The program is not a categorical entitlement, like giving people over 65 a 25% discount on auto insurance, even if they have multiple vehicular homicides. Instead, it encourages and rewards beneficial behavior by enabling the recipients to work – without compelling behavior, like smoking/candy/transfat/Kryptonite bans. It sends the right message – that helping people become productive and useful, and less dependent on government for aid, is a constructive use of government funds.
Second – Porcupine is beyond dismayed at the lack of simple intellectual curiosity among the opponents. It may well be that some opposed the program prematurely, before becoming familiar with how it works, but Porcupine shrewdly suspects that some continue to oppose the program because they don’t want to admit publicly that they misunderstood and were wrong (DeLeo at least was smart enough to apply a qualifier to his opinion!). Why the rush to punish?
Third – a companion to the lack of curiosity is the lack of creativity. On Red Mass Group, Porcupine posted THIS, offering a suggestion that the dreaded AAA membership could become gratis from AAA, especially since the auto club and the RMV are beginning a new partnership that will allow the RMV to lay off more help, and will bring foot traffic to the AAA offices. But the towing service is just the beginning. We have dozens of GMC and Chrysler dealerships on the chopping block – some with only weeks to get rid of inventory. Many of them have older cars taken in trade, difficult to sell. We have a program that parcels out cars, and auto dealers about to be forced in bankruptcy because of excess inventory that must be liquidated. Can nobody in state government see a mutual need here, and a chance to broker a possible solution for both parties?
Porcupine knows beneficiaries of the program, and will not argue the poignant need of the recipients. Rather, can we not be good Republicans and help those who want to help themselves?
The people who go on this program aren’t the people who stay on welfare for God knows how long and become career leeches. These people are the ones who actually want to have a better life and become contributing members of the community.
<
p>This is a shining example of a functioning union of a faith based charity and reasoned government intervention for the betterment of people’s lives in a tangible fashion.
<
p>Freaking out over AAA. Gosh. It’s such small potatoes but very useful (I have AAA gold and swear by it). Keep up the fight, PP!
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that exists any more (if it ever did). I believe the new rules have much shorter time limits.
I recognize Clinton made changes to stop that from happening, but it’s not perfect. But that said, the people who would take advantage of such imperfections aren’t the type of people who enroll in this, so we should also recognize that.
<
p>I still say there are a ton of career leeches out there. Myself for example, until I get my degree =)
and are the problem and the reason the Herald jumps on stories like these. I would say that a great majority of those on assistance want to find work.
<
p>As with everything else in life there will be a percentage that would want to game the system. But exceptions to the rule shouldn’t dictate what we do.
Maybe the terminology is wrong but people “who stay on welfare public assistance for God knows how long and become career leeches” are everywhere.
<
p>My Aunt has been living in the Old Colony projects for over 50 years now. She has a single now and considers it her “house”. She has also been “given” one public job after another (school bus driver…) and she somehow loses that job only to be given another. Her kids (2 out of 3) went to college for FREE and they never paid for any amusement park, Red Sox game… growing up. I don’t know all the particulars but I am very sure there were all sorts of other “public assistance” measures (food stamps…) which she has enjoyed while being a “career leech”. I love her since she is my Aunt but she is a shining example of exactly who JoeTS is talking about.
<
p>BTW, she is NOT an exception to the rule.
Statistically, people aren’t on welfare per se, for long periods of time, even if they could game the system. That’s just a fact, but people who do game the system give many others a bad name.
<
p>However long a person can be on public assistance programs of other sorts for extended periods, I get the feeling that they aren’t proud of it. When I worked at stop and shop, I never saw people coming through my aisle with a huge grin and an EBT card in their hand. Nobody likes that feeling.
<
p>I think johnk simply misunderstood the point I was trying to make, which is that such a great program should be used to win over people who have been dissuaded by the televised minority.
Does anyone here have statistics of how many people like my Aunt from South Boston live the projects and for how long they live there? I know she is only one but she has very many friends who have been there with her for those same years. If I’m wrong then I will admit it but I’d like to see the numbers.
