And we wonder why people have lost faith in government…
www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/05/28/massachusetts-where-even-the-dead-are-welfare/UAjCYtau24hrU4ZKFYHLpI/story.html?comments=all#aComments
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
18,000,000/1700000000 = .0105882352941176
So, we’re talking 1% of the entire program being “waste.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not excusing it, but let’s take a step back and breath in deeply before we start talking about “why people have lost faith in government…”
At least, let’s take a step back long enough to actually figure out
1. why the problem is happening in the first place,
2. how long most of these benefits have been given out on average while someone was deceased — a short time is somewhat forgivable, years of time for the average case isn’t.
3. How many of these cases are actually accurate and not mistakes. My brother is a “Jr.” and the SS dept gets he and my father mixed up all the time (NEVER name your kid the same name for this reason!). It stands to reason at least a few of these cases could be from SS mixups.
4. how many examples of fraud are really present — as opposed to government messing things up or not having proper systems
5. how many of the real fraudsters are getting caught and charged for their crime
6. and what necessary steps should be taken to reduce or stop this problem altogether — streamlining computer systems, for example, can be more difficult than it seems, but an up-front investment in it could pay dividends going into the future, especially if there was a way to automatically flag the accounts.
We should also applaud the work of Bump as a testament to one way in which government can work, by having an auditor to check these things in the first place.
It’s very hard for there to be no waste in any large institution — public, private or nonprofit. The question is “how long do we let it go on before we catch it and stop it.” The answer to that question determines the effectiveness of the organization.
If government stops the abuse in this case at a relatively small cost to the system over a few short years because of the intrepid work of our State Auditor, I’d say that’s a job well done.
is such a strong thing, though, that this is a very difficult point to communicate effectively in a political forum. And yes, one can attempt to create a sort of counter-outrage about why are all these people so needful but, compared to the feelings of betrayal this sort of scandal generates, even that’s uphill. To those conservatives over-endowed with resentment and lacking in empathy, the point may be completely impossible to communicate.
For comments that prove your point about “impossible to communicate.”
From the Boston Globe article:
TWO AND A HALF YEARS in the STUDY cannot be compared to ONE YEAR OF BUDGET!!!
That makes Ryans calculations, above, wrong. (sorry Ryan) It is NOT, as he put it:
But rather…
18x10E6/(2.5 x 17x10E9) =0.00042352941
When we can get the defense department to stop wasting that percentage of money in one day… then maybe we”ll go after welfare recipients.
The “1700000000” above is 1,700,000,000. That’s 1.7x10E9. Therefore, the final calculation should be 0.004, or 0.4%. This jibes with Ryan’s work earlier — since 0.4% is 1/2.5 of Ryan’s initially reported 1%.
[note: I copy/pasted all large numbers, to ensure I didn’t mistype the number of zeros]
scholarship.
=-P
I’m disappointed that the Globe chose to pander to the arm-dragging mouth-breathing right-wing crowd rather than present this information in context (as Ryan did).
I’m confident that I can find 1% “waste” in any endeavor with a comparable budget. I also suspect I could find 1% “waste” in anything managed by hlpeary — or anyone else here, including yours truly.
This is a non-story, hyped up for ratings by the Globe.
This is 1,160 out of “900,000 recipients in the state.” That is .12%. That’s about one-eighth of one percent. That’s…really, really good. That probably means that some records are out of date. Anybody who has had to manage a list of anybody over 10,000 knows that people move, die, change address, etc. all the time. I’m actually impressed that it’s that low.
To me, the scandal is that 900,000 are in need of assistance, that’s roughly, what, around 1 in 7 Massachusetts residents? I do know this: One in four children in America live in poverty. To me, the scandal is that statistic right there. We should be focusing our time and effort auditing the causes of poverty. The real waste to our society is all the potential lost when one in four kids grow up in poverty. That’s a waste. But no, let’s get caught up in a rounding error.
When my mom passed away – Social Security figured they overpayed her benefits by 15 days and removed the funds from her checking account.
Our state is hopeless.
Every day I spend in Illinois is a day I’m not spending in Massachusetts.There is a world of difference between chronic almost state mandated mismanagement (Illinois) and occasional incompetence (Massachusetts).
