A "Tongue in Cheek" Comment on Where We Are Headed
The BHO administration seems to want to follow the path of California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, so looking at them may give us an idea of where we are headed. Best of the Web Today from the WSJ leads with the following:
"Massachusetts Republicans--yes, there are a few--are raising objections to a state program that helps welfare recipients increase their carbon footprints, the Boston Herald reports:
"It's mind-boggling. You've got people out there saying, 'I just lost my job. Hey, can I get a free car, too?' " said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading). . . .
"Given the state's fiscal condition, paying for AAA and auto inspection costs is outrageous," said Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield). "There are so many families out there trying to deal with layoffs and pay cuts. You have to wonder what the state's priorities are at this point."
Democrats defend the program, whose funding Gov. Deval Patrick seeks to increase by 7.5%, as a welfare-to-work effort. To get the cars, welfare recipients must have a job or job offer, and they have to show that they cannot reach work via public transportation.
But Julia Kehoe, head of the Department of Transitional Assistance, "admitted about 20 percent of those who received a car ended up back on welfare, and while they lose the insurance and other benefits, they don't have to return the car." At the very least, it would make sense for the state to take those cars away from uninsured deadbeats.
Here's another thought, though: The federal government is spending billions of dollars to keep General Motors and Chrysler in business. Why not expand the Massachusetts program so that welfare recipients nationwide get free cars--with the proviso that only GM and Chrysler models are eligible?
Everyone would benefit from such an arrangement (except taxpayers). No longer would anyone have to suffer the indignity of lacking a car because of inability to pay. The troubled car companies would have a guaranteed market. And the poor would have an incentive to lift themselves out of poverty, so that they would no longer have to drive inferior cars.
We could call the program Lemon Aid."
My emphasis - but can you believe they don't have to return the car? God help us all!!! Please defend if I am missing something!
"Massachusetts Republicans--yes, there are a few--are raising objections to a state program that helps welfare recipients increase their carbon footprints, the Boston Herald reports:
"It's mind-boggling. You've got people out there saying, 'I just lost my job. Hey, can I get a free car, too?' " said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading). . . .
"Given the state's fiscal condition, paying for AAA and auto inspection costs is outrageous," said Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield). "There are so many families out there trying to deal with layoffs and pay cuts. You have to wonder what the state's priorities are at this point."
Democrats defend the program, whose funding Gov. Deval Patrick seeks to increase by 7.5%, as a welfare-to-work effort. To get the cars, welfare recipients must have a job or job offer, and they have to show that they cannot reach work via public transportation.
But Julia Kehoe, head of the Department of Transitional Assistance, "admitted about 20 percent of those who received a car ended up back on welfare, and while they lose the insurance and other benefits, they don't have to return the car." At the very least, it would make sense for the state to take those cars away from uninsured deadbeats.
Here's another thought, though: The federal government is spending billions of dollars to keep General Motors and Chrysler in business. Why not expand the Massachusetts program so that welfare recipients nationwide get free cars--with the proviso that only GM and Chrysler models are eligible?
Everyone would benefit from such an arrangement (except taxpayers). No longer would anyone have to suffer the indignity of lacking a car because of inability to pay. The troubled car companies would have a guaranteed market. And the poor would have an incentive to lift themselves out of poverty, so that they would no longer have to drive inferior cars.
We could call the program Lemon Aid."
My emphasis - but can you believe they don't have to return the car? God help us all!!! Please defend if I am missing something!
Labels: Politics
posted by Jim | 2:02 PM
2 Comments:
I have to agree with you here... this is over the top, as they say!
Question is how much of this are we going to see with the money being printed today? Scares me to think about it!
I heard on the radio today that Riley County, Kansas, is receiving $56 million of Stimulus funds for road improvements and a couple of other things. RILEY COUNTY, KANSAS! You and I can relate to that! How many counties are there in the U.S.! If they get $56 million how much do you think your county or mine or L.A. County will get?
I repeat: God help us!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home