MA turning rapidly into bizarro world. What is DeLeo smoking?

Makes sense to me (6.00 / 3)

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.

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.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 13:17:59 PM CDT

Sure, let's hope. (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: David @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 13:44:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My experience with DeLeo tells me that (6.00 / 2)

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....

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.

and remember approving this Republican initiative as Chair of Ways and Means. I doubt he'll bother clarifying his position here though.

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 14:45:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope you're right. (0.00 / 0)

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.

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?

---

by: David @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 14:49:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Programs "initiated" by the Administration like the car program (0.00 / 0)

especially small new programs can be funded out of existing line items but those transfers must eventually be approved by both W&M committees.

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.

Then you made a big deal out of it.  

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 15:29:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK: (6.00 / 3)

1. Did DeLeo's HWM Committee approve this program?  And if so, why is DeLeo not backing it now?

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.

---

by: David @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:29:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Every single program initiated by past and current Administrations ....................... (0.00 / 0)

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.

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)  

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.

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:07:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Judy - if the Herald didn't know Romney developed the program, then why did they ask Brown about exactly that? (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:20:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stand corrected. (5.00 / 1)

Of course the Herald and the good senator from Wrentham knew that Romney established the program. Where is Eric Fernstrom when you need him?

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:30:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fernstrom is working on the press release (5.00 / 1)

Announcing Romney's next Expedient address.  I am quite certain it will be Excellent.

---

by: HeartlandDem @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 22:17:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the rub (6.00 / 4)

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 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.  

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?

The House is lost.

---

by: HeartlandDem @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 13:31:16 PM CDT

Diversionary tactic? (6.00 / 2)

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?

More often than not the tactic works.

---

by: John Beresford Tipton @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 13:59:58 PM CDT

Another Diversion from Reality (6.00 / 3)

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.

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.

But it is a diversion from the realities of the budget-busters:

A review of "prevailing wages" could show significant savings, while effectively generating more work and jobs.

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.

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.

There are too many social programs, each with its own overhead.  These could be combined to reduce overhead and eliminate unwanted duplication of services.

---

by: JoeS @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 14:04:01 PM CDT

This is all well and good David (3.00 / 4)

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.  

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.  

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.  

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 15:47:07 PM CDT

Why do we care about conservatives opinions? (6.00 / 6)

Just because they're conservatives' opinions. Approval for the Republican Party in the Northeast runs to single digits.

Come back and make a policy argument.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:02:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right after you do! Or are polls and popularity your only barometer of right and wrong? (3.00 / 2)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:22:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You might wish to read the entire comment before replying (6.00 / 1)

otherwise you risk sounding foolish.

Or maybe obtuse, point-missing sound bites are all the rage.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:30:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah, but none can compose them like you! (3.00 / 1)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:21:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not getting enough attention? (6.00 / 2)

Okay, let's spell it out for you.

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.

It might have some weight if he represented a widely held view. He doesn't. (Hence the polling.)

It might have some weight if he argued from policy. He didn't.

It would certainly have weight if some modern nation state somewhere had tried his fairy-tale libertarianism. None have.

My comment ended by inviting him to speak to policy.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:38:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My policy (0.00 / 0)

is that the government does not take person A's money and gives it to person b.

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.  

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 20:22:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is not far from cookie theory (6.00 / 1)

as described here.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 20:47:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The govt does not take A's money and give it to B? (5.75 / 4)

The last Republican President flew in about $9 billion of taxpayer money to Iraq and gave it away with no receipts.

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?

Since governments give and take money all the time, the question should be "Does the taxpayer see a benefit from this  car program?"  

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.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 08:03:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Porcupine's Law? (4.00 / 1)

A supplement to Godwin's - if you cannot win an argument about an entirely unrelated matter without mentioning Iraq - you lose.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 11:41:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Poor, sad Republicans (6.00 / 2)

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.

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"?

Until you guys either find the WMDs or take responsibility, get used to hearing about Iraq a lot.

It defines you.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:35:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hear, hear (0.00 / 0)

Welcome to The Nasty Girl, Mass GOP edition.  

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.

---

by: huh @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 15:05:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Porcupine's Law? waaa? (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 18:29:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Corollary to Pocupine's assertion: (6.00 / 3)

"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.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 08:16:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Massachusetts Exceptionalism (6.00 / 1)

Were this a generic Republican, I'd say you hit the nail on the head.

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.

I suspect this is nonsense.

I see little evidence that Massachusetts Republicans differ from their colleagues elsewhere, and much evidence that they are the same.

---

by: KBusch @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:46:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A little more complex than A to B (6.00 / 1)

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.

---

by: JoeS @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 09:50:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

EaBoClipper:... (0.00 / 0)

... for dismantling the U.S. Military, which necessarily takes person A's money and gives it to person B.

Absurd on its face.  Try again.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:34:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So if there are not enough volunteers, just let people starve, Eabo? (6.00 / 1)

Shall we also use volunteers to teach school - no more government money to pay teachers?

Shall we layoff every single human services provider?

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.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:18:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

AAAAHHHHH!!! IT'S SOCIALISM!!!!!! (5.80 / 5)

(shorter EaBo)

---

by: David @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:26:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (5.00 / 1)

It's a disagreement as to the role of government.  You can put words in my mouth if you want.

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:42:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The return to the McKinley Administration (6.00 / 3)

The radical kind of libertarianism you propose is as absurd as it is unpopular.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:43:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kbusch (3.00 / 3)

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.

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:51:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Answering the ambassador from Somalia (5.50 / 4)

"Before federal intervention" = "before the New Deal".

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.

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.

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?

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.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:00:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who are the CentralMassDads? (0.00 / 0)

He's kind of a radical libertarian McKinleyite too, isn't' he?  What kind of party are you thinking he'd form?