Massachusetts is on the same end of the scale as Illinois, just not quite as bad. We don’t have Governors who go to jail – just speakers of the house.
The entire pension system in Illinois is broken – in Massachusetts – at least the teachers pension system is funded.
This issue is just basic bookkeeping 101. These records are available. 18M is real money – it would fund the public safety building in my community.
BTW – I’m suprised Susan Bump did.
There is no percentage that makes ok such basic checks on whether a person is dead or a live. Of course there are cases where this number may be in dispute. Perhaps names were too similar and caused confusion. Perhaps some other thing. But let’s assume that Susan Bump did her job and that none of that is applicable. 1,000+ is a terribly high number for what is so cursory a thing to fix.
Reading the comments on this thread is politically worrisome. The political power of this issue to turn voters to conservative candidates is undeniable.
Countering the Auditor’s report with comments like: “1,000? That’s not so bad!”, “just a rounding-up, bookkeeping error,” “just confusion in reporting”, percentage-wise that much fraud “is really, really good,” misses the political point. If we Democrats refuse to acknowledge the frustration of taxpayers who foot the bill and feel they are getting scammed by crooks working the system, we pave the way for Baker to take the Governorship next year. And these taxpayers are not conservatives, they are moderates and even liberals who want to help people in need but don’t want to get played for fools. (People who in many cases struggle along to keep up with their own bills)
The fact is, the technology does exist to monitor and tighten up this system. The fact is photo IDs would help keep the system more honest. The fact is there is no excuse for the sloppy system that literally throws away money that could be better used to truly help those who truly need it.
We may chose not to “see dead people”, charge and jail them. But, the GOP won’t miss the chance. CHARLIE BAKER smiles broadly when he reads this, seeing campaign ads in his future:
“Cross-checks were ignored and dead people got paid. Here are highlights of the audit of the state Department of Transitional Assistance:
• $2.39 million in welfare benefits were paid to 1,164 people who were listed as dead.
• 42 of those dead collected benefits “after the recipients’ date of death.”
• $24 million in full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) withdrawals were reported — a possible signal recipients were cashing out awards.
• $56.7 million in even-dollar SNAP purchases were recorded, suggesting benefits were exchanged for cash.
• 147,000 replacement EBT cards were reissued to 9,846 people, an average of 14 per person. Among those, 358 people were issued 30 or more electronic benefits transfer cards and one was given 127.
• More than 30,500 blank EBT cards sent to five regional welfare offices went undocumented.
Rather that excuse this or brush it off, progressives should take the lead in driving out ANY fraud in the system to protect those who really do deserve help.
in our welfare system. But we have to be careful about the conclusions we draw from this. Because government administers this program doesn’t therefore mean that government per se is fraudulent or bad.
In fact, the answer may be that we need more internal auditors in the welfare system to proactively prevent problems of improper payments to dead people etc. In other words, we may need more government to solve this problem.
One of the reasons we see what appears to be poor management of government programs is that public agencies have been downsized to such an extent — due to the anti-government sentiment that politicians of both political parties have fueled for years — that these agencies no longer have the capacity to operate their programs efficiently or effectively. The staff that are left in these agenices may only have the capacity to rubber stamp the outgoing payments. It becomes a recipe for more fraud and waste in a vicious cycle.
I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case here. But we should be careful about blaming government for being ineffective and wasteful, when we, in fact, have made it that way through foolish cutbacks in personnel.
I have no doubt that gutless demagogues will flog the emotional aspects of this issue. Smart progressives hopefully have better answers than joining the lynch mob.
One immediate observation comes from Adrian Walker’s column in today’s metro section — the number of “dead” people appears to be far smaller than the lie being reported in the tabloid frenzy (emphasis mine):
Let me just repeat that astounding result: in the “sample” of 178 allegedly dead welfare recipients supplied by the auditor’s office, only seventeen were actually fraudulent recipients. That means that 161 of the 178 were false positives — an error rate, by the auditor’s office, of a horrifying ninety percent.
With all due respect to Patrick, I suggest that between the “mistakes” of the auditor’s office and newspapers who consistently choose tabloid lies over dull facts, the truth is utterly obscured (at least for the moment). Racist demagogues have always preferred cheap emotions like this over actual facts — they have been defeated at the polls before and presumably will be again.