Let’s say that half of the homes in Old Colony have been occupied by the same resident for 30 years.
<
p>The other half turn over every 2 years — the people enter “the system”, get themselves sorted, and leave “the system” in that 2 year period.
<
p>Assume 100 units for easy math:
50 units: 1 tenant each
50 units: 15 tenants each.
<
p>By “property”, 505 of the folks are there all 30 years. But, by recipient, 93.75% move out after 2 years.
<
p>
<
p>Of course, in real life, there’s more than just two kinds of residents, making the analysis even hairier.
Half of all public housing is “consumed” by habitual “leeches” using up valuable assets for the remaining truly needy individuals.
hence the subject of the post. BTW
<
p>
<
p>That should have been 50% — the same “half” you came up with afterwards. The question is: which number makes sense to you? Is 50% the right metric, or is 93.75% the right metric?
<
p>The problem is sample bias. Humans aren’t good at understanding two populations moving at different rates. For example, here is a conversation I overheard (shortened):
<
p>Fred: I walk along the Charles a lot, and it seems like it’s just filled with bicyclists.
Joe: Really? I ride there every day and it’s crawling with pedestrians.
<
p>Turns out they’re both right. If you move at the same speed as the other walkers, all you see are cyclists. Conversely, if you move at the speed of a cyclist, you only see pedestrians. Neither experience tells us anything about the actual percentage of walkers and cyclists, except that both are strictly between 0% and 100%.
that I love it when you do this statistical mumbo jumbo stuff. You teach me something every time.
But I also know people who are on welfare but got a real job and are going on Disney vacations but still on welfare.
<
p>I am well aware that the majority of people on welfare don’t want to be on it. It’s embarrassing to depend on others for your basic essentials. Very few people are okay being like that for extended periods of time.
<
p>People like me though? Well, if these people are like me, then the herald wouldn’t do crap for us, because I don’t buy the herald.
<
p>
<
p>But they do oftentimes, unfortunately. Which is why we need to use programs like this to convert even the most stalwart of anti-public assistance people to causes like this, because it’s the epitome of what a successful system is.
to stop the most egregious violations as we know of them. Sorry Joe, I did misread your comment.
Always reasonable, sometimes right!
If it’s a typical Massachusetts, DTE-run program, odds are it’s an anything-goes entitlement program, you know, well-intended bleeding-heart program administered by state bureaucrats who couldn’t care less.
<
p>I know this is cynical, but isn’t my cynicism well founded? It’s a state program for crying out loud.
<
p>I would be happier if the cars were allocated through employers as an employment incentive to hire people off welfare rolls (or whatever the legislature intended.) Even simpler would be a restricted tax-credit to the employer to purchase transportation for that new hire (car, truck, or public transportation, if that works, whatever works.)
<
p>That way we could be more confident that the cars aren’t going to the “career welfare leeches” JoeTS rightly worries about.
<
p>But then again, I don’t know enough about the program. On the other hand, the reflexive conservative opposition is born from observing years of multi-billion dollar waste and inefficiency in our state government. That reflex, unfairly or not, is right more often that it is wrong.
Tax revenues over past 5 years have outpaced all statistics: they’ve grown faster than population, workforce, private earning, public earning, inflation. You name it.
<
p>Government took that epic growth in revenue and spent it. And borrowed more. And spent it.
<
p>Tax revenues were rosy, and the Gov passed Universal health at a $1 billion per year extra cost adding some funding sources, but not the full $1 billion of funding sources.
<
p>Finally, revenue growth caught up to reality and in the giant fiscal crash of 2009, (and 2010? 2011?), revenue growth reverted to the mean, leaving the state hung out there with 1) Universal health promises 2) pension promises 3) union wage contract promises 4) more debt than any state in the nation.
<
p>And here we have this car program, marginally beneficial or marginally costly. Either way, it’s marginal. End it.
<
p>End it, and you’ve solved .02% of the State’s fiscal problem. Baby steps. Combing the constitution, I don’t see the basis for the State being in the used car biz.
