|
Help save yourself -- join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, April 28, 2012
House Budget Debate: After-Action Report
|
First of all, no one seriously believes that the
hacks, from Gov. Deval Patrick on down, are really going to end the
EBT free cash benefits to the non-working classes who keep them in
office.
So there’s going to be another “audit” on whether
or not cash can be cut out of the massively fraud-ridden program. As
Rep. Shauna O’Connell said late Wednesday night, “Without
restrictions on cash access, all of these reforms will be useless.”
Exactly. And that is the plan — in the end,
nothing significant will change. Which was why the vote in the House
to “reform” the EBT program was 122-33, with 89 Democrats joining
the 33 Republicans....
The 33 members of the EBT Caucus can be roughly
divided into two groups — urban solons and suburban moonbats.
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 27, 2012
Scammers indEBTed to these pols
By Howie Carr
In a budget notable for the blinding speed with
which it won passage this week, the $32.4 billion spending plan that
cleared the House late Wednesday night laid bare a schism among the
chamber’s Democrats, some of whom accused their leaders of attacking
poor Massachusetts residents under the guise of a crackdown on
welfare abuse.
“We've painted a picture that to be poor means to
be irresponsible,” said Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Medford), adding, “I
wish we had spent half as much time on how to end poverty.”
Sciortino was one of 33 Democrats – including
several members of Speaker Robert DeLeo’s leadership team – to vote
against a budget provision that would clamp down on welfare
recipients who use cash benefits to pay for alcohol, cigarettes,
pornography and other purposes deemed unessential by proponents. The
measure would also block recipients from spending benefits on
cosmetics, theater tickets and travel.
Critics of the measure were easily outvoted; 122
members, including the House’s 33 Republicans, voted to support the
proposal. Opponents used sharp language to slam the measure....
Rep. Paul Adams, a freshman Republican from
Andover, added that Massachusetts already provides among the most
generous benefits to poor residents – from subsidized health care to
low-cost transportation to legal assistance.
“What don't we give away for free?” he asked.
“This amendment simply limits the ability for people to buy
nonessentials … The taxpayers are begging us to make this reform.”
...
The plan now heads to the Senate which will build
its own plan in time for consideration the week before Memorial Day.
The House’s rapid consideration of its budget continued a trend in
which House leaders have prized speed and efficiency over public
debate and explanation. The Senate too has opted to rush through its
budget deliberations in recent years.
State House News Service
Thursday, April 26, 2012
House races through amendments,
passes $32.4 billion budget in three days
Shortly before midnight, the House last night
passed reforms banning recipients from using EBT cards on
out-of-state travel, firearms, lottery tickets, bail and other
items, setting up a criminal statute to make it easier for state
authorities to punish cheats and allowing the state to strip stores
of Lottery and liquor licenses.
On the most controversial issue of cash access,
the House will create a commission and spend up to $100,000 on an
outside consultant who will determine how the Bay State can “go to a
cashless system,” DeLeo said.
DeLeo said a consultant will help answer how much
it would cost, the technology involved and what other states have
done, but he hasn’t made up his mind on exactly how far to restrict
cash.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, April 26, 2012
DeLeo blasts ‘appalling’ fraud as EBT reform passes House
Around midnight Wednesday, House members voted
150-4 to approve the spending plan for fiscal 2013, with four
Republicans dissenting. The passage came after what the State House
News Service described as a sharply worded debate among Democrats
over changes made to the EBT welfare program....
The Senate will take up its own budget proposal
in June. The chambers will negotiate any differences before sending
a compromise package to Governor Deval Patrick in time for the next
budget year which begins July 1.
In an appearance on WTTK-FM radio today, Patrick
said he supported the overall concept of improving controls over the
EBT program. But he stopped short of saying he would approve the
House-passed proposal.
“No one has been more focused on eliminating
abuse in the EBT program as we have…(but) the program is important,
it’s the way forward for the most vulnerable,’’ Patrick said....
“As someone who experienced welfare as I was
growing up... we are serious about (ending) fraud and abuse; it’s
splash back is on the overwhelming majority of good people who are
using these programs in good faith,’’ he said. “I’m not convinced
it’s as widespread as the amount of debate we’ve given to it.’’
Patrick said he wants to have a current user of
the program, or someone who has relied on the system for help in the
past, to be part of the debate about the future of the EBT program.
“We do have a lot of people who have not actually
walked in those shoes talking about it,’’ he said. “It would be
helpful to have someone who is dealing with poverty every day.’’
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Mass. House passes $32.4 billion budget
After a sharp debate stirring strong emotions
among some members who criticized the proposal as an attack on poor
people, the House voted to restrict welfare benefits from being
spent in places such as nail salons, tattoo parlors, casinos, and
strip clubs or on travel, cosmetics and theater tickets. The House
also approved $100,000 to be spent on a consultant to study how
Massachusetts could move to a cashless system.
The amendment’s proponents, such as Rep. Shaunna
O’Connell (R-Tauton) and Rep. Russell Holmes (D-Boston), have said
that reforms such as limiting access to cash are needed to protect
taxpayer dollars and ensure that adequate resources are available to
those who truly need it....
During an interview Thursday morning on WATD-FM,
Senate President Therese Murray said she has “not heard a lot” from
her constituents about EBT card abuse, but is awaiting
recommendations from Inspector General Greg Sullivan’s audit of the
use of EBT cards and looking to expand upon a law approved in 2011
banning the use of EBT cards to buy alcohol or tobacco products.