Meanwhile, I’d like some enterprising investigators to explore this issue with some other organizations. What share of veterans benefits goes to recipients who are actually dead? Shall we attack veterans benefits (and by implication, veterans themselves) because an already under-funded and under-staffed agency fails to achieve perfect compliance?
How do organizations like Catholic Relief Services, the United Way, and American Red Cross fare by the standards of this “audit”? Shall we dismantle those organizations?
If Charlie Baker or any other candidate resorts to the cheap and slimy demagoguery of your bullet points, I predict they will be skewered on the sharp edge of the truth. This kind of anti-minority anti-poor rubbish has been the stock-in-trade of shameless conservatives for generations.
Charlie Baker already lost one election. Going down this route will cost him another.
I’m actually OK, completely, with any and all ‘slop’ in the system of welfare: rounding error? Fine by me. I’d rather err on the side of giving away too much than risk giving away not enough. Let the patchy system work, leaks and all. After all, that seems to be Tim Geithners motto with respect to banks… and, with banks, 18 mil is pocket change… almost literally.
When the banking and finance system works with 100% efficiency, no fraud, complete transparency and perfect fairness… well, we probably won’t need welfare then… but if we still do, we’ll talk then.
Or, put another way, your rallying cry to ‘take the lead in driving out ANY fraud in the systems” ought to look at the truly fraudulent systems first… no?
Instead, it’s the mistaken belief that poor people have to earn their assistance from the government by being more honest and pure than the rest of us.
I think the first stone should be cast by someone who has listed every out-of-state purchase on their income tax return and paid the sales tax.
“Through our analysis of monthly Even-Dollar Transaction Reports from September 2011 through August 2012, we determined that 145,276 recipients engaged in 333,379 transactions totaling $56.7 million in even-dollar SNAP purchases at 2,863 retailers throughout the Commonwealth,”
Note the complete lack of context. The chances are one in one hundred that a food purchase will come out to and even dollar amount. “333,379” “$56.7”– do either of those figures represent significantly more than 1% of their respective categories? There is no way of knowing without knowing the total amount for both figures.
and we’re spitballing based on a reporter’s interpretation of some data. But…
150,000 recipients
300,000 transactions even dollar amount
That’s two per recipient. If the average recipient has 200 transactions, then it’s 1 in 100.
HOWEVER: I submit that your food purchases don’t have a 1-in-100 chance of ending with a .00. I don’t know what it is, but it probably ain’t 1-in-100. Here’s why:
1. Prices most often end in .00 or in .X9 (ie. $4.00 or $3.99).
2. Nearly all grocery store foods are non-taxed, and perhaps 100% of SNAP-eligible foods are non-taxed [dunno about the second bit].
3. People do often buy 10+ items [which would allow all those .X9s to add up to an .X0], but they often buy just a few items, say 1-9 of them. I contend that in those cases, when they buy 1-9 of them, it would be extremely unlikely (like well under 1-in-100) to end in .00 if a single item ended in .X9.
In short, there actually is real life data that grocery stores have on the probability that a transaction ends in .00, and I doubt very much it’s 1-in-100. Maybe for some stores it is more (food shopping at the dollar store?! or buying from a local vendor like a baker who prices in whole dollar amounts.) For most stores like supermarkets, I’d bet that it’s far less, precisely because the receipts in the Express Lane are so unlikely to end in .00.
on where you shop. My wife’s cousin lives near a little bodega in Springfield (he’s not on SNAP) and they tend to price things pretty evenly. 50 cents, a dollar. I’ve gone in there a few times and had purchases that came out to $3.07 and they said, “Just give me three bucks.” Another time it was $4.18 and I told him to take $4.25 to even things out.
If you took all the food purchase transactions and graphed them from 00 to 99, each number would get pretty close to 1%. My personal experience is that it is much more likely that my purchase will come out to an even dollar amount if I am paying in cash and take special precautions to have loose change on me.
If the relatives of welfare recipients continue to collect $2.39 million in benefits after their deaths, that’s welfare fraud.
But if GlaxoSmithKline has to pay $36 million to settle charges that they have been illegally and pricing and marketing their drugs to the state’s Medicaid system, that’s not.
