By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Lewiston Maine Mayor Robert Macdonald advocated enacting a state law that would require welfare recipients’ “names, addresses, length of time on assistance and the benefits being collected” be enumerated on a state website that is made accessible to the general public. Mayor Macdonald claims that because recipients of public pensions, they are government employees, that if this information is public record then the people have a right to know where the money is being spent on welfare recipients.
It is rather difficult in reading the mayor’s letter to the editor of the Twin City Times to accept his notion that his actions are in the public’s interest to see where tax dollars are paid, when he simultaneously makes many references disparaging recipients and those who advocate their plight. Yet, he claims to support privacy rights in other respects.
Here is an excerpt of the mayor’s letter as it appears in the Twin City Times.
Enough is Enough: Mainers have a right to know how their money is spent
September 24, 2015 | Author editor
By Robert E. Macdonald
Mayor of LewistonIt’s time for a major overhaul of the many laws and policies dealing with confidentiality, laws that dictate how federal, state and local government are run.
A person’s medical records, financial statements and other personal information should be blocked from busybodies who seek it out of curiosity. This type of information should remain protected.
Recently, a friend asked if it would be possible to locate a gentleman he had known for many years and was now terminally ill. He sought to contact the man with the hope of providing him help and comfort in his final days. I called an organization I felt could locate the man.
I was told, correctly, that they could not give out that information. I asked if I left my friend’s name and number, could it be passed along to the person if, in fact, they knew him. I was told, again correctly, this would not be possible.
I bring this to the reader’s attention in an attempt not only to show the foolishness of these laws, but the fear they strike into the average law-abiding citizen.
In Maine there is a website that lists the pension amounts received by everyone who is issued a monthly check by the State of Maine. No privacy here because this is being paid out by the State; accordingly, taxpayers have a right to know.
Yet other recipients of state revenues are shielded. Yes, I am referring to those known as welfare recipients. Why are they treated differently than pensioners? (A rhetorical question).
The answer: our liberal, progressive legislators and their social-service allies have made them a victimized, protected class. It’s none of your business how much of your money they get and spend. Who are you to question it? Just shut up and pay!
Well, the days of being quiet are gone. We will be submitting a bill to the next legislative session asking that a website be created containing the names, addresses, length of time on assistance and the benefits being collected by every individual on the dole. After all, the public has a right to know how its money is being spent.
From the beginning the mayor’s arguments break down. He claims that medical information should remain protected from “busybodies who seek it out of curiosity” but then goes on to preach that every welfare recipient’s information should be made available to these same busybodies he claim are interested otherwise in health records. He does not seem to recognize that income information in general is not a public record for individual citizens, and there are numerous federal and state laws that consider public assistance as a form of income on par with that received from wages or investments. In fact, it is a violation of fair credit laws to deny a loan or extension of credit because a person’s income is derived, or partially derived, from public assistance. Individual incomes of private citizens is not a public record, yet Mayor Macdonald proposes that a certain classification of income must be divorced from the privacy rights of other forms of income. And, when coupled with his political, partisan rants it seems clear that he believes recipients of welfare benefits have a lesser expectation of privacy due to their economic status.
In an attempt to justify the publication of this private data, he makes a false comparison with those in public employment. Public employees’ wages and benefits are subject to public disclosure laws on account of their employment with the state. In fact, on a state level all public spending is subject to disclosure. One of the original reasons for this is that there have been incidents of corruption where public employees were given compensation that amounted to unlawful enrichment. In the case for welfare recipients the amounts spent for the various benefits are made in aggregate, without reference in to individual recipients, with the intent on maintaining privacy.
When balancing the need for disclosure versus individual privacy it is hard to advocate a legitimate government need to expose the privacy rights of individuals.
In another disingenuous aspect of Mayor Macdonald’s position is that he believes, correctly, that medical information should remain private but the logic he involves is that many individual expenses for medical treatment are paid to those on public assistance. He demands a granular accounting for expenses paid by taxpayers but many of the benefits paid on behalf of public assistance are in the form of medical expenses. Should those also be made a public record?
Moreover the presence of this information prevents individuals in totality from having privacy with respect to their income and where they reside. This information can be used to harm individuals on Macdoald’s List.
Many recipients of assistance have been victims of domestic violence or other situations where their location may be used by those wishing harm to locate them and commit crimes. We have also seen where states, in a similar analogue, published the names and residences of those having Concealed Pistol Licenses in an effort to exert what can only be described as a measure to deter individuals from having these permits. The listing lead to several burglaries where felons now knew the residence of each CPL holder, who likely owned a firearm, and thus created an efficient means to steal their property.
A lesser effect would be a means for which potential creditors, and landlords could bypass restrictions on discovery of income sources by referencing these lists when considering extending credit or residency to the recipients.
Mayor Macdonald needs to educate himself on the importance of maintaining equal protection of all citizens and not as a means to attack a demographic of individuals whom he believes are deserving of shaming. His actions are also another example of politicians taking away rights at any opportunity they see fit, especially in a failed attempt to benefit them politically.
