jbeatty - 06/03/09 09:15
The beef on weck is the best roll ever!

imk2 - 06/03/09 08:21
omg, that looks sooo delicious!

metalpeter - 06/01/09 20:33
What (e:theecarey) says it correct. I think workfare is through the county. Maybe it could go through the state also. I remember hearing that one of the big problems with workfare was that a lot of the Jobs people could do they didn't have the education for. If you think about it that makes sense. See if they had the education then they could get a job and not abuse the system.

heidi - 06/01/09 20:31
Paul -

To give you some numbers, I need to know what kind of "welfare" you're objecting to/curious about... there multiple social programs that someone considers to be "welfare":

TANF: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This is the program that replaced AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) back in 1996 with Clinton's Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which is the program that (e:James)' comment describes. As both names suggest, they're focused on kids and their parent(s). The exact program regulations and $ benefits vary by state, but it's the main program that is called "welfare"
:::link:::

Social Security (federal welfare for old people and kids who have lost a parent)
Social Security Disability (federal welfare for people w/disabilities, including HIV/AIDS)
Supplemental Security Income
Medicaid (state-administered federal health care for poor people)
Medicare (federal health care for seniors & disabled)
SCHIP (state-administered federal health care for poorer kids)
HEAP (heating/cooling assistance for poor people)
Food stamps
WIC (women, infants & children food assistance)
Title XX (funding for childcare for working parents)
Unemployment Compensation
Workers Compensation (workplace injury care)
Earned Income Tax Credit (returns earned income tax dollars to poor people)

Here's the NYS list of assistance programs:
:::link:::

In PA, the equivalent of the Safety Net Assistance program is "general assistance" and the benefit was approx. $197 per month. I'm pretty sure the recycling collectors along Allen St. make more than that.

I'd also like to contrast TANF expenditures, which in the Obama FY2010 budget would be approximately $19.3 billion with "corporate welfare": "According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.[5]" (I don't particularly trust Cato, but it's a nice line for my purposes at the moment.)

FY2010 US Dept. of Health & Human Services budget
:::link:::
I couldn't find actual FY2008 TANF expenditures, but Bush's budget was approximately $15 billion - and let's not discuss all the "marriage promotion" activities that included.

ajay - 06/01/09 18:33
A few years ago, NYC decided that if you're physically capable of working and on welfare, then the City would require you to work cleaning up the streets, etc. IIRC, a lot of the folks affected protested. The protesters were all hefty guys who could have done the job easily; but they were protesting the fact that the jobs were "beneath" them....

I think if someone's on welfare and they're not (a) in school, bettering their sills, or (b) doing job interviews, then they should be required to do mundane tasks like cleaning up grafitti, sidewalks, abandoned houses, etc. Alternately: give preference to contractors who will take welfare people off the rolls.

theecarey - 06/01/09 16:21
Interesting, (e:jim). I forgot that many of the recipients are children only.
I wouldn't be opposed to giving them "government chores", though.
On that note (e:paul),as part of the welfare process, if an individual is physically capable of working,then they have to look for work and/or be expected to work an assigned amount of hours per month as part of being in the system, at a location predetermined for them. It could be shoveling public sidewalks, picking up garbage, clerical duties, farming, etc. So there is a workfare program in place. At first consideration, I do like your idea about childcare- choosing some qualified individuals from the mix to look over the others children (and that may already be in place?)
The amount "paid" to those in the workfare program is the absolute minimum. There are two things I am unsure on:
1. what the rate of pay actually is. It used to be much less than "minimum wage", with the idea that the individual would be better off finding independent employment that would likely pay much better. That "pay rate" may have changed to provide a minimum monetary expectation now. Anyone have data? and,
2. There has/had been much debate as to whether these people are considered "employees" of anyone, and if they have employee rights etc. Again, I haven't checked recent data to what, if anything has changed over the years. If they are still not classified as "employees" then their "wages" as per criteria would not be published based on this.