Murray, who helped write an early 1990s
welfare-to-work law, said last week’s sweep by state and federal law
enforcement of 53 individuals accused of committing welfare fraud by
selling their food stamps for cash shows a need for tighter rules.
“Obviously it’s not enough,” she said. “The
enforcement that just happened and the arrests that just happened
certainly show that there needs to be more done.” She added, “We
need do what California has been able to do and that is block the
access of cash from certain places or for the use of these cards for
many, many things that they were not intended for.”
Patrick told radio hosts Jim Braude and Margery
Egan ... the idea of adding user photos to EBT cards “sounds like a
great idea,” but earlier this month a commission reviewing the EBT
card system expressed concern about the cost of processing photo
IDs.
When a caller from Homes for Families suggested
the governor appoint a welfare recipients to the commission that
will study cashless benefits, Patrick said, “What a great idea
because we do have a lot of people who haven’t walked in these shoes
opining about it.”
State House News Service
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Patrick questions motives of welfare system critics
The debate on EBT card reform started at about
11:15 pm, coincident with the distribution of a "further amendment"
that replaced O'Connell's amendment in its entirety. We all have
been critical of the U.S. Congress releasing bills without
sufficient time for the representatives to read them prior to a
vote. In this case, the further amendment was literally being
distributed while people were at the podium debating its merits. A
court officer was positioned to prevent legislators from walking in
front of the representative speaking at the podium....
Two of the speakers, both Democrats against the
further amendment, actually made a point of the fact that this
legislation was sprung on the members at the eleventh hour (quite
literally) and that it references a ten-page list in eight-point
font of licensed professional occupations in the Massachusetts
General Laws. How could anyone in this chamber read all of that?
The answer, of course, is that given zero time to
do so, not even Evelyn Wood would have a shot at accomplishing this
feat. It is interesting for me to watch Democrats pointing out
obvious breaches of common sense, only to be rebuked by their own
leadership....
When the question was called, there were 122
votes for the further amendment and 33 against. The issue is far
from being resolved, however. The Senate is likely to take out some
of the more onerous parts of the bill, like banning the purchase of
cosmetics with EBT cards, if they decide to include EBT reform in
their version of the fiscal year 2013 budget at all. With respect to
the governor, no doubt he will veto this outside section if it is
close in form to what was passed last night.
EBT card reforms pass the House, some Democrats
apoplectic
Thursday, April 26, 2012
From: State Rep. Randy Hunt - (R) East Sandwich
House Budget Debate
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
O'CONNELL AMENDMENT 804
At 11:11 p.m., Rep. O'Connell offered an amendment relative to
EBT reform . . .
(A SHNS transcription of the amendment
debate is available at the bottom)
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
We've been sifting through the flotsam and jetsam
of Wednesday's House budget debate on state Rep. Shaunna O'Connell's
EBT Reform amendment. It's taken a while to digest and comprehend,
but — the most important thing to
recognize is — the debate that occurred
was not on her amendment. The O'Connell amendment,
#804, never saw the light of day. Instead, the debate was on a
"further amendment" —
#804.1 — a watered down version
intended to completely replace the O'Connell Amendment and
it succeeded.
A message that arrived late Thursday from the
Committee to
Elect Randy Hunt (State Representative Randy Hunt, R-East
Sandwich) helped put this all into perspective. Rep. Hunt wrote:
The debate on EBT card reform started at
about 11:15 pm, coincident with the distribution of a "further
amendment" that replaced O'Connell's amendment in its entirety.
We all have been critical of the U.S. Congress releasing bills
without sufficient time for the representatives to read them
prior to a vote. In this case, the further amendment was
literally being distributed while people were at the podium
debating its merits. . . .
Two of the speakers, both Democrats against
the further amendment, actually made a point of the fact that
this legislation was sprung on the members at the eleventh hour
(quite literally) and that it references a ten-page list in
eight-point font of licensed professional occupations in the
Massachusetts General Laws. How could anyone in this chamber
read all of that?
The answer, of course, is that given zero
time to do so, not even Evelyn Wood would have a shot at
accomplishing this feat.
What passed in the House by a vote of 123-33
(with two not voting) was the "further amendment," which removed
many of the restrictions on cash O'Connell's amendment contained.
Rather than imposing them Wednesday night, the
Boston Herald reported:
On the most controversial issue of cash
access, the House will create a commission and spend up to
$100,000 on an outside consultant who will determine how the Bay
State can “go to a cashless system,” DeLeo said.
DeLeo said a consultant will help answer how
much it would cost, the technology involved and what other
states have done, but he hasn’t made up his mind on exactly how
far to restrict cash.
Howie Carr is probably correct:
So there’s going to be another “audit” on
whether or not cash can be cut out of the massively fraud-ridden
program. As Rep. Shauna O’Connell said late Wednesday night,
“Without restrictions on cash access, all of these reforms will
be useless.”
Exactly. And that is the plan — in the end,
nothing significant will change.
Another audit, more study in some obscure
legislative committee, a further commission, passing its
recommendation on to some panel . . .
Already Gov. Patrick thinks it'd be a nifty idea
to appoint a welfare recipient to the 'commission' that will 'study
cashless benefits.' “What a great idea," he said, "because we do
have a lot of people who haven’t walked in these shoes opining about
it.” He still believes the supposed problem is exaggerated, the wave
of EBT fraud reports are all merely "anecdotal."
“This amendment ensures that those who need food
and cash benefits to support their families have them,” said Rep.
Martha Walz (D-Boston), the "further amendment's" sponsor and
opponent of the O'Donnell Amendment.
