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.
Definition: corporate welfare
n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses
So….taking advantage of legal tax breaks, deductions against EARNED income by companies that provide goods, services and JOBS…….. is the same as leaching off of the money that OTHER people have earned?
This mayor pandering to his base much the way many other mayors and governors do. They play off their base’s prejudices and fears. From this example of public shaming to having welfare/unemployment recipients pee in cups to enacting voter suppression laws…even to those pushing for a defunding of Planned Parenthood…there is a common thread. The fraud, abuse and improprieties that they allege have no concrete evidence or basis in truth:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/just-how-wrong-is-conventional-wisdom-about-government-fraud/278690/
Drug testing has proven to be a complete waste of taxpayer money and government’s time…the abuse levels constantly show to be less of an average percentage of the general public and NOT the widespread problem promised by those who implement these plans, after stoking their bases fears and hatred of recipients. Same goes with welfare fraud…the proof of abuse is simply not there. It is proven to be on a par with unemployment fraud…about 2 percent. Yet these officials use the lie as a cudgel to rev up their base…much like the rise it gives to many of the posters here…no matter the lack of evidence. Voter fraud…same story. No proof anywhere in this Country from any of the countless elections we’ve had of abuse occurring at a level ANYWHERE CLOSE to having an effect on the outcome. The truth is that proven accounts of voter fraud are minuscule…yet officials use it as an excuse to push for last minute purge lists and to enact laws to prevent large swaths of legitimate voters from exercising their civic duties…simply because these people tend to vote in a way that these officials don’t approve of…for their challengers. Planned Parenthood? Less than 3 percent of their function is administering abortion…and federal law already blocks public funds from paying for it. The current tapes showing abuses have been widely discredited as having been heavily edited to be misleading…like several instances of Republican rebel undercover scandal videos. PP has claimed that the instances of fetal tissue sales…which are LEGAL by the way…have patient approval and are not done for profit. No evidence has disproven their claim yet many still push to defund them. Not because of illegal activity but because they don’t like the fact that abortion is legal. They are happy to defund a service that helps millions of women with cancer screenings, pap smears and a myriad of other necessary tests and procedures without any credible evidence of wrongdoing. It’s not just the elected officials who pander but their ignorant, hateful base that elects and supports them that should be ashamed of themselves.
Dezza – you have not watched all the PP tapes. And PP only responded to the first tape.
I think the government is the biggest entity of all to take tax payer money and use it or abuse it for waste, so these nay sayers should start there first before attacking capitalistic corporations. The U.S. already pays the highest corporate taxes in the world. France and Greece are two countries that have displayed this line of thinking and look where they’re at.. . . . broke and they put their bills on the backs of all EU members. Why can’t the Burney Sanders supporters see how his vision works in other countries.
*You’re welcome.*
Read the numerous links I posted above that describe corporate welfare. From my link @ 11:06 AM. Your welcome.
Definition: corporate welfare
n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses
“Most of the pigs at the government trough are among the biggest companies in America, including: The Big 3 automakers”
These are all democrat backed pro-union companies. You are suggesting what, a socialistic society where the government tells us what job we will do and our money goes into one huge pot and delved out to the deserved and undeserved amongst us?
Define ‘corporate welfare’.
Except Romney wasn’t including his corporate welfare recipient buddies in that 47%, that’s why he lost.
Romney lost the last election in part for admitting that fact (“47%”).@@
As I posted above, that would mean more than half of the population would need to be displayed, given the preponderance of tax consumers borne by the tax producers.
Oh, and if we’re going to test people who take government money, then by jeebus let’s test them all. Every governor, every state legislator, every congressman and senator and every single state or federal staffer.
I’m good with this idea. Add teachers to this list as well.
Oh, and if we’re going to test people who take government money, then by jeebus let’s test them all. Every governor, every state legislator, every congressman and senator and every single state or federal staffer. You think poor people are on drugs? It’s less than .001%. Government employees and contractors, that’s where you’ll find the folks with enough money to support real drug habits. I’m talkin Laura Bush style stoned out druggies.
