is available on the Good News Garage site. I cannot tell whether they studied all their clients or just those in Vermont.
The study appears to be based on questioning of 97 Vermont welfare recipients. It summarizes,
<
p>
<
p>Then further down says,
<
p>
<
p>Tricky language. Most eliminated welfare completely, but 37% reported decrease in food stamps. (i.e. in Vermont “most” means something less than half.)
<
p>Even assuming that makes sense, and even assuming Vermont’s population reports similar outcomes to those on welfare, and even assuming the exit from Transitional Assistance was caused by the car program, so what?
<
p>Average TAFDC is $479 per month, cost per month for the car is $500. And it affects a whopping 30 people per year (assuming 1/2 of the car recipients leave TAFDC) of the total 112,000 transition assistant recipients.
<
p>The underwhelmingness-ratio (benefits to society dvided by media attention) is staggeringly small. But thinking about it, why does it cost $500 month to give away a free car? $150 insurance, $5 AAA, $345 ___.
“most of them” means the majority of the population subest who decreased TANF reliance.
<
p>So, in a sample of 100 people:
61 decreased reliance
– 30 completely
– 31 partially
<
p>That’s how I’m reading it. I agree that the way things are phrased aren’t particularly transparent or helpful.
<
p>Another interesting note was this:
which suggests that this problem also contributes to the health, safety, and education of children who would seem to be more “at risk” than most. Will this program reduce the number of those kids who would otherwise be destined for a life in and out of jail, social services, or otherwise not wholly functional member of society?
<
p>
<
p>In the mean time, helping to make sure that more people can live in safe neighborhoods near functional public transportation accomplishes much of the same things that this program accomplishes. There’s plenty of room for both within Massachusetts, to be sure.
Maybe that’s what they mean, but it doesn’t say that. It says:
<
p>
Is “them” those who completed the survey or is “them” those who decreased their TANF reliance? It’s a poorly worded sentence — to me, it’s not clear what they mean except by reading between the lines and using the other stats to reverse engineer.
Self-serving statistics published by the agency who will benefit and assisted by a Federal agency. Obviously, it must mean the program is working.
Since this study was by the UVM and HUD during the Bush Administration no less, I thought it would be useful to try to find the study rather than their summary of it.
<
p>Hunting HUD was a dud. Does anyone know how to find this report?
welfare and food stamps?
Many people who are not on welfare get food stamps. I’m also interested in where you found a cost of $500 per month for the cars. Or is that not what the word month means in “why does it cost $500 month to give away a free car?”
Maybe that’s the difference: maybe the study is not considering food stamps welfare. They are. But maybe there’s some distinction between the two that’s causing the lack of clarity in the language.
The funding is $400,000 per year to award 60 to 65 cars, provide insurance and AAA. 400K/60 = $6K (thereabouts)
I glanced quickly and couldn’t determine if all that money was being spent. If, for example, the limiting factor was the number of cars the charity could come up with, then perhaps some of that $400k isn’t being spent each year… but the lege wants to be sure that if the charity comes up with enough cars that MA will fund more than just 60-65.
<
p>Just a thought — no idea where reality lies for this one.
From the original order:
<
p>
The average 6K annual cost includes those repairs, and for any other repairs required for the car to pass inspection. These are cars that somebody doesn’t want any more, so they probably need some kind of significant repair before they will pass. Note also that none of these expenses are paid for by the state after a year.
NOW that it’s too late, Hillary Chabot FINALLY gives an accurate description of the program –
<
p>
<
p>Meanwhile – Senate Democrats are proudly trumpeting that they will gut it, that the only reason it’s IN the budget is that it had alrady gone to print when this journalistic wonder alerted them to the dangerous program.
<
p>BTW – can one of you ask W&M Chair Brewer how the hell he can justify stripping recipients of the cars WHEN THEY WERE DONATED? WILL THE STATE BE AUCTIONING THEM OFF?
He seems to be leading the indignant mob here- I wonder where he stands on pension reform?