Rep. Paul Adams, a freshman Republican from Andover, rightly
replied, “What don't we give away for free? This amendment simply
limits the ability for people to buy nonessentials … The taxpayers
are begging us to make this reform.”
So far, how do you like watching sausage being
made, Bacon Hill style?
There's more to digest.
On Tuesday the Boston Globe reported ("Mass.
House rejects sales tax cut") that the House Democrats defeated
a Republican amendment to roll back the sales tax to 5 percent by a
119 to 37 vote. Actually this was another case of a "further
amendment" —
Amendment #171.1 — sponsored by Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington)
to displace Rep. Brad Jones' original sales tax rollback budget
Amendment
#171. Kaufman's amendment required a 'Yea" vote (it got 119) to
obfuscate the sales tax rollback. First must come another "study"
— "of its impact on the state’s economy
and revenue cost to the commonwealth and its cities and towns . . ."
Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading)
released a statement after the vote, pointing out: “While Democrats
felt no need to study a proposed increase to the state sales tax
just three years ago, my colleagues across the aisle seem strangely
insistent on studying the effects of a tax rollback.”
Funny how that works up on Bacon Hill. You may recall
earlier this week when this was termed an "inoculator."
Are you getting nauseous yet?
We're still trying to learn what happened to our
income tax rollback and a couple other amendments we were watching,
why they were suddenly gone, withdrawn:
#213 — Income
Tax Reduction - by Lombardo, Marc; Adds a new outside
section rolling the income tax back to 5% in three equal steps
starting in 2013 — WITHDRAWN
#250 —
Reduction of State Sales Tax - by Lombardo, Marc; Adds a new
outside section reducing the sales tax to 5% —
WITHDRAWN
#253 —
Reduction of State Use Tax - by Lombardo, Marc; Adds a new
outside section reducing the use tax to 5% —
WITHDRAWN
The next action comes in the state Senate, which
expects to take up the House budget soon, pass its own version by
Memorial Day Weekend. You
need to begin contacting your state senator now, tell him or her to
strengthen, not weaken, the House’s long overdue EBT card
reforms in the senate budget.
Find your State Senator
HERE
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 27, 2012
Scammers indEBTed to these pols
By Howie Carr
First of all, no one seriously believes that the hacks, from Gov.
Deval Patrick on down, are really going to end the EBT free cash
benefits to the non-working classes who keep them in office.
So there’s going to be another “audit” on whether or not cash can be
cut out of the massively fraud-ridden program. As Rep. Shauna
O’Connell said late Wednesday night, “Without restrictions on cash
access, all of these reforms will be useless.”
Exactly. And that is the plan — in the end, nothing significant will
change. Which was why the vote in the House to “reform” the EBT
program was 122-33, with 89 Democrats joining the 33 Republicans.
So what this late-Wednesday roll call gave us was a litmus test —
the names of the 33 most radical members of the House. These are the
solons who can’t even abide the idea of cracking down on EBT fraud.
The 33 members of the EBT Caucus can be roughly divided into two
groups — urban solons and suburban moonbats.
First, moonbats: Both reps from Newton, Cambridge and Somerville,
and one each from Greenfield, Acton, Wayland, Pittsfield, Arlington,
Belmont, Lexington, Northampton, Amherst, Brewster and Wellesley.
The other contingent of no-EBT-reform-ever reps comes from the
cities devastated by illegal immigration and the War on Poverty.
They include two reps from Springfield, one from Framingham and one
from Lawrence (you’re shocked, I know). Then there was Jim O’Day
from Worcester, the guy who seldom wears socks.
The breakdown in Boston is fascinating. Remember, most of the Boston
reps are deeply in the satchel for the leadership. So the reps from
Eastie, Charlestown, Brighton, Southie, the Back Bay and Hyde Park
voted yes. They were joined by Rep. Russell Holmes, O’Connell’s
co-sponsor, who had the courage to speak the truth about EBT: “We
send cash to our community and it gets spent on drugs and alcohol.”
But the other Boston reps — Byron Rushing, Gloria Fox, Jeff Sanchez
and Linda Dorcena Forry (who has a photo of herself with Barack
Obama on her website) — can’t stand the idea of reform. The
arguments of the Fraud Caucus were just what you might expect.
Rep. Ruth Balser of Newton whined: “If a poor woman has to go to a
job interview and she needs to put on lipstick, she’s not going to
be able to.”
Maybe this mythical “poor woman” could pawn her iPhone or flatscreen
HD TV to raise the money for the $2.99 lipstick.
Rep. Ben Swan of Springfield merely said, “I rise in the hope that
some of you would leave this alone for the evening.”
All Swan is saying, is give fraud a chance. Don’t worry, Ben, we
will. This is Massachusetts.
State House News Service
Thursday, April 26, 2012
House races through amendments, passes $32.4 billion budget in three
days
By Kyle Cheney
In a budget notable for the blinding speed with which it won passage
this week, the $32.4 billion spending plan that cleared the House
late Wednesday night laid bare a schism among the chamber’s
Democrats, some of whom accused their leaders of attacking poor
Massachusetts residents under the guise of a crackdown on welfare
abuse.
“We've painted a picture that to be poor means to be irresponsible,”
said Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Medford), adding, “I wish we had spent
half as much time on how to end poverty.”
Sciortino was one of 33 Democrats – including several members of
Speaker Robert DeLeo’s leadership team – to vote against a budget
provision that would clamp down on welfare recipients who use cash
benefits to pay for alcohol, cigarettes, pornography and other
purposes deemed unessential by proponents. The measure would also
block recipients from spending benefits on cosmetics, theater
tickets and travel.