Well, I guess that wraps it up…no problem worth fretting about (or fixing) here…no one to call accountable…no one to arrest and jail…hmmmm…let me be the first to predict at 11:54 May 29, 2013 that Charlie Baker or whomever the GOP chooses to nominate in his stead will be elected the next Governor and this issue along with the other “non”-scandals we explain away in our progressive echo chamber will be the rallying cry to independent voters/taxpayers. And then we can do posts about how people truly in need are in more trouble than ever.
that there could be a problem that could be resolvable at a cost less than the cost of the problem. But, we don’t know if there is, certainly not from the auditor’s report, which seems half cocked at best.
There is, for sure, a political problem aggravated by a report from the auditor that is at best inconclusive and at worst pandering grandstanding.
You’re talking about jailing people? Let’s analyze that for a minute.
Let’s say that we cut through all the he instances where the audit was wrong (as reported above) and find a person who used an EBT card after the person it was issued to had died. What do you suppose the circumstances were?
Maybe it was someone who was using her mother’s EBT card because they lived together. Her mother died. The next month she tried using it and it worked. Yes, the honest thing to do is to call someone at the DTA and report this, and go a little hungrier. You know what? It’s the DTA’s fault for not having an established policy and procedure to turn the cards off within a certain amount of time of recognizing that someone had died. I’m not going to begrudge someone who just lost a loved one from using the card. It’s about the same level of crime as moving into an apartment and discovering that the cable is turned on, and watching movies. It’s not worth $50k a year in tax dollars to jail this person.
If you find people deliberately creating fake people to collect EBT, then yes, jail those people. But why should someone respect the polite societal rules of someone who does not politely respect them?
we’ve just suggested the issue should be put in perspective.
There are things beyond the next election. We have to have a long term strategy of bringing rationality back to political discourse, and part of that is to stop treating every single wasted dollar as the third rail.
The end result in these cases is instead of doing the hard work of fixing whatever’s broken, we just cut programs or eliminate them altogether. I don’t think that’s a good idea, which is why I think we should always engage in these discussions with a careful, boring diligence.
Because it’s that kind of slow and rational effort that can fix these problems and get government ‘working again’ over the long term…. even if it means we don’t treat these as sexy issues so Republicans and conservative Democrats can use them in the next election to achieve their real goal — eliminating programs that make our country a better and fairer place to live, where every kid has real opportunity, including the 1 in 4 who often wouldn’t get a lunch at school if we didn’t make sure they could get one for free.
The sample was not from the dead people list, it was from a list of those who are claiming the same dependents. I just heard this on 89.6 FM from Auditor Bump herself.
Thus, the staggering number of dead folks receiving welfare is correct, so to those who believed what Adrian Walker said, please apologize to Auditor Bump.
The following is an excerpt from a story on the Boston Redevelopment Authority that ran in http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2013/05/28/boston-redevelopment-authority/ by Rachel Slade.
In this one example the city, e.g. Menino, gave away $23 million revenue to the BRA in 2001 and then didn’t bother to collect taxes of at least $537,000 a year for eight years, or approximately $5 million. The difference is that this is not a glitch, not poor controls, not even wrongdoing undercover. This is just one example of how the BRA and Menino have robbed the city blind depriving children and elderly of services or developing programs that really could move the city forward.
“A case in point is Hayward Place, a Chinatown-area parking lot that the city seized after a 1990 bankruptcy case. Throughout the ’90s the city ran the lot itself, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in parking fees. But by the end of that decade, real estate was heating up, and the site looked like a choice development opportunity—one that would allow the mayor to address the city’s need for a new school and more housing.
In 2001, the BRA issued a request for proposals for the lot. The RFP allowed a tower, preferably residential, but required interested developers to also build a school on the site or to fund the construction of one elsewhere. Then, as now, Boston was short on housing (which is why property costs are so high). Eight developers submitted bids, and almost all worked for months to come up with plans that included housing. The high bid, $23 million, came from Lincoln Property.
Once the bids were in, though, something strange happened. According to several people working for the BRA at the time, its then-director, Mark Maloney, wouldn’t green-light a normal selection process, and nothing happened for months. Eventually, in 2003, the BRA board announced that Millennium Partners, which had been the lowest bidder, had been allowed to match Lincoln’s $23 million offer, and had won the bid.