On a related note, to what degree would/does having low wage "workfare participants" benefit the state (and some private companies) more than if they hired out right workers? We may have people abusing the system, but that would also include the state and businesses that hire them- an initiative to keep people in the system, perhaps? Just thoughts..

deeglam - 06/01/09 15:07
fabulous idea.

paul - 06/01/09 14:53
James: I am curious about that plus total payouts.
Jim: I think plenty of people have additional dependents to stay on it. that is why I suggested the childcare part.

james - 06/01/09 14:45
This is from a 1994 report from the House Ways and Means Committee. Though, it would be very interesting to see more up to date information.

Race
--------------
White 38.8%
Black 37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4

Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3

Age of Mother
------------------
Teenager 7.6%
20 - 29 47.9
30 - 39 32.7
40 or older 11.8

Status of Father 1973 1992
-------------------------------------
Divorced or separated 46.5% 28.6
Deceased 5.0 1.6
Unemployed or Disabled 14.3 9.0
Not married to mother 31.5 55.3
Other or Unknown 2.7 5.5

jim - 06/01/09 14:44
If you are capable of working, and don't have dependents, you can't stay on welfare for very long already.

"About 44 percent of TANF households are not subject to federal or state time limits because they are “child-only cases” â€" typically, children living with a relative or families in which the parent is not eligible for benefits."

So, almost half the list would be names of children. That's not very awesome.

paul - 06/01/09 14:39
Ya, that part is true? Where are those numbers? That is kind of what I am asking for?

james - 06/01/09 14:37
But that, more or less, happens a lot already.

Last year I qualified for HEAP, food stamps, and medicare. I didn't have any of those and I worked almost all of last year except December. It wasn't for the government, but I worked like a lot of people who receive assistance do.

I think it would be important in this discussion if we had some actual facts and figures on welfare. How many people receive it, how many work, how long people are on it, etc. Otherwise this is just speculative.

metalpeter - 06/01/09 20:27
I have to say no one's salary should be public. I would say you could publish a department and give averages. But here is why, it is a private matter. Yes if you are an elected position then that is different but the mayor pretty much makes the same for the time that the last guy got. Knowing what someone makes just causes problems. Say I work for the state If I can look up what everyone else makes and I see that lazy ass hole who just surfs online all day mostly makes the same amount as me a year there is going to be a problem. What about the fact that kids could look up how much their parents make or even parents (assuming they are state workers or public sector jobs) of kids they are in school with. I understand that people want accountabilty but it shouldn't be to everyone that has internet access.

paul - 06/01/09 14:25
Just to be clear, I don't feel victimized at all by the salaries being public information. I think it should all be public. I am thrilled that they made the information public and I think all tax spending should be documented. I am also not comparing the two, being a state employee and using social services. Just saying both are publically funded.

As I said before, there should be no social stigma associated with using social services temporarily to help you through difficult times. That is what it is there for, and that is why we all pay into it, so that it happens to us - the safety net is there.

I really don't care if people are embarrassed about being on social services. Shouldn't they just be happy that they have social services? Isn't it a miracle in itself? In any other era they would have just been in shanty towns or bread lines.

If you really aren't abusing it, you would show up really low on the list. What about just a list of the top payees?

joshua - 06/01/09 14:02
All of this is predicated on the idea that people on public assistance are the same as people who work for the state. That is an obvious fallacy - both may be "drains" on the public tax dollar, but that is where the similarities end. I can't believe that anybody would equivocate the two.

If you work in the public sector, the fact that your salary is public information is simply one of the prices you pay for working in the public sector. This is an interesting example of a major difference between the public and private sectors that few people consider until it is their name that they see on a state fact sheet on a web site. This sort of thing is a fact of public sector life that you have to understand and accept, then move on. No public worker should feel victimized by that web site - they should have known anyway, in my view at least.

Bleeding Heart Joshua agrees with (e:libertad) on this one, at least partially. I don't buy that such an idea would hurt a person's job prospects necessarily, but I think it is compelling to suggest that the net effect of this would be to humiliate people who are otherwise amongst our most disadvantaged. To me that isn't just wrong, but obscene.

If it were done in a general way, in order to illustrate on average the degree of waste in the social welfare system, I'd be all for that. To what degree our system is wasteful should absolutely be public information.