Critics of the measure were easily outvoted; 122 members, including
the House’s 33 Republicans, voted to support the proposal. Opponents
used sharp language to slam the measure.
Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge) said proponents of the crackdown were
acting like Big Brother, imposing their will on the state’s poorest
residents. Sciortino appropriated a long-held Republican critique of
Democratic policies, accusing supporters of the measure of turning
Massachusetts into a “nanny state.” But the harshest critique came
from Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton).
“This amendment is not pro-taxpayer. This amendment is
anti-poor-person,” she said. “I feel deeply sad that what we're
talking about this week at every turn one would think the real
problem are these poor people instead of talking about a budget
that, due to a failing economy we are not able to provide a safety
net that people in this commonwealth deserve.”
“What this is about is this long list of uses of money that people
aren't going to be allowed to use so if a poor woman wants to go to
a job interview and she needs to put on lipstick, she's not going to
be able to,” Balser said. “We're picking on the poor people instead
of helping them … This is a sad night.”
Backers of the proposal, which passed just before midnight, argued
that it was intended to root out misuse of the welfare system and
preserve funds for those who truly need them.
“This amendment ensures that those who need food and cash benefits
to support their families have them,” said Rep. Martha Walz
(D-Boston).
Rep. Paul Adams, a freshman Republican from Andover, added that
Massachusetts already provides among the most generous benefits to
poor residents – from subsidized health care to low-cost
transportation to legal assistance.
“What don't we give away for free?” he asked. “This amendment simply
limits the ability for people to buy nonessentials … The taxpayers
are begging us to make this reform.”
The debate capped a day largely devoid of public debate on the
budget, despite the dispensation of hundreds of amendments lawmakers
filed to alter the Ways and Means Committee’s bill. If there was
debate over those amendments, it occurred behind closed doors in the
House’s private quarters where lawmakers were periodically
instructed to discuss their amendments with top DeLeo deputies.
With the consent of the rank-and-file, as well as the Republican
caucus, House leaders raced through consideration of more than 400
budget amendments Wednesday intent on completing the budget before
midnight Wednesday, the third day of budget deliberations.
The budget passed 150-4 as the clock struck midnight. The four
Republicans who voted against the budget were Reps. Adams of
Andover, Steven Levy of Marlborough, Marc Lombardo of Billerica and
James Lyons of Andover.
“The House budget for fiscal year ’13 maximizes the value of every
last state dollar and strives to implement sensible reforms to
position Massachusetts for a bright economic future,” DeLeo said in
a statement after the vote. “Although we are still challenged by
this downturn, we’ve produced a budget that preserves essential
services, aids municipalities, strengthens our community colleges
and reforms the use of our EBT system so that its serves the most in
need.”
The plan now heads to the Senate which will build its own plan in
time for consideration the week before Memorial Day. The House’s
rapid consideration of its budget continued a trend in which House
leaders have prized speed and efficiency over public debate and
explanation. The Senate too has opted to rush through its budget
deliberations in recent years.
Proposals to crack down on illegal immigration that once generated
hours of debate received scant interest Wednesday night as the House
pushed through a plan to punish driver’s caught without a license
and to monitor the state’s entrance into a federal illegal
immigration crackdown called Secure Communities. That move could
provide momentum for similar measures in the Senate, where members
have shown greater willingness to back crackdowns on illegal
immigration in recent years.
The House’s budget passed without any changes to the tax code,
virtually ensuring that a budget proposal that reaches Gov. Deval
Patrick’s desk will include no new taxes or fees. The House spending
plan does embrace a delay in a $45 million business tax break
promised in a 2008 corporate tax law.
During three days of review, members also tacked on more than $110
million in addition spending, from increases to an anti-gang
program, to an uptick in spending on the Trial Court. Dozens of
policy and spending decisions were made with minimal debate or
explanation, while members used floor speeches to describe spending
increases to favored programs. There was little discussion of
spending cut specifics.
House leaders described their budget as a balanced approach to
preserve essential services while grappling with lingering economic
uncertainty and exploding growth in caseload programs like Medicaid
and transitional assistance. Although lawmakers built the budget
anticipating tax collections to soar $900 million next fiscal year,
all of that growth would be consumed by growth in those
budget-busting accounts, according to fiscal analysts.
The House budget would fund local education aid at $4.15 billion – a
$164 million increase over the current fiscal year. It would also
fund an $8.4 million increase in the special education circuit
breaker, bringing that account to $221.5 million.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, April 26, 2012
DeLeo blasts ‘appalling’ fraud as EBT reform passes House
By Chris Cassidy
A tough-talking House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo put welfare cheats on
notice last night, vowing to crack down on fraud, as the House
approved strict tightening of the abused EBT card system and set up
a potential showdown with Gov. Deval Patrick, a fierce defender of
the program.
“I’m very angry,” DeLeo told the Herald in an exclusive interview
last night in his State House office. “Getting up every morning,
reading the Herald and reading some of these issues you’ve raised is
just appalling to me.
“Every time I think I’ve read about the last possible example, we
see grocery stores are involved, someone wants to get bail for
drugs. ... We’re just in no fiscal condition to put up with this
kind of wasting of taxpayer dollars.”
Shortly before midnight, the House last night passed reforms banning
recipients from using EBT cards on out-of-state travel, firearms,
lottery tickets, bail and other items, setting up a criminal statute
to make it easier for state authorities to punish cheats and
allowing the state to strip stores of Lottery and liquor licenses.
