I thought it was worth calling attention to Senator Baddour’s comment on this thread regarding the donated cars program. Before getting into it, I do want to thank Senator Baddour for stopping by here.
Here’s the Senator:
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.
by: Steve Baddour @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 16:26:15 PM EDT
Here is Senator Baddour’s amendment, which eliminates the program but does not reduce DTA’s budget. I confess I don’t understand how that amendment will save the state any money. To the contrary, it seems destined to cost the state money, since as we’ve seen, the car program has an impressive success rate in getting people off of welfare. If the funds are routed to another program with a lower success rate, it’s a big ol’ fail. Or we could take Senator Brown’s approach of eliminating the program and the funding, which would have the salutary effect of keeping people on welfare by preventing them from taking a job. Your GOP at work.
Anyway, here’s Peter Porcupine’s response to Senator Baddour:
Let’s All Pitch 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.
After all, we wouldn’t want to target just the RURAL poor!
Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican
Ouch. And therein lies the risk of letting sensationalistic articles in the Herald dictate policy.
As for Senator Brown, we look forward to his defense of adding an earmark routing $175,000 of new spending to the town of Norfolk, coincidentally located in his district. We also note a distinct lack of Brown-sponsored amendments proposing to scale back per diems or address the other reforms noted by Mr. Porcupine.
On the premiere Democratic blog in the Commonwealth, the position most of us are probably sympathetic with is being staunchly defended by someone who I believe has been identified as a Republican State Committee member, but opposed by a State Senator with a D after his name? Very interesting!
After all, being a Republican is being socially and fiscally responsible đŸ˜‰
Given the record of the recent Republican administration, which set a new standard for fiscal and social irresponsibility.
<
p>Costs per year on average were $380K; savings in welfare were in FY09 as result were $310K.
<
p>Cut the programs, lose the savings. Save net $70K.
<
p>And they should still cut back the per diems, lose the TAP and eliminate the MBTA subsidies.
You don’t think DTA will spend the money elsewhere? All Baddour’s amendment does is outlaw one program. It doesn’t reduce the line item.
I have complete faith that government will find a way to spend money. And, if eliminating the program doesn’t affect the line item, then the amendment is theatrics, and nothing more.
Again, read the memo. The memo describes a program that COSTS the state money. Show me where my math is wrong: COSTS exceed BENEFITS according the the DTA memo.
…said that you don’t know if costs actually exceed benefits.
<
p>
The DTA says costs exceed benefits. READ THE MEMO.
<
p> I say, don’t spend money on a program where success hasn’t been demonstrated. You apparently, will. Call it your Faith, I guess.
but that’s what you want. You got called out and you just want to be a pain rather than admit there are more savings. Keep on mumbling to yourself.
Show me the numbers. What? Your keyboard doesn’t have numbers? Look at the top row.
<
p>Cost: $380K per year.
<
p>Benefits: DTA says, less than $380K per year.
<
p>Back up your insults with some prove.
… the memo include the cumulative savings of people off welfare after their first year in the program?
<
p>It’s real simple. Some things have a buyback period longer term than year one.
<
p>The memo isn’t a balance sheet. I don’t know why we’re treating it as such.
<
p>Because, the DTA is silent as to whether or not there is a benefit longer than 1 year. You ASSUME there is. I assume no such thing and take their assertions at their face.
I have said I don’t know based on this information. I find it hard to be reality based and to be able to draw conclusions on this data. I don’t understand how you can be fine drawing your conclusions from the same data.
<
p>The data don’t support a savings conclusion because the data are incomplete.
.. there isn’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asserting anything about cost vs. savings.
<
p>Why assume? Why not just say (as you did earlier) that you don’t know?
Based on the Director’s report, the program’s cost exceeds benefits. The data is incomplete therefore, I don’t know what more data proves.
<
p>Absent any further data, which is IMHO the burden of the person doing the spending, I say, don’t spend. End of program.
… based on a memo you know doesn’t tell the whole story. I say “find out” then decide.
<
p>Informed decisions are better than snap ones based on what we know isn’t a balance sheet.
As I’ve said on the other thread, there is a benefit longer than a year, because — ta da!! — none of the people listed as successes in the memo has gone back on public assistance.
<
p>How do I know that? Because I asked the Commissioner of DTA, and she told me.
<
p>Note: I did not ask the Commissioner “whether the program saves money,” as you (willfully?) inaccurately stated in the other thread. I asked her specifically about the individuals who are listed as successes in the memo. At no time has any of them gone back on public assistance during or since their participation in the donated car program.
<
p>I’m not pretending that this completely answers the “does it save money” question. But you can no longer pretend that we don’t have this particular datum. We do.
… to ask would be to ask if the savings figure cited in the memo included multi-year savings from people who continue to be off welfare after successfully navigating the program.
