The Senate is investigating two 70 year old programs designed to help the disabled:
Two programs established nearly 70 years ago to create jobs for the disabled have made millions of dollars for a handful of companies but helped only a fraction of those who were supposed to benefit, a Senate investigation has concluded.
Investigators for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reported that under one of the programs, companies run by those who are legally blind control $1.2 billion in cafeteria contracts at military facilities. But companies run by blind people don’t always hire the blind…
The committee investigators also reported that some companies with contracts pay executives “excessive” compensation.
“It is unconscionable that private companies and employers exploit federal laws to make millions off people with disabilities,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Melanie Brunson, executive director of the American Council of the Blind, said “nobody can be expected to hire only blind people.” She defended the program created by the Randolph-Sheppard law as one “that provides blind persons with an opportunity to run a business.”
Interesting to see what happens. Pun intended. I hope I didn’t offend my blind readers.
Sine.Qua.Non
Too bad they aren’t investigating all those corporate contracts. That is subsidizing these coporations and exploitation – of the American Public.
Mark
I think there is no need for an investigation. Clearly the blind were employed as umpires during the American League Championship Series. :-)
Shygetz
Ok, this whole thread was terribly insensitive. Which is okay by me, if it’s also funny. Which it’s not.
Steve
I don’t get the objection. When we give government contracts to minority-owned business, for example, I hope we understand that minority-owned businesses aren’t promising to hire only minorities…
ppGaz
Mark’s post deserves an award.
If he hadn’t made that post, I’d have posted and said that Chrysler Corporation deserves recognition for hiring blind people to design the PT Cruiser.
Mr Furious
Mark: great comment.
Shygetz: Mark’s comment was quite funny.
ppGaz: I like the PT. Oh, and I didn’t get the job in Phoenix. Sigh.
docG
A seventy year old nation-wide program that spent millions and employed a grand total of 615 disabled people in 2002. And the Democrats cannot figure out why they aren’t get any electoral traction with continued championing of New Deal/Great Society solutions.
Question: How do you make an ineffective government program go away?
Answer: You can’t.
Perhaps the libertarians are on to something.
Joey
Harsh, yet very funny. Funny trumps harsh every time, so kudos. And Sygetz, you’re right, it is insensitive. But it is funny, and that’s all that matters.
ppGaz
Sorry to hear it.
Hang in there!
(John says that the economy is “firing on all cylinders.” I hope he didn’t mean that employers are just firing).
Shygetz
Bah. No accounting for taste, I guess.
a guy called larry
I agree with the distinguished Senator. There should be a bright line drawn between the exploitation of federal laws to make millions off people with disabilities, and the exploitation of federal laws to make millions off the general public. This is obviously a moral issue.
Bob In Pacifica
DocG presumes that it’s the Democrats’ fault that a program instituted 70 years ago isn’t cost-effective in meeting its goals now.
Let me see. Presuming that what is reported is the whole truth about the program, then should we also presume that Republicans haven’t looked at federal budgets over the last 70 years to notice this fraud? Republican Presidents have no clue, or were too fearful of the blind to speak out against this budgetary turpitude?
I’m as much against pork as the next guy, but this kind of simpleton math (70 year-old program for jobs for the blind in cafeterias equals how come Democrats don’t control Congress and the White House) just shows how a generation of righties have been stripped of their abilities to use logic.
I pity the fool.
Maureen Hay
docG – the quote attacking the program was from Ted Kennedy. Most Dems I know hate this sort of idiocy because it makes all set aside programs look bad.
The real problem with these programs is that, if run correctly, they would be quite limited in scope. But once rules are published, people carefully design companies to comply with them.
I knew a guy who was looking to marry an Asian woman. He later admited that he wanted to be able to list his wife as a co-owner of his consulting company to qualify for minority-owned status. But how do you determine which companies of this sort are legit?
docG
No, I stated that Democrat’s continuing to advance and promote the failed solutions of the New Deal/Great Society, as exemplified in this example, is causing problems winning elections. And by the way, Bob, as a moderate, I haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in over 30 years. And thanks for the Mr. T quote. What is your oh, so sophisticated explanation for the collapse of the long-term post-Depression liberal control of American politics? I assume promoting policies that people don’t support will not be a part of your response.
Jon H
“A seventy year old nation-wide program that spent millions and employed a grand total of 615 disabled people in 2002. ”
But, was the money intended to pay wages for blind people?
If it was just money earmarked for sevices by companies run by blind people, and the companies provided good value for the money, then I don’t see that much of a problem.
In other words, if the program resulted in a blind-run phone bank company being hired to provide phone-bank services, then as long as the government got their money’s worth for the services, I don’t see the problem. Even if the workers at the company were all sighted.
