This story had been bothering me for over a week but it finally came to a boil when I happened to talk an acquaintance who is an ardent Republican. I’m fond of him, but we disagree on politics. In this particular conversation, at first he ranted about how Obama was responsible for the stock market tanking. Then, getting no rise out of me with his Barack-wrecked-my-stock-portfolio speech, he began talking about pork.
I took the bait. “Okay,” I said, “name one piece of pork from Obama’s budget.”
He breathed deeply as he wound up for what he obviously regarded as a strike-out pitch. “How about two-hundred grand for tattoo removal! Tattoo removal!! Hah! And that’s a piece of pork from one of your hometown boys, Democratic Congressman Howard Berman.”
Yeah, right. It would be the tattoo removal program. “You watch wa-a-ay too much Fox news,” I said.
Okay, here’s the story. After Congress sent the recent $410 billion spending bill to Barack Obama for his signature, the conservatives’ favorite new Love to Hate It line item was Berman’s $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in North Hollywood.
First the New York Post shrieked about it in an editorial. Then Drudge picked it up. Then there was Sean Hannity who slammed it on Fox claiming California Congressman Berman’s earmark was “PURE PORK”.
The insinuation was that this was some sort of weirdly indulgent, get-your-old-girlfriend’s-name-off your bicep thing.
Yet, had anyone bothered to call Berman’s office to check they would have quickly learned that the two hundred grand would be used to buy a second laser treatment machine for a violence prevention program that removes gang tattoos from former homeboys (and homegirls) who are trying to start their lives over, but have tattoos that prevent them from getting jobs and that, in many cases, could endanger their safety.
“Listen,” the boss is really all for this program,” said, Fred Flores, Howard Berman’s communication’s director. “We’ll get a very big payoff for that $200,000. It saves lives and it changes lives. But after the story ran on Fox News we got a lot of—I hate to use this word—-but knuckleheads calling asking us what the heck we were doing.”
I know from years of my own observation that getting rid of gang tattoos—i.e. removing the gang label from one’s body— is one of the most important steps in leaving gang life behind. At the most fundamental level, it’s symbolic of a new start.
Furthermore, there’s the practical fact that it’s fairly tough get a job at McDonald’s if you’ve got, say, devil’s horns tattooed on your forehead. Plus a visible tattoo signifying one gang can make it, quite literally, lethally unsafe for you to work in certain parts of town..
Providence Tattoo Removal was started at Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in 1998 by a Catholic nun and a police sergeant who were looking for a way to lower gang violence. Staffed by volunteers, and using the donated services of a rotating pool of doctors, to date, the program has removed tattoos from approximately 12,000 clients.
Yet, although the services are free, in order to be eligible, a client has to either have completed 48 hours in school, or perform 48 community service hours for every three removal sessions. (It takes 4 or 5 painful sessions to get rid of most tattoos.)
In other words, the program not only makes it possible for former gangsters to remove the tattoos that are barriers to employment and to a new life trajectory, Providence also actively promotes education and giving back to one’s community. In short, the program is a home run in multiple categories.
To be clear, the tattoo has to be either gang related or “anti-social”—-and it has to be in a visible location.
Right now Providence—like Homeboy Industries, which has a similar service—has a lengthy waiting list. A second machine would let Providence bring the backlog of waiting clients down.
According to Berman’s office, more than 80 percent of the program’s clients reported that they got better jobs or received promotions after treatment. And almost 90 percent of clients returned to school to complete a GED or attend college or trade school after getting a treatment.
“We’ve got a big gang problem in this city,” said Flores. “So if we can help change that many lives for $200,000, I’d say that’s money well spent.”
I would too.
So next time, Sean Hannity and GEOFF EARLE and DAPHNE RETTER of the New York Post, before you mouth off….do your damned homework.
I am just so glad to hear that Celeste and her friends are finally getter their devil horn tattoos removed from their foreheads even though we are going to have to pay $200,000 for the machine.
At least I rather have my $200,000 go to stupid people who spent their own money to have devil horns tattoos permanently affixed to their foreheads and now want them removed than to bail out stupid bankers at CITI BANK or B of A who are NOT inclined to have their devil horns removed.
However as a matter of national policy, I am at a loss on what a Tattoo removal machine is doing in the federal budget at all, but both sides of the isle are very guilty of these types of earmarks.