One of the most vexing aspects of this story is that back in 2001 the BRA seized the Hayward Place lot from the city—an act that, because of the off-the-books nature of the authority, made all of the maneuverings for the deal much harder to follow. The city council itself only learned about the property transfer after the fact, from the newspapers, at which point it considered a lawsuit against the BRA. Frustrated, City Councilor James Kelly noted that $23 million, the amount Lincoln had been willing to pay the city, could have covered a quarter of Boston’s projected deficit at the time. Instead, the money was to be paid by Millennium directly to the BRA—and the city would get nothing.
In the decade that followed, Millennium ran the site as a parking lot, just as the city had, earning approximately $2.3 million a year for itself. According to a Finance Commission report, the developer did pay $537,000 a year in rent to the city for two years, but the lease, negotiated with the BRA, then allowed those payments to cease. Since 2005, the report went on to note, “the developer has been operating the parking lot and retaining all the revenue.”
Why didn’t Millennium build anything for a decade? It’s unclear. But media accounts of the affair have suggested that Millennium had no reason to build as long as it was making millions of dollars tax-free from the parking lot.
correct and I’m reading things correctly, the fact is that 99.9996% of welfare payments are going to people who are supposed to get them. That’s the truth. That puts .0004 or whatever in context. As with any organization, it’s important that the Commonwealth continue to work toward greater efficiency. But the story is that government is working; our auditor did her job. That’s significant progress over the previous auditor. There will always be people, like Roark in this thread, who leap to a hasty conclusion that our government doesn’t work, but the story is that it works and we’ll continue to improve it.
What were the auditing results under our Republican administrations? How many dead people were getting stuff then? We’re in a terrible recession and I would guess that the welfare rolls have ballooned. Given the situation, it’s testimony to our government’s effectiveness that the problem is relatively small. Add to it the wasted money that Demeter mentions or the film tax credit and it puts this in further context.
This shouldn’t be a big political issue for Charlie Baker. It’s not a big issue at all.
…Suzanne Bump said herself several times when running for Auditor that since Democrats are the party that puts its faith in government we ought to be first in line to make sure that faith is well-placed. I think this is an example of her putting that line into practice.
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.
Are you joining those who suggest that an error rate measured in tenths or hundreths of a percent threatens “faith in government”?
However, I also acknowledge what others have said about the “noise” for lack of a better term and how others perceive it. I do think we have the responsibility to be as vigilant as possible about waste.
Oh, I enthusiastically agree that “we have the responsibility to be as vigilant as possible about waste”. That’s why this “issue” is more demagoguery and scapegoating than anything else.
Let me offer some far more productive examples of where we can and must be more vigilant than we are:
– How many times do we perform expensive construction of a sidewalk or street, only to tear it up a year or two later to do additional construction on the same spot? I’m talking about, for example, the enormously expensive and disruptive Beacon Street reconstruction in Brookline of a few years ago that was completely done over by yet another reconstruction that is still on-going. The state makes it quite hard to actually obtain the figures, but I strongly suspect that the total waste far exceeds the $18M claimed in this store (over a multi-year period). I see it happen all over Boston, Brookline, and Somerville. It amounts to welfare for the construction industry (not to mention the police details that “protect” these sites).
– What portion of the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in tax expenditures actually accomplishes any purpose whatsoever? Again, these expenditures cost far more and yield far less.
– How much waste and graft happen in connection with zoning and real estate issues, especially involving property owned by cities and towns?
– How much did we flush down the toilet in the Big Dig? How much of that waste (and outright fraud) was even pursued, never mind recovered?
I think we have an equally strong responsibility to sustain a community of justice that is particularly sensitive to the needs of its least fortunate participants. The heavy hitters and big players who wheel and deal about parcels in the city of Boston need far less protection than a struggling unemployed mother trying to raise young children in Roxbury.
There will always be opportunistic demagogues who seize on carefully cherry-picked examples of wrong-doing and use them to pander to the racism and xenophobia of our most callous voters.
I think the rest of us have an obligation to reject that kind of scapegoating — an obligation that transcends the cheap and tawdry political gamesmanship discussed here.
I don’t think anyone will agree that dead people should get welfare benefits. The issue here is how to respond to that. The response should be proportional to the problem.