<
p>I suspect the answer is no which is why I think this probably saves money.
Did I miss that assertion someplace?
is on the condition that they need it to get the job, I would say you missed it, yes.
2 – 1 = 2
<
p>Again, you purposely do not include the cumulative savings because it does not fit your argument. But this is not an argument, it’s fact.
<
p>There are cost savings for those who stay off welfare who otherwise would still continue to collect benefits. The BENEFITS are in the DTA memo.
<
p>Why don’t you want to save the state money?
You’re saying the DTA is wrong? Here’s the DTA calculation of costs and benefits. Give me objective reasoning, not bullshit platitudes. Why is it that you know it saves the state money, when the DTA says otherwise. And they’re the ones administering the program!
<
p>
What constitutes the 210k? Is that an annual savings? These are more questions than answers as far as a bottom line Savings – Cost calculations. The savings being quoted here… are they a cumulative net savings? We do expect that if people stay off of welfare the savings generated would continue, yes? Do we understand how the recidivism rate works into these figures? Do we understand how cumulative savings are included (or not) in the 210K figure?
<
p>What kind of Savings – Cost calculation can we conclude from the above figures?
<
p>I will not assert that the program saves money based on these figures, but you certainly can’t assert that the program loses money based on these same figures for all the unanswered questions left on the balance sheet that these figures do not address.
The snippet you quoted uses the phrase “cash benefits”. That is very important. That only means that the dollars in TANDF that would have been paid to these people were not paid to them. That represents the most direct cost.
<
p>Families on “welfare” cost the state in many other ways, from medical, housing, food stamps, and in a more remote way, by contributing to the population of people without hope, a population which is responsible for churning out a fair number of our prison population, a population which costs taxpayers upwards of $50k per person per year just to confine them.
<
p>There are a lot of unknowns here, however, I find it very hard to believe that the unknowns from each year don’t translate to savings of just $100k per year – because that would mean that over 50% of the successful participants in this program would stop working after one year — and it would mean that the indirect savings (such as public health care, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) would not amount to much for the 139 people who kept jobs for at least one year due to this program.
<
p>You can’t argue that 139 people on welfare are bleeding the state dry but then argue that 139 people getting off welfare doesn’t amount to $300k in compounded plus indirect savings. Either each family on “welfare” costs the state only $6,000 (not even per year — a flat rate), or they cost the state some amount more. Which is it?
Read the memo:
<
p>
<
p>Net cost: $380,000 per year. i.e. $380,000 x 3
<
p>Net benefits: $210,000 + $319,000 + $310,000
<
p>Assume all the extra benefits you please, but this is the math the DTA submits in support of this program.
A “3”. Come on. Support it! Show me why YOU know more than the DTA and why the program saves money even if the DTA says otherwise.
… as has been pointed out elsewhere, would depend on calculated the cumulative savings of people ‘who would otherwise still be on welfare’ of all past participants.
<
p>Until that is factored in you can’t really conclude that it’s a program that loses money overall.
When the program administering (i.e. DTA) the spending can’t show that the costs are less than the benefits, who can? The burden should be on the program to show success, not on critics who claim failure.
… but unknown is unknown. I can’t accept your default position that it’s losing money because I full well know that might not be. You can do fine asserting that claims that it isn’t making money can’t be asserted, but the inverse is still true.
<
p>Unknown is an accurate description until those other factors are calculated.
That’s an impossible burden. Getting someone off welfare could very well mean a full life of contributing tax dollars that the person never would have otherwise. Maybe they can show cost vs. benefits over a year, or two… or five… but there’s no possible way to know anything beyond then… but you can still rest assured, this program will save money. Anything that gets people off welfare at low cost to taxpayers is a good program, not to mention one that directly benefits people.
<
p>Want to fund some programs to cut? How about some of this state’s hundreds of millions in yearly corporate tax welfare (and hundreds of billions if you want to look at this federally). Why am I not shocked you rare if ever talk about that kind of welfare, Gary?
but you have to do something when your position is without merit.
I’d like to get a look at that data for myself, thanks…
… in welfare were $310K, then you’d only have to show that less than 1/3 of those savings were renewed in FY10 for the program to break even. That is, they could show a follow on year failure rate of 77% (1-70/310) and still break even.
I don’t have to show anything. If the very program administering this program can’t show a positive cost benefit, kill it. I guess I shouldn’t labor so hard; it appears this program is already dead.
<
p>
… taking the position that the program should go to it’s books and show a cost benefit… you’ve taken the memo and assumed concluded that there isn’t a cost benefit. I’ve looked at the memo and concluded that I can’t draw conclusions.
Not even close. Senate has to vote it, then House has to go along, then Gov has to not veto. IMHO, won’t happen.