“The Big Picture
So now let’s look at the big picture. The final totals are $59 billion, 3 percent of the total federal budget, for regular welfare and $92 billion, 5 percent of the total federal budget, for corporations. So, the government spends roughly 50% more on corporate welfare than it does on these particular public assistance programs.”
There is a lot of fraud, Nick. Let’s go after the big fish that are really ripping us off. Medicare fraud, military contractor fraud, flash traders, hedge fund managers, corporations degrading our environment. Forget the small time hustlers.
“Wal-Mart. Always high subsidies. Always.
The same is true in all other industries, too. The government gives tons of favors to the largest corporations, increasing the significant advantage they already have over smaller competing businesses. If, in the court of public opinion, Wal-Mart has been tried and convicted for the murder of main street, mom-and-pop America, then the government could easily be found guilty as a willing accomplice. Wal-Mart receives hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidization by local governments throughout the country. These subsidies take the form of bribes by local politicians trying to convince Wal-Mart to come to their town with the dream of significant job creation. Of course, from that follows a larger tax base. For example, a distribution center in Macclenny, Florida received $9 million in government subsidies in the form of free land, government-funded recruitment and training of employees, targeted tax breaks, and housing subsidies for employees allowing them to be paid significantly lower wages. A study by Good Jobs First found that 244 Wal-Marts around the country had received over $1 billion in government favors.”
“Whenever corporate welfare is presented to voters, it always sounds like a pretty reasonable, well-intended idea. Politicians say that they’re stimulating the economy or helping struggling industries or creating jobs or funding important research. But when you steal money from the paychecks of working people, you hurt the economy by reducing their ability to buy the things they want or need. This decrease in demand damages other industries and puts people out of work.
Most of the pigs at the government trough are among the biggest companies in America, including:
The Big 3 automakers
Boeing
Archer Daniels Midland
Enron
Farm Subsidies
However, the largest fraction of corporate welfare spending, about 40%, went through the Department of Agriculture, most of it in the form of farm subsidies. (Edwards, Corporate Welfare, 2003) Well, that sounds OK. Someone’s got to help struggling family farms stay afloat, right? But in reality, farm subsidies actually tilt the cotton field in favor of the largest industrial farming operations. When it comes to deciding how to dole out the money, the agricultural subsidy system utilizes a process that is essentially the opposite of that used in the social welfare system’s welfare system. In the corporate welfare system, the more money and assets you have, the more government assistance you get. Conversely, social welfare programs are set up so that the more money and assets you have, the less government assistance you get. The result is that the absolute largest 7% of corporate farming operations receive 45% of all subsidies. (Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, 2004) So instead of protecting family farms, these subsidies actually enhance the ability of large industrial operations to shut them out of the market.”
The taxpayers are the sole source of funds that are going to welfare, EBT cards, subsidized rent. There is NO accountability in these programs and they are rife with fraud. I know that there are some who are in dire straits (not the band) and need some assistance.
SOME assistance. Welfare was never meant to be a permanent lifestyle. It is a temporary hand up to help those who need to get back on their feet. Instead it has become a permanent way of life for generations of people.
The lack of accountability and fraud are the main issues. Once on the system, you can just stay there. No sweat equity or work is asked of those getting the freebies. They are not monitored or checked and can just do drugs, drink themselves into oblivion, lie about the numbers of people in their household, use the money for things other than food and the list goes on and on.
People who have to get up and go to work every day to just get by are sick of being squeezed, having to pinch every penny themselves and then see their neighbors who are on welfare driving newer cars, not having to go to work, buying luxury items in the grocery check out, not having to pay rent or utilities…..the list goes on.
The libtards want to publish the names and addresses of legal gun owners and concealed carry permit holders. They have lists of people who have done such small things as teenagers who have sent each other nude photos. (Yes, I know some are actual sex offenders) So YES YES YES……publish the list of those who are receiving welfare and how LONG they have been on the gravy train.
If you see a deserving neighbor on that list, then offer them a job (ha ha ha ha). Get your church involved.