<
p>p.s. I still wonder who the folks are at TransAction Associates Inc (the folks who run the welfare wheels program) and how much they take in State contract money.
<
p>
But I think that we’ve moved out of the realm of what is constitutionally sanctioned so badly that it’s pointless now to try and stop a program simply because of that argument. What would be needed first is a good spring cleaning of tons of other non-constitutionally sanctioned programs first.
The point is that the DTA is peanuts. Do you have any idea how many line item programs we have that cost $400K, and even in total, they are only 1.1% of the budget revenue shortfall:
<
p>Procurement Access and Solicitation System 450,000
Authority Dormitory-payments 477,522
College Work Study Program 437,210
Plant Fund 438,271
Strengthening Institutions 482,950
Special Services For Disadvantaged 400,000
Citizen Schools Matching Grants 475,000
Miscellaneous Payroll Trust 425,000
Special Services 449,875
English Language Acquisition 470,987
Library Trust Fund 427,770
Miscellaneous Grant Funds 435,000
University of Massachusetts at Lowell Federal Non-Appropriated 413,198
Athletics Trust Fund-Payroll 421,381
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 407,662
Scholarship-Internship Match Fund 490,060
Research, Grants and Contracts 495,599
Agency Funds 422,000
Clean Air Act – Fine Particulate Matter Air Monitoring 445,837
Sustainable Forest 450,368
Massachusetts Bays Program II 472,501
Farmers’ Market Coupon Program 438,450
Trailside Museum 425,000
Division of Energy Resources Assessment 441,404
Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals 424,836
Right Whale Conservation 418,700
Medical Malpractice Analysis Bureau 484,000
State Rating Bureau Medical Malpractice Insurance Trust 400,827
Service Coordinators Program 490,401
Weights and Measures Law Enforcement Fee Retained Revenue 458,900
Apprentice Training Program 490,344
Health Boards of Registration 472,097
Demonstration Program to Conduct Toxic Waste Site Health Impact Assessments 448,648
Mass Youth Suicide Prevention Program 455,704
Developing and Enhancing Prescription Drug 400,000
Enabling Electronic Prescribing and Enhancement 451,710
Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Project 450,000
Supported Employment Program Federal Funds 411,989
Automobile Insurance Fraud Investigation and Prosecution 438,506
Public Purchasing and Manager Program Fees Retained Revenue 493,819
Hampden District Attorney State Police Overtime 434,335
Talking Book Program – Worcester 440,000
Archives Facility 481,881
Norfolk District Attorney State Police Overtime 463,770
University of Massachusetts Medical School Drug Laboratory 450,000
False Claims Recovery Retained Revenue 450,000
Commonwealth’s Washington, DC Office 453,292
Operation Clean Sweep Byrne Fiscal Year 2007 440,481
Nuclear Safety Preparedness Program 419,553
Armory Rental Fee Retained Revenue 400,000
I’m sure you would find Beacon Hill support for each and every one of these programs event hough they say they have cut programs to the bone.
You should see the earmarks in that same $$ range.
Oh please. Gary, you’re a lawyer, right? You should know by now that while the federal Constitution creates a government of limited powers, the state Constitution does no such thing.
Geez, I’m sorry I mentioned it. It’s the last line of a post, a sarcastic afterthought. Omit it for the substance of all previous.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell your sarcastic afterthoughts from the sarcastic rest of your posts. 😀
Gary – why the Nuclear Option?
<
p>I freely admit I am far more familiar with how the program operated under Romney, and I DID have an eyebrow go up when I saw it moved to DTA.
<
p>That said – why must the program be KILLED? Why can it not be scaled back to more efficient levels if need be? If its administration has been puffed up in the last three years, there are ways to cut back that doesn’t involve elimination, and again, I’ve tried to offer concrete suggestions about how to establish a public/private relationship to continue the program with more business and community participation.
<
p>THAT gripes me. This little (in the scheme of things) program has become a poster child for extremism of views on both sides – all or nothing, my way right or wrong, writ large. Both the sneering exclusion by Democrats and the truculent accusations by Republicans are punitive towards the public they are sworn to serve and largely unnecessary.
