Maybe they’ll subsidize propeller beanies next

Got my job as a pool cleaner through the Government Times!

Reader and fellow blogger Peg sends along this story of yet another government success story.

Part of an $11 million grant intended to provide business attire to 400 low-income job-seekers instead helped only two people, an audit of the city’s Department of Human Services has found.

The audit, conducted by the city’s auditor general for the period from July 2009 to September 2011, found the department failed to control the operations and finances of a boutique that was to provide the clothes.

The department did not safeguard grant funds or create an inventory for the clothing, the audit found.

To receive clothing, residents were required to have a job interview scheduled. According to the audit, the DHS was supposed to help 400 people between October 2010 and September 2011 but instead served only two.


Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Maybe they’ll subsidize propeller beanies next

  1. AJ

    When business publicly enters politics: Investors flee Carbonite after Limbaugh announcement

  2. AJ

    More government success: Holder: Executive Branch Reviews Of Targeted Killings Count As ‘Due Process’

  3. burningmadolf

    Where did this come from? Which state? Where’s the full article?
    Looks like a link to a talking point blog.

  4. Fred2

    11 MILLION for 400 applicants?

    That’s $27,500 per person right there, IF IT had worked as intended which is STILL a scandal.

  5. Anonymous

    Chris, you and Peg aren’t counting the outside contractor that Detroit handed the $150K to, so that makes at least 3 people helped by that $11M grant. 😉

    Given that it’s Detroit, I’d love to know the name of that outside contractor…probably related to the Kilpatrick or Conyers clans.

  6. nick

    Even if they clothed all 400 people for $11mil that’s $27,500 per person. Sounds about right for a government endeavor that is without problems or fraud.

  7. Fred2

    I’m pretty sure 20K ( lets assume the balance is for administration costs) buys you a pretty spiffy bespoke suit and shoes, even today.

    Just a question for the audience, rhetorical in nature. I’ve been reading the constitution and I’m pretty sure that no where is there even a hint of shadow of a penumbra where the FedGov has any business doing this, in fact I’m pretty sure that having looked the document over that a goodly fraction of what the government is spending money on has no basis in law, literally it’s not explicitly the business of the government at all.

  8. Fred2, much of what Obama has accomplished has no basis in law, i.e. screwing Chrysler bondholders, Fast and Furious, czars, etc..

  9. traccan

    See, this is what happens when assumptions get made without having actually read the article: the key word in the headline is “PART”. Part of an 11 million dollar grant… and if anyone had actually read the full article, you’d see that the part they’re talking about to fund the clothing project was 148K. That was the grant given to the store to distribute the clothing and included hiring staff, purchasing equipment, and inventory control. The auditor concluded that the only failure was the lack of oversight on inventory tracking, which should have been implemented by the program administrator. No other part of the 11 million has come under scrutiny for mismanagement, so to call the fraudulence or incompetence of very likely ONE low-level bureaucrat a failure of the administration as a whole, is a complete overstatement.