On the most controversial issue of cash access, the House will
create a commission and spend up to $100,000 on an outside
consultant who will determine how the Bay State can “go to a
cashless system,” DeLeo said.
DeLeo said a consultant will help answer how much it would cost, the
technology involved and what other states have done, but he hasn’t
made up his mind on exactly how far to restrict cash.
“We’ve taken a giant step to get those answers,” DeLeo said. “We
could have waited ... but we decided this was too big an issue for
us as a commonwealth. We wanted to address this now and give it
teeth.”
The reforms must clear the Senate before they head to Patrick, who
has defended the program and said he doesn’t want to create policy
based on “anecdote.”
“I’m hopeful that if the governor looks at it — and I think the
governor has always been someone who’s been supportive of stamping
out fraud and abuse —then he’ll see this is a very good proposal.”
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Mass. House passes $32.4 billion budget
By Globe Staff
House Speaker Robert DeLeo today is praising the $32.4 billion
budget passed by lawmakers as a spending plan that will provide the
state with a “bright economic future’’ and one that makes necessary
reform in a key welfare program.
Around midnight Wednesday, House members voted 150-4 to approve the
spending plan for fiscal 2013, with four Republicans dissenting. The
passage came after what the State House News Service described as a
sharply worded debate among Democrats over changes made to the EBT
welfare program.
Some members of DeLeo’s leadership team were among the 33 Democrats
voting against a change in the welfare program banning recipients
from using cash benefits to buy alcohol, cigarettes, pornography and
other purposes.
However, the changes were approved when 122 lawmakers, including 33
Republicans, voted in favor of the plan.
Earlier this week, the Globe reported that lawmakers voted 119 to 37
against a Republican-sponsored measure that would have steadily
reduced the sales tax to 5 percent, down from the current 6.25
percent.
In the statement DeLeo released after the final vote, the Winthrop
Democrat defended the budget.
“The House budget for fiscal year [2013] maximizes the value of
every last state dollar and strives to implement sensible reforms to
position Massachusetts for a bright economic future,’’ he said in
the statement.
He added, “although we are still challenged by this downturn, we’ve
produced a budget that preserves essential services, aids
municipalities, strengthens our community colleges, and reforms the
use of our EBT system so that it serves the most in need.”
The Senate will take up its own budget proposal in June. The
chambers will negotiate any differences before sending a compromise
package to Governor Deval Patrick in time for the next budget year
which begins July 1.
In an appearance on WTTK-FM radio today, Patrick said he supported
the overall concept of improving controls over the EBT program. But
he stopped short of saying he would approve the House-passed
proposal.
“No one has been more focused on eliminating abuse in the EBT
program as we have…(but) the program is important, it’s the way
forward for the most vulnerable,’’ Patrick said.
Patrick said his administration has uncovered about $11 million in
fraud in a program that costs taxpayers about $400 million a year.
He said he does not believe fraud is more extensive than what
investigators have already found.
“As someone who experienced welfare as I was growing up... we are
serious about (ending) fraud and abuse; it’s splash back is on the
overwhelming majority of good people who are using these programs in
good faith,’’ he said. “I’m not convinced it’s as widespread as the
amount of debate we’ve given to it.’’
Patrick said he wants to have a current user of the program, or
someone who has relied on the system for help in the past, to be
part of the debate about the future of the EBT program.
“We do have a lot of people who have not actually walked in those
shoes talking about it,’’ he said. “It would be helpful to have
someone who is dealing with poverty every day.’’
State House News Service
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Patrick questions motives of welfare system critics
By Matt Murphy
Gov. Deval Patrick on Thursday said that his administration has done
more than any other to root out fraud in the EBT card welfare
system, but he believes there is an underlying theme driving the
debate about whether the state should be providing welfare at all.
“I think that some of the debate, frankly, seems to be a veiled
debate about what’s really at issue which is whether we should
provide benefits to people to help them help themselves, and if
that’s a debate folks want to have then they need to bring it with
that candor because we have to be and we are in this Commonwealth
about helping people help themselves,” Patrick said during his
appearance on WTKK-FM’s “Ask the Governor” segment.
The House late Wednesday night adopted an amendment to its budget on
a 122-33 vote attempting to crack down on abuses in the state’s $415
million welfare system that distributes benefits to recipients
through electronic benefits transfer cards.
After a sharp debate stirring strong emotions among some members who
criticized the proposal as an attack on poor people, the House voted
to restrict welfare benefits from being spent in places such as nail
salons, tattoo parlors, casinos, and strip clubs or on travel,
cosmetics and theater tickets. The House also approved $100,000 to
be spent on a consultant to study how Massachusetts could move to a
cashless system.
The amendment’s proponents, such as Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Tauton)
and Rep. Russell Holmes (D-Boston), have said that reforms such as
limiting access to cash are needed to protect taxpayer dollars and
ensure that adequate resources are available to those who truly need
it.
While federal SNAP benefits, more commonly known as food stamps,
cannot be taken in cash, other cash assistance benefits on EBT cards
can be withdrawn on ATM machines and spent wherever.
Patrick said he was not convinced a completely cashless system would
work, noting that some proponents of providing cash say recipients
need money to pay for transportation or to have their hair and nails
done in preparation for a job interview. He did say, however, that
he was open to limiting the amount of cash available.
“The question is where the right line is to draw,” Patrick said.
Patrick said he would wait to see what lands on his desk before
committing to signing the legislation. The Senate will take up its
budget in May and senators will have to decide whether and how to
respond to the House EBT plan.