Republican response is, predictably, designed to denigrate and impede welfare recipients. They claim that the problem is massive, representative, the tip of the iceberg, etc., and then they propose ridiculously extreme solutions. The ones I have heard are:
* Photo on EBT cards.
* Making people on welfare “check in” every so often to case workers.
* Throwing everyone on this list in jail (without doing any further followup as to what happened).
* Cut welfare for everyone because obviously everyone is cheating it. And also no new taxes until every last dollar of welfare fraud is found.
The more proportional solution to this specific problem would be to:
* Put in place a procedure to cross-check the SSN death index to the welfare recipients database.
* Put forth an official policy as to how long benefits are paid upon someone’s death. For example, if the payment hits the cards on the first of the month, if someone dies the 30th does the payment still hit versus someone dying on the 2nd? Also how to deal with false positives so that someone living isn’t cut off without notice.
That solution is relatively simple though it would probably involve a little computer system integration work and/or administrative work which is going to cost a little each year.
I don’t particularly like the way that Bump is going about this because she’s throwing red meat to the knuckle-draggers. I think that a better approach would have been for her to release her findings to the governor, then the governor would sit down with her and the DTS and work out a solution, and then announce the findings along with the solution at the same time. That would be an example of good government in action.
That’s certainly one way to make sure it hasn’t been stolen. Using IDs on credit and debit cards seems to be getting more common. Honestly I see only upside to that proposal.
then the only family member who can shop with the card is the person who is pictured, for one thing. The cards are issued to families, Chris – the kid can’t go get bread and milk if mom’s picture is on the card.
In 2005, Governor Romney stopped the use of photos on EBT cards in light of its high administrative costs and the fact that photo cards had virtualy no impact on fraud.
In 2102, the EBT Commission came to the same conclusion, and declined to pursue the idea.
In 2013, DTA estimated that startup costs for this proposal would be $5-7 million, with $4.4 million in annual costs thereafter.
Let’s try something else?
AUSTIN — Legislation to require drug testing for Texas welfare applicants unanimously passed the Senate on Wednesday with provisions designed to encourage drug treatment and protect dependent children from an abrupt cutoff in benefits.
Gov. Perry will sign the bill and it’s designed to get people help, not to punish anyone on welfare.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/04/10/4766065/texas-senate-oks-drug-testing.html#storylink=cpy
Getting treatment is great. Meanwhile they and their kids need to eat.
exhaustively.
The program of testing for drugs to get aid costs far, far more than it saves — even if you can ignore the questionable morals of forcing possible addicts (and their kids) to starve, or the moral hazards it creates. (After all, it won’t be the state government taking on the costs of the consequences for pulling benefits over a failed drug test, it will be municipal governments that deal with that increased crime, and the families dealing with that crime, as people turn to violence and theft once they feel they have no other choice.)
The goal is to help people who have a problem, and clean them up, so they become better parents and citizens.
Like their kids not being able to eat. Seriously, how are people supposed to get food with no money and no benefits?
Besides the issue of someone not being able to shop for a disabled relative or a father not being able to shop while the mother watches the kids, the mechanics of a photo on the EBT card to prevent fraud don’t make much sense. You’re going to have a $8/hour clerk deny someone their groceries because, in their opinion, the person on the card doesn’t look like the person in front of them? I doubt that.
And do you really think that the small shopkeepers are going to give up a sale because the photo doesn’t match? No way.
You asked the perhaps rhetorical question of what’s wrong with photo IDs on EBT cards. Some specific and compelling answers follow.
The more important point, however, is that EBT card abuse is at the bottom of a very long list of wasteful items the state can and should address. One of the first casualties of the tax-slashing me-first “conservative” mentality that swept the state decades ago is effective regulation. As a consequence, unscrupulous private interests have been bleeding public funds for decades — in amounts that dwarf what we’re discussing here.
I cited some examples elsewhere on this thread, and it isn’t hard to come up with others. Each and every dollar spent on a photo ID system would be far better spent in, just to chose a tiny micro-example, funding towns to provide adequate building, electrical, and structural inspections.
In fact, this entire charade exemplifies what I like to call the “Streetlight Strategy”, a venerable strategy for advancing the private and often unsavory agenda of self-serving public officials. I’m about to write that up in a separate post, it is worth it’s own discussion.