IMHO.
<
p>If your kid is dependent on you and costing you $175 per month.
<
p>You say to him, tell you what, I’m going to give you a car so you can drive to the new job and I’m not paying your $175 allowance per month again. The cost of the car to you, the parent is $300 per month.
<
p>Would you do it? Because, that IS the math of the DTA program. I know, I know, the car’s free, but the program still costs money to operate.
<
p>Your answer is sure. He’ll work, earn a living pay me back in more ways than money. He’s my kid.
<
p>Ok, now how about for the neighbor’s kid that you barely know? Will you foot the money for him? Same deal.
<
p>The answer, I’m guessing, is probably not. That’s me anyway. Why would you pay an extra cash, so the guy next door saves $175.
<
p>So, the neighbor says to you, tell you what, my kid’s a hard worker and the car will make all the difference. I’ll pay you back the money you spent from the salary he earns, if he earns it, whenever he earns it, in the future. It may take a while; he doesn’t have a very good work history. He can keep the car, right?
<
p>Little bastard always bugged me anyway. Always on the lawn.
<
p>Me, I wouldn’t do it. Accordingly, I wouldn’t do it with the taxpayer’s money.
<
p>Does this thought follow through in your metaphor? Do you feel this way about all people on state assistance, as you do about your neighbor?
<
p>It would explain an awful lot for me anyway.
<
p>Nah, I feel that way about pretty much everyone, not just those on assistance. With equal curmudgeonness to all, the analysis of whether to spend or not, isn’t influenced by race, creed, color, religion, economic status, reliance on programs, etc…
The argument you profer could be made for any other government program or service.
Why should I have to pay for my neighbor’s:
education;
police protection;
fire protection;
healthcare;
paving the road down street from my house.
<
p>The difference is in financial power. We idolize those who have more, no matter how they aquired the wealth and demonize those with less.
<
p>It’s easy to kick those who are down, and heaven help us if it helps move a family out of poverty. That might lead us to question whether they are there because of their own personal flaws or are the same as us and just lack the resources available to us.
Distinguish the laundry list of:
<
p>
<
p>from the DTA program. It’s not like the others.
<
p>Your list identifies programs of shared costs benefitting all.
<
p>The DTA wheels program is a a program that purports to eliminate state subsidies to individuals yet does so by subsidizing them more.
<
p>If the DTA program eliminated the subsidy or reduced the subsidy, then it would be a viable program. It does not.
<
p>Consider this comparison purely hypothetical. Say, the State has Group Homeless shelters. If instead, we start a program to eliminate group housing and award instead housing allowance for people to find their own shelters. If the new program met with equal outcomes at a lower cost, we should do it.
<
p>Alternatively, if we eliminate group housing and instead award housing allowance and it costs more, for equal or poorer outcome, then we should not do it.
<
p>Same’s true with the DTA program. Recipients are already receiving transitory assistance. Removing them from the rolls, appears to cost marginally more than leaving them on.
<
p>Same as my hypothetical upthread. Would you subsidize the hypothetical neighbor’s son yourself under the circumstances I described? And, if not, why would you ask that taxpayers to do it?
There are taxpayers who have never had a fire or required police assistance, had children that sought public school education, they have recieved the benefit of living in a safer and better educated community and all that derives from such a community.
<
p>So would you advocate a child that fails to learn everything that was taught in school be required to repay the cost of their education.
You’re punitive measures don’t seem to carry any benefit.
<
p>Both of these programs helps ensure that an individual has the tools necessary to be a productive member of the society. Its difficult to understand why you object to a program that is succeeding in fullfilling your stated goal.
<
p>On your other subject, I don’t have the exact figures, maybe someone here does. But I believe the cost of housing a family in a shelter runs about 3 times the cost of a housing subsidy.
We’re plainly talking around one another.
<
p>Put it this way. A guy’s on welfare. It costs $500 a month.
<
p>If I produced a program that will cost $600 per month to get him off welfare, would you do approve the program?
<
p>Maybe the simple difference is I wouldn’t; you would.
is a person of integrity and a net plus on this blog.