During an interview Thursday morning on WATD-FM, Senate President
Therese Murray said she has “not heard a lot” from her constituents
about EBT card abuse, but is awaiting recommendations from Inspector
General Greg Sullivan’s audit of the use of EBT cards and looking to
expand upon a law approved in 2011 banning the use of EBT cards to
buy alcohol or tobacco products.
Murray, who helped write an early 1990s welfare-to-work law, said
last week’s sweep by state and federal law enforcement of 53
individuals accused of committing welfare fraud by selling their
food stamps for cash shows a need for tighter rules.
“Obviously it’s not enough,” she said. “The enforcement that just
happened and the arrests that just happened certainly show that
there needs to be more done.” She added, “We need do what California
has been able to do and that is block the access of cash from
certain places or for the use of these cards for many, many things
that they were not intended for.”
Murray said the state moved from issuing public assistance checks to
electronic benefit cards in part to provide a “safeguard” on the
program. “There are people who abuse them and we’re seeing that so
there’s got to be a way for us to block the use of those cards,” she
said.
Patrick told radio hosts Jim Braude and Margery Egan that the
anti-fraud unit in the Department of Transitional Assistance has
recovered $11 million in fraudulent spending of welfare assistance
by EBT card beneficiaries during his tenure, more than any of his
predecessors, he said. He also said he did not believe the problem
was as widespread as the amount of recent attention would suggest.
“It’s important we protect the integrity of the program, but I also
want to say the program is important. It’s a way forward for the
most vulnerable folks to help them with housing, with what they need
to get a job, to educate their kids,” Patrick said.
The governor also said the idea of adding user photos to EBT cards
“sounds like a great idea,” but earlier this month a commission
reviewing the EBT card system expressed concern about the cost of
processing photo IDs.
When a caller from Homes for Families suggested the governor appoint
a welfare recipients to the commission that will study cashless
benefits, Patrick said, “What a great idea because we do have a lot
of people who haven’t walked in these shoes opining about it.”
Committee to
Elect Randy Hunt
State Representative Randy Hunt
297 Quaker Meeting House Road
East Sandwich, MA 02537
EBT card reforms pass the House, some
Democrats apoplectic
Thursday, April 26, 2012
This year, the Wednesday Night Fights were about
electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards and the unending news
stories about the latest Fraud of the Week. These cards have
replaced welfare payments by check as well as food stamps. The
accounts are loaded with the appropriate amount of money each month,
depending on the beneficiary's situation, which is to be used for
the necessities of life.
To set the stage for the debate, you should know
that Shaunna O'Connell, freshman Republican representative from
Taunton (the one who beat James Fagan after his unfortunate tirade
on the House floor promising to rip apart child rape victims at
trial if Jessica's Law was passed), sponsored a bill last year to
create a commission to study the problem of EBT card fraud and
abuse. The commission completed its work last month, essentially
declaring that system is pretty good as is. The loophole in how
these cards work is that they can be used at ATMs, thereby
circumventing any restriction of use placed upon them. Undaunted,
O'Connell filed a budget amendment to force reasonable restrictions
onto EBT card use, including closing the ATM loophole.
The other key component to this debate is a
dynamic that operates at the Statehouse on every issue, as I alluded
to earlier. That is, there is potential retribution for any Democrat
who votes counter to the Speaker. There are times when a contrarian
vote is allowed, such as when a representative is vulnerable in
his/her election and needs to vote in line with the district's
constituents, but advanced approval of these votes is encouraged.
On a side note, I always thought that
representatives were supposed to represent their constituents. I
understand that issues of conviction, such a one's position on the
death penalty, could be an exception to this rule, but voting
against having the state collect its outstanding debts rather than
writing them off seems nonsensical to me. Yes, this was voted down
yesterday because the Speaker was a nay vote. Trust me, if the
Speaker's light had been green (a yea vote), the measure would have
passed. Many opinions seem to be informed solely by the color of a
light on the tote board.
The debate on EBT card reform started at about
11:15 pm, coincident with the distribution of a "further amendment"
that replaced O'Connell's amendment in its entirety. We all have
been critical of the U.S. Congress releasing bills without
sufficient time for the representatives to read them prior to a
vote. In this case, the further amendment was literally being
distributed while people were at the podium debating its merits. A
court officer was positioned to prevent legislators from walking in
front of the representative speaking at the podium.
Read O'Connell's amendment here.
Read the further amendment here.
Two of the speakers, both Democrats against the
further amendment, actually made a point of the fact that this
legislation was sprung on the members at the eleventh hour (quite
literally) and that it references a ten-page list in eight-point
font of licensed professional occupations in the Massachusetts
General Laws. How could anyone in this chamber read all of that?
The answer, of course, is that given zero time to
do so, not even Evelyn Wood would have a shot at accomplishing this
feat. It is interesting for me to watch Democrats pointing out
obvious breaches of common sense, only to be rebuked by their own
leadership.
One freshman Democratic representative from
Boston spoke in favor of the further amendment, pointing out that
paying for drugs, alcohol and pornography with EBT cards only
perpetuates behavior that is destructive to the family unit. I like
that guy.
A veteran Democrat railed at the further
amendment saying that it was not at all about getting at the fraud
and abuse in our welfare system, but rather it was a thinly veiled
attack on the underclass, saying that "this amendment is not
pro-taxpayer. This amendment is anti-poor person."