By Darren Smith
Source: Twin City Times
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Gosh Annie, you mean a politician will pander to their constituents? Thanks for that valuable insight. As far as deeply held hatred for those using the system, prove it. The progressive left doesn’t own compassion for the needy, they along with the progressive RINO’s own the pathetically mismanaged system of providing it. That goes for corporate welfare as well. True Democrats and Republicans that understand the purpose for limited government don’t support using tax dollars as a slush fund to “pander” to their constituents.
“There are abuses of every system, granted, but as pointed out upstream the greatest welfare recipients are the rich corporations who aren’t in the least bit ashamed to get their handouts.”
The neat thing about capitalism is that if you feel corporations get handouts, then don’t buy their product, it’s that simple.
Or are you referring the GM, an overpaid employee pro-union company, who got a huge government handout?
“Public employees’ wages and benefits are subject to public disclosure laws on account of their employment with the state. In fact, on a state level all public spending is subject to disclosure.”
The magic word is “PUBLIC”. I completely agree with this mayor. Public employees salaries are published and so should public assistance salaries, since they are funded by the tax payer!
I feel it will also help weed out the fraudsters.
This mayor, just like Trump is only pandering to his constituents that already have deeply held hatred for those using the social safety nets. Publishing their names would do nothing to change the numbers of people in the system. A mother isn’t going to remove herself from the roles until she gets a job, if there are no jobs for her she won’t let her children starve. There are abuses of every system, granted, but as pointed out upstream the greatest welfare recipients are the rich corporations who aren’t in the least bit ashamed to get their handouts.
My guess is the only group this would shame would be those already feeling ashamed they are receiving welfare. Those using the system for all it’s worth talk about it like they landed their dream job; they cannot be shamed out of it. The system itself is necessary but woefully mismanaged.
Isaac, if there is no shame in receiving welfare, why is it necessary to necessary to reduce the number of welfare recipients?
You do suggest that some will need it their entire lives, to which I agree.
But of those who can work, should they do so? If so, why?
Welfare to work programs did reduce the number of those on welfare (Pres. Clinton), and that seems quite humane, but such programs are quite costly to administer.
So why not have some shame attached to getting assistance when you are perfectly capable of paying your own way?
Clarification: Historically, the use of welfare has been associated with shame.
The ideology of the Welfare State is used to diminish personal responsibility, and thus reject shame from receiving assistance even for an entire lifetime.
So much so that in England, young people on the dole speak of getting -and expecting- their “paycheck”, having never ever worked.
I doubt this tactic will produce a return to shame. I imagine some people would be proud of it nowadays.
As far as publishing the names of welfare recipients goes, that is nothing more than a hateful expression that will do more harm than good. It will make targets out of next to defenseless people. There are always a few who should be outed in any group, however, the group in its entirety should not be punished.
A better move would be to promote work study programs to reduce the number of people on welfare. There will always be a certain segment of the population that needs assistance but some of those can be assisted out of that segment. Creative proaction and progressive thinking is what is necessary to reduce welfare recipients, not shame and directed anger.
I lived in LA for five years. Doing a Masters in Architecture the ongoing perception, both pointed out by professors and local architects as well as discovered first hand, is that there is no there, there. There is no LA. LA is a small country made up of 70 to 80 cities, each with their own governments, police departments, etc. The inhabitants of LA are essentially estranged from each other. They live in small enclaves connected by freeways where they leave the outside world entirely while in their car, in traffic, jammed in amongst millions of others in their private worlds.
In order to get a team to move to LA a stadium needs to be built. The Raiders left because they didn’t want to continue to play in the Olympic Stadium which is in a dodgy area of town and which is outdated. There was no city there that would build them a stadium. On top of that, all the football that is necessary for Angelenos exists in the rivalry between UCLA and SC. The city is increasingly Hispanic and football is not a big Hispanic sport. Soccer, however is growing.
When Al Davis moved the team to LA, Oaklanders refused to accept the fact and lobbied for years to get the team back. The city of Oakland forked out hundreds of millions to expand the coliseum, adding additional seating, boxes, etc. Davis sued on a regular basis for increased revenue to offset the poor ticket sales. Oakland still made out because it has a fan base for pro football. There is little fan base for pro football in LA because there is really no LA in the sense of a city.
I think that the city in which the teams reside that threaten to move to LA should call their bluff and smile when they say, “You’ll be back.”, enjoy your next few years in ‘never never land’.
issac – although I am not sure I agree with your architecture professors about L.A., we can leave that discussion for another comment. I will say that several gangs in L.A. started wearing the sports gear of the various L.A. and made them their ‘gang colors.’ The followed the teams of their gear.
Another issue is that the use of welfare should entail some shame, hence the list, but the Left long ago abandoned any such compunction about this -or any- behavior, save for being a white male.
Since over half of Americans are now net tax-consumers, relying on the smaller portion of tax-producers for all the varied benefits they receive, I would argue that we produce that entire list annually.