---

by: dcsurfer @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:22:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No he's not (0.00 / 0)

I'll let him speak for himself.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:31:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Charity funding at one time was not capricious (0.00 / 0)

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.  

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:51:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come visit my model train set (6.00 / 4)

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.

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.

But the real answer to your game of make believe is: so what?

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:10:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nonsense. (5.88 / 8)

Before federal government intervention, seniors struggled to eat, children worked in factories, and women died in garment factory fires.

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.

---

by: stomv @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:03:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're not serious about this (0.00 / 0)

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.

But it apparently does matter to you.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:14:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No he says (0.00 / 0)

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.  

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:16:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

EaBo - charity is where the clunkers come from NOW. (0.00 / 0)

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.

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.  

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:25:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

government (0.00 / 0)

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.  

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 19:08:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's what we call "commonwealth" (6.00 / 1)

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.

---

by: Christopher @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:32:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It seems so inconsequential (5.50 / 4)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

by: gary @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:09:34 PM CDT

re "scamming the car"... (6.00 / 1)

"You must fax or send in pay stubs each month to show you are employed."

link

---

by: David @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 23:01:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was hyperbole (0.00 / 0)

You know, contrasting 2 polar opposites: 'scamming the car' versus ' getting the car and dutifully supporting family of 12'.

Besides, if you don't fax in the pay stubs, you still keep the car, right?

---

by: gary @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 07:56:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Our government knows all (0.00 / 0)

If there's a paystub, there's a SS number to track. No way to hide.

---

by: billxi @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 08:47:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but ... (6.00 / 1)

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).

---

by: David @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 11:34:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is a seperation of church and state issue here. (3.00 / 1)

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?

---

by: MCRD @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 20:35:27 PM CDT

Can someone send me a link (0.00 / 0)

To whatever story started all this?  

---

by: billxi @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 08:43:43 AM CDT

There's one at the top of the page... (0.00 / 0)

...here and they also provided you one over on RMG.

What are you really looking for?

---

by: huh @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 10:48:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The story (0.00 / 0)

Is that bad? I may have something to add if it is the program I am thinking of.

---

by: billxi @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 15:48:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no, just curious, since you've now been given the pointer 3 times.... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: huh @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 15:53:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The program itself (6.00 / 1)

is here.

---

by: David @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 22:21:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Impact (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 23:09:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Impact (6.00 / 1)

The study appears to be based on questioning of 97 Vermont welfare recipients.  It summarizes,

The majority of the respondents decreased their TANF reliance due to the car, and most of them had so completely.

Then further down says,

37% of the population have reported a decrease in food stamps due to the car.

Tricky language.  Most eliminated welfare completely, but 37% reported decrease in food stamps. (i.e. in Vermont "most" means something less than half.)

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?  

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.

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 ___.

---

by: gary @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 09:29:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you're doing it wrong (6.00 / 2)

"most of them" means the majority of the population subest who decreased TANF reliance.

So, in a sample of 100 people:
61 decreased reliance
- 30 completely
- 31 partially

That's how I'm reading it.  I agree that the way things are phrased aren't particularly transparent or helpful.

Another interesting note was this:

*  At 96% (73), the overwhelming number of clients who received Vehicles through a Reach Up grant were women.
   * 93% were single parents with 1-6 children living at home.

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?

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.

---

by: stomv @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:45:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fiction (0.00 / 0)

Maybe that's what they mean, but it doesn't say that.  It says:

Out of the 97 reachable potential respondents, 76 actually completed the survey.
....The majority of the respondents decreased their TANF reliance due to the car, and most of them had so completely. ... 37% of the population have reported a decrease in food stamps due to the car

---

by: gary @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:56:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who is them? (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: stomv @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:17:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Self-serving (0.00 / 0)

Self-serving statistics published by the agency who will benefit and assisted by a Federal agency.  Obviously, it must mean the program is working.

---

by: gary @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:20:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Missing Them (0.00 / 0)

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.

Hunting HUD was a dud. Does anyone know how to find this report?

---

by: KBusch @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 12:58:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you equating (0.00 / 0)

welfare and food stamps?

Tricky language.  Most eliminated welfare completely, but 37% reported decrease in food stamps. (i.e. in Vermont "most" means something less than half.)

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?"

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 13:08:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

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.

---

by: gary @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 13:13:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

$500 per month (0.00 / 0)

The funding is $400,000 per year to award 60 to 65 cars, provide insurance and AAA.  400K/60 = $6K (thereabouts)

---

by: gary @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 13:14:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are we sure they spent all $400k? (0.00 / 0)

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.

Just a thought -- no idea where reality lies for this one.

---

by: stomv @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 13:53:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Repairs (6.00 / 1)

From the original order:

For the first year of ownership, TransAction Associates will pay for:
• insurance (recipients are responsible for obtaining insurance);
• excise tax;
• title;
• registration;
• inspection (recipient must get a receipt from the inspection station);
• 100% of the cost of approved repairs (Good News Garage will determine if the problems were caused by owner negligence), and
• a free AAA membership.

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.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 19:35:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

TOTAL DISGUST! @#%#* (6.00 / 1)

NOW that it's too late, Hillary Chabot FINALLY gives an accurate description of the program -

The plan takes donated cars and uses taxpayer dollars for repairs, registration, insurance, excise tax, the title and AAA membership for one year. The cars go to families on welfare who don't have access to public transportation.

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.

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?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 23:13:09 PM CDT

What's up with Baddour? Is he a hack or what? (0.00 / 0)

He seems to be leading the indignant mob here- I wonder where he stands on pension reform?

---

by: Farnkoff @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 06:10:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]