When the question was called, there were 122
votes for the further amendment and 33 against. The issue is far
from being resolved, however. The Senate is likely to take out some
of the more onerous parts of the bill, like banning the purchase of
cosmetics with EBT cards, if they decide to include EBT reform in
their version of the fiscal year 2013 budget at all. With respect to
the governor, no doubt he will veto this outside section if it is
close in form to what was passed last night.
State House News
Service
HOUSE SESSION – WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2012
RETURNS: The House returned from recess and resumed its
budget session at 10:06 a.m., Rep. Donato presiding and Rep.
Humason present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The
chamber was mostly empty. . . .
DINNER: Rep. Donato said dinner will be served at 6 p.m.
RETURNS: The House returned at 8:34 p.m. with Rep. Donato
presiding.
RULE 1A: Rep. Donato opened a roll call to suspend Rule 1A
to permit the House to meet past 9 p.m.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 123-34, RULE 1A SUSPENDED. Time was 9
p.m.
[Jump]
O'CONNELL AMENDMENT 804: At 11:11 p.m., Rep. O'Connell
offered an amendment relative to EBT reform.
Rep. Walz offered a
further amendment.
Rep. Walz said, Thank you Mr. Speaker. Outside
Section 35 takes strong action for those who abuse their
cash assistance benefits, and it takes strong action against
those who traffic EBT cards. I thank the speaker and
Chairman Dempsey. We need to make sure that benefits those
who need them and not to those who abuse our system. Food
stamps go to 475,000 people in Massachusetts. These are 100
percent federally funded. The second type of benefits are
cash assistance and help them meet their basic needs, like
child care and housing. they are on average $475 per month.
The amendment before you revises outside Section 35 to
ensure that beneficiaries can use their benefits to purchase
items like food and personal hygiene products. It allows
them to use benefits on rent and child care. I think it
strikes the right balance. It allows people to purchase what
they need and it allows people to use their benefits for
essential items. The amendment seeks to prohibit certain
types of products from being purchased and it prohibits
certain establishments from accepting the cards at all. The
Patrick administration has recovered $28 million. The fraud
detection measures DTA has in place are working. Vendors who
violate the law can, among other things, lose their alcohol
license or right to sell Lottery tickets, as well they
should. In short, this amendment ensures that those who need
food and cash benefits to support their families have them.
I urge you to support this further amendment.
Rep. Sciortino said, I rise in opposition to the
further amendment and ask for the membership to give very
serious consideration to the major policy change you're
about to embark on, with, I believe, serious unintended
consequences. No one here supports fraud. No on wants to see
benefits trafficked. Everyone here in both parties wants to
provide for those most in need. No one in either party wants
to enable fraud. What we have before us is extremely
problematic. First of all, it's anti-business. You're
responsible for sorting out which of these products are
food-stamp eligible and which are not. And which of them are
cash-benefit eligible and which of them are not. If they
make the wrong decisions, she is subject to disqualification
and fines. This is a serious policy we're embarking upon.
The recipients themselves will have to figure out how they
are to comply. I want to bring your attention to just one
provision, which bans any professional services except
medical care. They can pay their copays. There are 14 pages,
just the index alone. There are 14 pages of various
professionals that can no longer be paid with cash
assistance. Medical services are OK, but does that include
dentists? How about podiatrists? How about social workers?
Is that medical? I'm not sure. Is the recipient going to
know the answer to that. Does DTA know the answer to that?
The consequences of the unknown in this are very
significant. This House has had a practice of not doing
major policy in the budget. Most people in the room,
including the proponents, can't explain to us what' sin this
amendment. It's unworkable for DTA. Several of us have spent
a lot of time trying to figure out how DTA works. The raid
this past weekend was triggered by DTA's own efforts. What
does it mean to go farther than that? With this list of
restricted items, DTA is now in a position of having to go
to audit stores to make sure that the minimum wage store
clerk didn't accidentally sell the wrong products to the
wrong person at the wrong time. That audit cost is going to
be expensive. They can ban certain types of stores, that can
work. If they want to ban certain products, that hasn't been
done anywhere. What we proposed was to try to figure out a
way we could get DTA some kind of cost estimate. We don't
know if it's enforceable. We don't know if it's feasible.
Rep. Mariano said, The consolidated amendment is
available to the right of the rostrum.
Rep. Sciortino said, When we do this, we're going to
continue to see stories like we've seen the last several
weeks. In closing, I would just say this, we have spent many
hours worrying about nail salons and tattoo parlors and
YMCAs. We've painted a picture that to be poor means to be
irresponsible, and to be irresponsible we have to be a nanny
state. I wish we had spent half as much time on how to end
poverty.
Rep. O'Connell said, I rise in support of the
amendment. I appreciate the reforms that are included in
this amendment. We have been working on the EBT reform. We
have heard about fraud and abuse over and over and over. The
recent raid in Chinatown was headed up by the federal
government. We have finally gotten to a point where we can
say we are putting some real reforms in place. This
prohibits use of these cards at certain establishments. It
ensures that the DTA enforces the new regulations. It
requires stores to have signage stating what the regulations
are. It implements fines or trafficking of EBT cards. It
charges a fee for the 20,000 cards we replace each month.
Without restrictions on cash access, all of these reforms
will be useless. Last year's reforms have been ineffective
because of lack of enforcement by DTA. As long as that is
still possible, these reforms are not fully effective. The
other thing this amendment does is it directs us to hire an
independent firm who we will choose to answer all the
questions we have about how to move to a cashless system.
Rep. O'Connell read an email from a social worker in
support of her proposal. Time was 11:28 p.m.