And no, not paying a (corporate) tax is not a “subsidy”, unless your view is entirely socialist, i.e., that the government actually owns everything (Elizabeth Warren’s “You didn’t build that” horsehockey).
Bitchin, Owners have used LA, which has been w/o an NFL team for years, as a bargaining chip. The latest was the sleazy owner of the Vikings. It works. I walked by the new Vikings stadium being built just a few weeks ago. Now, your city has a gun to their head, along w/ San Diego[my winter home] and Oakland. A trifecta of teams are threatening to move to LA. I read papers in all cities online. The playbook remains the same. It’s simple and it works. Build us a stadium, or we move. However, recently the taxpayers have said, “Screw you” in many cities. Then the sleazy politicians get together w/ the sleazy billionaire owners, and still stick it to the taxpayers. This is also a pet peeve of Ralph Nader.
FWIW:
http://www.lewistonmaine.gov/index.aspx?NID=485
Mayor of Lewiston
Mayor Robert E. MacdonaldRobert Macdonald
Contact
rmacdonald@lewistonmaine.gov
City Hall (207) 513-3000, X3202
Employment
2000-2010 – Lewiston Middle School – Ed Tech III
1977-2000 – Lewiston Police Department
Patrol Officer & Detective; Certified Arson Investigator
Hostage Negotiator
1966-1969 – United States Marine Corps (Medically Retired)
1967 – Served with First Marine Division in the Republic of South Vietnam
Education
1976-1977 – Suffolk University, Boston
1975 – Northeastern University – BS in Criminal Justice
Community Activities
Abused Women’s Advocacy Program, Board of Directors (now named Safe Voices)
Youth Basketball Coach, Primary School & Lewiston Recreation Department
United Way, Police Representative
Special Olympics, Police Representative
Lewiston Elks Lodge 371
Veterans Organizations
Longley/Dionne VFW Post 9150, Lewiston
American Legion Post 210, Lewiston
Franco-American War Veterans, Lewiston
Disabled American Veterans Post 11, Lewiston
Marine Corps League Central Maine Detachment, Lewiston
Marine Corps Association
First Marine Corps Division Association
Personal
Born in Boston
Currently resides in Lewiston with wife Virginia and pets Gussy, Melly, Illah, & Hunta
Has four grown children and five grandchildren
I agree with Nick. I especially disdain the notion of spending money to build a new football stadium for the billionaire Kroenke for his dip itShay football team in Saint Louis. Let em go back to LA. We love LA. We hate Kroenke. And I dont even live in Saint Louis.
BitchinDog – you could still have the Cardinals and the Bidwells.
phillyt, Most of the people on disability deserve it. But, if you can’t acknowledge there is a growing and alarming number of fraudulent claimants then we have nothing to discuss. Fraud is my business for the past 35 years. It has always been booming, but I have seen it explode the past 5 years. I don’t abide publishing these names. But, I do abide a REAL effort to combat fraud and publishing the names of people caught scamming the govt. Hell, you govt. lovers should want people to not rip govt. off, shouldn’t you? You just expressed disdain for corporate welfare. Well, I am on record many times saying NO tax dollars should go to corporations. My pet peeve is taxpayers $ going to build stadiums for fat cat owners. I’m consistent of govt. waste and fraud. Et vous?
The average American taxpayer (figuring a $50K income), pays $36 to support the SNAP program. That same taxpayer pays somewhere north of $6,000 to pay for direct corporate subsidies and to make up for the money corporations don’t pay because of loopholes, tax havens and all the other little benefits they have bought from Congress. So. A. let’s publish the names and addresses of all the executives, board members and shareholders we support through our taxes; and B. let’s reform the tax code to make all corporations pay their fair share and do away with overseas/offshore shelters and loopholes.
Names of welfare recipients? Why? The most consequential public expenditures should be the top priorities for additional disclosure. First, money spent by individuals and corporations for political and issue campaigns. Second, US foreign policy should be disclosed accurately. The US public is blamed for US foreign policy and pays for it yet most of US foreign policy is kept secret from the public, replaced by twisted narratives to make those in power look good as they engage in secret weapons deals (Iran-Contra and ubiquitous similar weapons deals to violent dictatorships and violent militant groups). Full disclosure of the relationship between Western (corporate) interests and military engagements could be helpful.
My payroll as a public servant is public knowledge. Medical information is covered under HIPPA. I think they should list it. As the owner of a a rental
Right. 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, one disaster away from needing public assistance, and you’re worried about freeloaders. No, people don’t aspire to being poor. They’d like to be able to have more than even the most generous public assistance programs give them. But there aren’t enough jobs to go around, and so many of those available don’t pay a living wage. Do you realize that 56% of people on welfare have jobs? Do you realize that at this point, the top 0.1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%? This “demonize the poor” meme is their attempt to distract. While we’re fighting over crumbs, they’re taking the whole pie. Rather than worry about the very few who might be gaming the system, support a strong social safety net for when you’ll need it, and support taxing the undertaxed wealthy to pay for it.
If they’re going to print all the names in this freeloader culture, they better have thousands of barrels of ink.