SeesThroughIt
Why hasn’t anybody made some sort of “blind leading the blind” joke yet? Get on the ball, people!
Bob In Pacifica
DocG, note Maureen Hay’s posting.
As far as “Democrat’s continuing to advance and promote the failed solutions of the New Deal/Great Society… is causing problems winning elections” it sounds great but it’s not that simple.
Republicans, over the last half century, have fully merged with corporate America, and have corporate America’s resources (money, control of most of the media) to help them win elections. They get to define the agenda, get to belittle the opposition. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” of absorbing the reactionary, racist elements of the Democratic Party, has been a major reason for the huge gains of the Republican Party in the South.
The Republicans repeat several themes in order to attract working class voters, but most of these themes tend to focus of creating fear. This is a classic fascist tactic: fear of people of other races, fear of crime, fear of attack from outsiders. The “war on terror” is a typical Republican/fascist ploy, just as Willie Horton was back in 1988. The 1994 election, which brought the big Republican victories in Congress, were fueled by fear. That was the underlying message.
Finally, during the 60s a number of leaders on the left of the political spectrum were assassinated, not unlike the wave of political assassinations that swept Germany during the 1920s and 1930s.
Internally, the party has suffered because of the influence of the likes of the DLC, which would have the Democrats be the Republican Lite.
There are many social programs in other countries, like a national health program, that are absolutely less expensive and more successful than the mess we have here. If I were running the Party, I’d look to find what government programs would make life better for the average American, and then I’d start eyeing the tax cuts for the top one percent.
The purpose of a society is to protect the individual, not to create an atmosphere so that fat cats can get richer at everyone else’s expense.
Kathy K
Don’t assume you DON’T have any blind readers. I’ve known at (personally) 3 blind people who do quite well surfing around the net. And I suspect there are a good many more I never met.
docG
Bob in Pacifica,
Its late in the day and you probably won’t come back here, but thanks for expanding on your ideas. I still believe that people have become tired of social programs that do not seem to fix the problems they are designed to address. Of course politics and people are quite complex. My hope is for an effective opposition party that has a contemporary vision to limit the conservative shakedown of the U.S. Promoting the “same old, same old” indicates a lack of useful new ideas that can get people excited enough to buck the conservative excesses you so vividly described.
G. Hamid
This doesn’t seem much worse than New Jersey offering free vehicle registrations to blinded war veterans.
I know this sounds cynical, but I’m tired.
Mac
This program was set up to allow blind vendors to run their own business, not to necessarly hire other blind people.
Mac
This program was set up to allow blind vendors to run their own business, not to necessarly hire other blind people.
Bob In Pacifica
I remember there was a blind guy who ran the newsstand in the San Francisco City Hall’s basement. It always amazed me how he could recognize the ring different coins made. You felt obligated to give him singles when it came to bills. I always wondered how many people would try to cheat him.
As far as “same old, same old,” DocG, both parties should be constantly reviewing, seeing what programs aren’t working and which are, and look to see where people need help and how best to help them.
When I was a young man out of high school anyone who wanted to go to college could afford it. There’s something that our government should tackle. Healthcare. Housing. Alternative energy. All of these things are areas where the govt should be working to help average Americans, and right now one party is working against the average American and the other is silent.
Zifnab
One of the great things about a two-party system (as opposed to a one-party system or ‘dictatorship’) is that you have two sets of attack dogs ready to rip the throats out of any stragglers on either side.
Of course, its a bit frustrating when every GOP response to a problem seems to be ‘more corporate welfare’ or ‘cut the program to ribbons and turn it into a tax break for the wealthy’. Kinda like the Democratic response always seems to be ‘more free handouts to anybody’ or ‘raise taxes on rich people because they don’t deserve their money’. Two sides of the same coin.
It would be nice to have some stronger middle ground. Instead we seem to end up with a pair of fanatic parties (see: Green, Libertarian). Seriously, where’s the party of moderation?
Kimmitt
I’m shocked, shocked to learn that executives are receiving excessive compensation in the United States of America.
bago
Personally I’m of the opinion that laws only passed by a simple majority should always have a 10 year sunset clause attached to them. The more lawmakers debate existing laws, the less they can make new laws. Laws would need contnuing popular support to be effective, unless they pass with such a resounding majority that they are only invioable by another massive majority. That and an expanded data quality act.
Things like marijuana prohibition, which were passed at the behest of 15 minutes of a vetrenarians testimony in the 30’s would automatically come under review when new data surfaces.
Making entire subsets of neural agents illegal because someone might enjoy the consequences is retarded.