Rep. O'Connell said, This person asked me to withhold their
name. I've gotten may emails like that from social workers,
from police, people on the frontlines who witness it daily.
We are going to do this right. I hope the amendment is
adopted.
Rep. Wolf said, I rise to oppose the amendment that
is before us. All of us are opposed to fraud and abuse, and
we will do whatever we can to see that we do not have that
kind of behavior in our commonwealth. There is already a
good deal of effort being made to deal with things such as
eligibility fraud. There's a fraud hotline. There are many
efforts to be sure that people do not become eligible
improperly. This is not about EBT cards. This is really
about welfare, and as all of us know, welfare has been an
issue for many years. We've gone through many versions of
welfare reform. We've gone through TAFDC and job training.
These changes have had a big impact. Around 1992, there were
around 114,000 households on TAFDC. In 1995 ,there were
92,000 households on TAFDC. Now there are about 51,000
households. That is good news for many people. Many people
who were receiving welfare benefits have jobs. It is good
news for the children of these families. As the population
shrinks, as the number of households shrink, there will be
more heads of household who are disabled. I think we know
that many of these people continue to receive this
assistance because of their vulnerability. the assistance is
not a lot of money. For a family of three, $473 a month. The
average food stamp is $270 a month. These are people who
personally are living on the margin and financially are
living on the margin. Now, what we are doing, is essentially
saying to them -- the gentleman from Somerville said Nanny
State. We're being Big Brother. We're looking over their
shoulder and trying to tell them exactly what they should
do. We should be empowering them to make good decisions.
They are human beings and we are part of their lives if we
make these kinds of changes. Let's get on and figure out how
we can move forward to ensure that all of our lives can go
forward with dignity.
Time was 11:37 p.m.
Rep. Swan said, I rise in opposition to the
amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Somerville
and the lady from Cambridge. Quite frequently in this House,
we adopt measures, support measures and we fail to
understand the circumstances around the measure we are about
to engage ourselves in. The gentleman talked about the
number of things that were printed in terms of information
affecting this currently. Sometimes we engage in
decision-making without fully understanding what we are
doing. I rise to beg you to oppose this measure, to oppose
the amendment before us. We don't need to do it tonight. the
lady from Taunton talked about hiring a firm to come up with
ways to make the law tighter. I rise in the hope that some
of you would leave this alone for the evening.
Rep. Adams said, I rise in support of the further
amendment proposed by the gentlelady from Taunton. you know,
I think we can all agree that the EBT abuses we've heard of
are an outrageous abuse. This is a pro-taxpayer amendment.
Before you consider voting for or against this, consider
this. Health care is nearly fully subsidized or free. Free
food, legal assistance, free and subsidized transportation.
What don't we give away from free? This amendment simply
limits the ability for people to buy nonessentials. The
taxpayers are begging us to make this reform.
Rep. Henriquez said, I want to reiterate what the
gentleman from Somerville spoke about earlier. Neither party
supports fraud. I believe we have the responsibility to stop
fraud. We need to support the DTA's ongoing methods. I think
we should also be supporting the continuing work of the
commission that already exists. We have a responsibility to
enforce and pass responsible loss that aren't going to cost
us more money. We're spending a dollar to chase down a dime.
The gentleman from Gardner had a good idea about making the
MBTA accept EBT cards. I think we need to talk about a
carrot and not a stick. When we talk about being a nanny
state or being to controlling, those are the things that
come up to me.
Rep. Balser said, I reject the idea that this
amendment is pro-taxpayer. This amendment is not
pro-taxpayer. This amendment is anti-poor-person. I rise
really not with statistics or even the most eloquent or
well-thought-out argument. I feel deeply sad that what we're
talking about this week at every turn one would think the
real problem are these poor people instead of talking about
a budget that, due to a failing economy we are not able to
provide a safety net that people in this commonwealth
deserve. We talk about affordable housing for people. Some
how the problem are these pesky poor people. This bill
before us isn't about fraud. What this is about is this long
list of uses of money that people aren't going to be allowed
to sue so if a poor woman wants to go to a job interview and
she needs t put on lipstick, she's not going to be able to.
I see an American where there' sa growing number of poor
people. We're picking on the poor people instead of helping
them. I rise in opposition to this amendment and to express
my deep sadness that this is even before us. That we're
doing this kind of changes, radical changes to our laws,
radical changes to the treatment of poor people in our
society. We don't have an opportunity to amend this. This
isn't before a committee. Somehow, we have to get this done
tonight. Poor people don't have enough to deal with. This is
a sad night.
Several members and visitors in the gallery applauded.
Rep. Holmes said, I rise in support of this
amendment. The amendment addresses the most dangerous thing
that happens in our community. We send cash to ou community
adn it gets spent on drugs and alcohol. I'm going to ask for
a roll call and that it happen forthwith.
Rep. Holmes asked for a vote on the amendment by a
call of the yeas and nays. There was support.
Rep. Mariano opened a roll call as other members,
including Rep. Andrews, sought to be recognized.
At 11:50 p.m., Speaker DeLeo and Rep. Dempsey entered the
chamber.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 122-33,
FURTHER AMENDMENT ADOPTED.
Time was 11:55 p.m. The vote precluded a
vote on the underlying amendment.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 150-4, BUDGET ENGROSSED. Time
was 12:00 a.m.
After the vote, Rep. Mariano shook hands
with Speaker DeLeo and Rep. Dempsey. Other members flooded
the rostrum and shook hands with the speaker.
ADJOURNS: The House adjourned at 12:03 a.m. to return
Monday at 11 a.m. in an informal session.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|