People who are on welfare should be required to do SOMETHING in exchange for the free money. Do some public work. Clean up a park. Remove graffiti. Mow the lawns. Pick up trash. Get some training for a real job so they can get off of the gravy train. Food stamps should be for FOOD only and not able to get cash to buy cigarettes and booze. Give the welfare recipients food, commodities. Get RID of EBT cards.
BE DRUG TESTED If they are using drugs then cut them off. As one person said. “If I have to pee into a cup to earn it, they damned well should have to pee in a cup to get it.”
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
The Traditional Welfare Queen
Definition: social welfare
n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to specific individuals.
When one thinks about government welfare, the first thing that comes to mind is the proverbial welfare queen sitting atop her majestic throne of government cheese issuing a royal decree to her clamoring throngs of illegitimate babies that they may shut the hell up while she tries to watch Judge Judy. However, many politically well-connected corporations are also parasitically draining their share of fiscal blood from your paycheck before you ever see it. It’s called corporate welfare. The intent here is to figure out which presents the greater burden to our federal budget, corporate or social welfare programs.
There are, of course, positive and negative aspects to this spending.The primary negative aspect is that you have to increase taxes to pay for it. Taxing individuals lowers their standard of living. It reduces people’s ability to afford necessities like medical care, education, and low mileage off-road vehicles.The common usage definition of social welfare includes welfare checks and food stamps. Welfare checks are supplied through a federal program called Temporary Aid for Needy Families. Combined federal and state TANF spending was about $26 billion in 2006. In 2009, the federal government will spend about $25 billion on rental aid for low-income households and about $8 billion on public housing projects. For some perspective, that’s about 3 percent of the total federal budget.
Note: I do not consider Medicaid to be included in the term “welfare” as it is used in common parlance. Typically, if one states that someone is “on welfare”, they mean that the person is receiving direct financial aid from the government. If we included Medicaid in our definition of social welfare, we would also have to consider any service that the government pays for to be “welfare”. For instance, public roadways to individuals’ homes would also be considered “welfare” under that expansive definition.
The Corporate Welfare Queen
Now, let’s consider the other kind of welfare.
Definition: corporate welfare
n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses.
The Cato Institute estimated that, in 2002, $93 billion were devoted to corporate welfare. This is about 5 percent of the federal budget.
What is NOT considered corporate welfare?
Government Contracts – To clarify what is and isn’t corporate welfare, a “no-bid” Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud, I suppose the primary service they provide could be considered to be repeatedly violating the American taxpayer.
Tax Breaks – Tax breaks targeted to benefit specific corporations could also be considered a form of welfare. Tax loopholes force other businesses and individual taxpayers without the same political clout to pick up the slack and sacrifice a greater share of their hard-earned money to decrease the financial burden on these corporations. However, to simplify matters, we’ve only included financial handouts to companies in our working definition of corporate welfare.
What IS considered corporate welfare?
Subsidies – On the other hand, the $15 billion in subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the oil, gas, and coal industries, would be considered corporate welfare because no goods or services are directly returned to the government in exchange for these expenditures.
KCFleming had the solution. WELL, we used to have it, but ‘work for welfare’ was too much… work!
Reinstate the work programs, and you kill two birds with one stone. 1. You have now employed those who need work and are helping them. 2. They are now a public employee, so their info can be listed in the public domain.
Hooray!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/10/10-government-handouts-that-prove-who-the-biggest-takers-actually-are/
“So many people love to throw financially struggling citizens under the bus when it comes to taking government money. Goodness forbid a struggling mom need food to feed her kids, or a person who can’t afford healthcare, because we have a nation that thinks health should be for profit, needs to sign up for Medicaid.
What so many fail to recognize, because so many live in the fantasy world that maybe one day they’ll be part of the top one percent, is that the wealthy take and take and take our tax payer dollars… and no one blinks an eye. No one gets their Underoos in a bunch over all the money the wealthy take from hard-working citizens… money they don’t need to even remotely take from the government.
Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at some of the government handouts the wealthy take.”