I think there is an aspect out there of people wishing to humiliate the serial abusers, which is a sentiment I completely understand. More statistics should be available to disseminate welfare statistics, but it should be done a general way. Comparing a welfare recipient to a state worker is apples and oranges.

james - 06/01/09 13:56
Salaries and benefits of public employees should absolutely be made public knowledge. That is an excellent way to help track patronage and corruption which you otherwise could not track. Salaries are paid for from a variety of sources, including city taxes, state taxes, federal money, grants, and others.

But welfare, What is the point?

We already know how much we spend on these services because it is in the budget every year. Even if the revenue source come from multiple places, it is all placed in the budget.

As Jim said, it is a minority of people who abuse the system. They should be investigated and punished. But punishing everyone by making this information public will only lead to humiliation and discrimination.

That said, I understand where your frustration is coming from and I hope Tony moves in.

jim - 06/01/09 13:44
My mom hated that we had to go on food stamps for a little while after my dad left us. There's no way she wouldn't have been embarrassed if it was public, she was plenty enough embarrassed as it was. Most people who use these services use them for brief periods of time - I know there are some who stay on forever, but most don't abuse and don't stay on.

If my mom were here today, and were going for a job interview, and they googled her name and found out she was on food stamps, mightn't that serve as stigma branding her as poor forever? Nothing on the Internet goes away.

If it was made public back then, she probably wouldn't have taken it and we'd have been much worse off. The people that would least abuse the system are the ones too proud to have their names released.

So count me totally against this, doesn't seem to do any good except to gawk. I also dislike having every government official's salary released, too. Most people get tax credits, so by this logic everyone's tax returns should be public - yuck. No thanks.

ajay - 06/01/09 12:37
Making the pay/benefits of State Employees public is a great idea.

Correlate this list with, for example, the professors in UB and see how some of the shittiest profs are making top salaries; whereas the really good ones are severely underpaid because they don't play the system.

As for people on welfare? I know where (e:paul) is coming from (given the tenants in his property). When I drive by some of the projects here in SF, I'm surprised to see BMWs and Audis parked on the street (of course not _every_ car is such, and there are lots of crappy ones too). I met a guy in Burning Man who spends his entire year partying, doing BM, Coachella, Rainbow, etc. because he's on "disability" since he injured his back. Ignore the fact that he was lifting heavy stuff into/out of his truck when there. So yeah, there's a lot of abuse too.

I am all for openness where **tax-payer funded** things are concerned. I don't care what the top executives at Apple make. But if it's my tax dollars, I want to know, dammit!

tinypliny - 06/01/09 10:38
We don't have even the first layer of transparency in India, which is one of the many reasons I admire your country. At least your government is making an effort. :(

jenks - 06/01/09 09:57
i'm with Paul.

paul - 06/01/09 09:46
If people are truly in a predicament which results in then needing public assistance they should not be embarassed. Only people who abuse it should be embarassed.

What I was trying to say is that seeing as many people want to know where are extremely high taxes are going, they should have the right to know.

Same with all those other programs for heat assistance, food stanps, etc. Maybe instead of breaking down what the person was paid for, they just break it down to total amount per person with no details involved until you apply in writing for that info.

In general see through government expenditure should be encouraged.

theecarey - 06/01/09 08:40
Interesting idea. I get what you are saying. However, my opinion is that I dont think salaries or benefits (or anything) should be public knowledge; but I am pretty private and don't really think it is anyone's business to know who makes what- even state paid employees. A grade range for a position, maybe, but not down to the pennies. I'd be fine with not even having immediate access to that either.
For all else, I agree with (e:libertad) entirely. I dont need to see who is receiving what benefits and in what amount. The impact, the stigma- it would hurt those it is really trying to help, and not make a difference for those that "abuse" it. As for unemployment, those same people have paid into it at some point and no one needs the added public exposure to a trying time in their life.

lilho - 05/31/09 23:53
i'm all for that idea.

libertad - 05/31/09 23:43
I don't think that is a good idea. Social welfare is and should be intended to helping people who are in a bad spot. They should not make a public list of people who are receiving government benefits because that could adversely affect their prospects for employment and also serve as public humiliation. It reminds me of that school that was pulling kids out of lunch lines because their parents did not give them any lunch money and serve them a cheese sandwich while everyone else ate hot meals.

james - 05/31/09 16:05
I love Buffalo Re Use