Overhead in overdrive in the stupid college savings boondoggle

Yet another reason to not vote for Ed FitzGerald for Governor of Ohio.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald's college savings account program will cost taxpayers $522,000 in annual overhead, about one-quarter of the program's $2 million budget, county records show.

That percentage is significantly more than the vast majority of large charities spend to administer their programs, according to Charity Navigator, a non-profit watchdog that tracks budgets of $1 million or more.

"I think that it does seem high," Charity Navigator spokeswoman Sandra Miniutti told Northeast Ohio Media Group on Friday.

Of the 7,000 philanthropic agencies Charity Navigator tracks, less than 4 percent spend a quarter or more of their budgets on administrative costs, Miniutti said. Most spend 15 percent or less, she said.

This whole savings account thing is a perfect example of Democrat boondoggling. Tax the parents, funnel money to kids, buy votes, raise the cost of education. Then repeat as often as possible and if anyone attacks the plan, tell them they must hate the children.

The program's likely overhead is drawing criticism from County Councilman Dave Greenspan, a Republican who has frequently questioned initiatives by FitzGerald since the Democratic county executive announced he is running for governor.

"Would you as a taxpayer give to a charity that had at least a [25 percent] administrative burden on the giving?" Greenspan said. "The answer is no. I believe it's no. I wouldn't do it."

But the FitzGerald administration objected Friday to comparing the savings account program's administrative expenses to those of charities.

"This program cannot be easily compared to this broad set of non-profit organizations. It has to be judged on its own merits," said Matt Carroll, chief of staff to FitzGerald.

The "merits" are easy to identify. This government program will give money to kids who will flunk out much more often than private charities will. Also accounts will be opened for everybody, and not everybody goes to college.

A similar program in San Francisco only had a 12 percent participation rate within its first three years. FitzGerald hopes to improve on those results by marketing his version of the program.

The county council's budget and finance committee will debate the request Monday.

The FitzGerald administration had hoped to launch the savings account this month. But concerns from county council over the program's details have delayed it.

The whole culture of savings argument is just dopey. You can't really encourage saving by giving people money they didn't earn. I hope this thing dies an appropriate death and the money is somehow returned to the taxpayer. Why do I live here again?

Scott Walker for WI Governor

Here's another great ad: Scott Walker for Governor of Wisconsin.

ACORN Supporters: Personally Opposed to Prostitution

Yesterday I was reading John Fund's piece on ACORN's recent and well-deserved misfortunes—here are the first two paragraphs:

On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 83-7 to strip Acorn, the premier community organizing group on the left, of more than $1.6 million in federal housing money meant to assist low-income people obtain loans and prepare tax forms. This dramatic step followed last Friday's decision by the U.S. Census Bureau to sever its ties with the organization, one of several community groups it was partnering with to conduct the nation's head count.

Both of these actions came after secretly recorded videos involving employees in Acorn's Brooklyn, N.Y., Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Md. and San Bernardino, Calif. offices were televised on Fox News. The videos were recorded by two independent filmmakers who posed as a prostitute and a pimp and said they were planning to import underage women from El Salvador for the sex trade. They asked for and received advice on getting a housing loan and evading federal taxes.

—and my first thought was, well, that's good news. My second thought was to wonder at the identity of these seven squirrels defending the rotten nuts. An easy question to answer, if one knows where to look. They are Roland Burris (D-IL), Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Now, don't jump all over Bob Casey, Jr., folks. As a Catholic, I'm sure he is personally opposed to prostitution.


Gee, they looked so happy together. This snapshot predates the selection of Joe Biden as the token Catholic running mate. Why do alpha males always choose the dumbest ones as mates?

Why not just have a big demolition derby? More fun....

This excerpt from Henry Payne's excellent and recent expose of the "Cash for Clunkers" program encapsulates one of the aspects which came to my mind when I first heard of the debacle.

Worse, Democratic demands that the guzzlers be permanently shredded means that already hurting used-car and -parts businesses will suffer. By insisting that the cars not only be crushed — but also that their engines be disabled — Congress’s decree will penalize the industry at time when a dozen U.S. parts suppliers have filed for bankruptcy this year.

“Why throw away good parts when the supply chain is in jeopardy?” the Automotive Recyclers Association’s Michael Wilson asked the AP. Good question.

I think von Mises would agree to file this latest bit of shuck 'n' jive under the general heading of destructionism. Conclusion:

The victims will be lower-income Americans who typically buy only used parts and vehicles. “Now you’re removing cars people could afford, and they’re not available anymore,” says Norm Wright, a Denver recycler. “There will be fewer cars to pull from, so the price of parts will go up.”

SUVs, apparently, aren’t the only things being sacrificed at the green altar.

If the enviro-yuppies were honest, then a sticker reading "Let them eat cake" would grace every hybrid bumper in the parking lot of the health food co-op.

And the winner is... MEDICAID!

Job creation, my butt. Derek Thompson shows us where the "stimulus" money is really going. Short answer: failing government programs.

The best explanation I've found for why the stimulus didn't work is this graph from the GAO analysis of the stimulus act. It shows pretty clearly that the 76 percent of stimulus spending through the first four months went to fill in the gaping holes in Medicaid and state budgets. In other words, the stimulus isn't acting like a pole vault lifting job creation above the baseline. It's been acting like a crutch to keep state budgets and payrolls from tumbling.

Hat tip to Mark Hemingway on the Corner who states the following:

Color me shocked. I realize there are people that think it's a noble goal, but spending billions preserving the status quo in government over the next four months while America bleeds jobs is most certainly not the rationale given to the American people who were told there was an immediate need to railroad through an economic stimulus.

Time to put away those shovels you had ready.