If this is such an important charity, it should be donated to like all the other charities or if each one of the previous 12,000 devil horn clients had just paid $50 each, (less than the cost of getting one tattoo) we would have collected $600,000 or enough money to buy three new machines.
You mean to say that California couldn’t come up with $200,000 for tattoo removal on its own when the state already wastes millions…no, make that billions on liberal programs? I bet that if California sold just four acres of Topanga State Park that it could come up with that money…or, is it okay if others pay for something that you think is good but not okay if it cuts into something that you enjoy?
I think that the idea of tattoo removal is good and makes economic sense, because it helps to transform idiots into productive taxpayers. The problem is who should pay for it. Why not your state, where these people live? And, didn’t Providence manage to get one without taxpayer money? Hmmm…maybe FOX has a point about it being a waste of federal tax money. Now, in the future, can we have a less expensive program to inform and encourage future idiots not to get tattoos in the first place?
P.S. Admit it, Celeste. I bet in your time of working with gangs that you got a small rose tattooed on your body somewhere. Do you need it removed?
Why, here’s how $200,000, that could be used for tattoo removal, was wasted by Chicago. Maybe this woman didn’t know that Obama’s community organizations didn’t see this as a problem to cure.
Well, there’s $200,000 down the can. Who knew that the government would defend child abuse…and, who knew that it was a “black thing.” This also might explain why a certain culture has a disproportionate percentage of kids who grow up with a violence mentality.
I wonder how many kids in L.A. grow up nuts because of their abusive upbringing…but, I know that liberals would prefer to be politically correct and not “offend” some others about this.
The formation of violent gang members with tattoos may start earlier than we think. That’s where a greater need exists.
So, it’s not only a matter of who pays, but of priorities.
Providence does great work in everything they do and this is a great program.
However, as worthy an aim as it is, its not a valid federal expense. It’s only $200K but multiply that by hundreds of Congress Members with thousands of requests and you get our budget mess.
It should not be hard to raise $200K from individuals or corporations. Any one of these big mouth Hollywood actors or talk show Republicans could pop a check.
Why must we always go to government to solve our problems when private industry and volunteer organizations almost always do better? (World War II and the space program excepted).
Woody, seems you’ve got it backwards, the court agreed that the woman had every right to report the abuse.
But you’re absolutely right about the connection between physical abuse in the family and later violence or dysfunction. Research indicates that the majority of incarcerated males in America were abused and/or severely neglected as children. But, obviously, there are multiple risk factors. Some who were abused also become upstanding citizens.
“The formation of violent gang members with tattoos may start earlier than we think. That’s where a greater need exists.” I don’t think it’s a greater need, but it’s certainly essential.
Everyone at this point who works in any way with the issues of gang violence reduction agrees that it must be approached from three directions: 1. Suppression—aka law enforcement. 2. Prevention, which is what you’re talking about. And 3. Intervention, which is just what it says. The tattoo removal program is one small aspect of an intervention strategy.
Gang violence is best viewed from a public health point of view, which means keeping people from getting the “disease,” whenever possible, and also providing the means to cure them if they do. If we do a good enough job at the prevention end, we’ll need less intervention. But we ain’t there yet.
Mayor Sam and Pokey, I agree we should get rid of the whole earmark structure. But as long as we do have it, this earmark is a very cost effective one.
Some of those rich folks on the right or the left should write checks for programs like this one. But right now we’re in such dire straights that Homeboy Industries could actually have to close its doors (it’s still living month to month. I just haven’t brought it up lately) because the private grant money situation is in such terrible shape.
Bernie Madoff alone took down giant nonprofits.
And speaking of crime and punishment, there’s a guy who needs to be locked up for-freaking-ever.
I’ve seen Holy Cross’ tattoo removal program in action on a Saturday morning and the lines are literally out the door. Sister June Wilkerson, who founded the program, is a saint in her own right. In this article from 2001, the job nexus was made – way before “stimulus package” ever entered the vernacular. http://tinyurl.com/b3aro7
Let’s add it up: it lets people get real jobs instead of them going out slinging crack or killing kids. It enables them not to boomerang back into gang life with huge social and literal costs to our society. To latch onto a paltry $200K when we’re looking at financial institutions getting billions – let’s put things in perspective, shall we?
Nicely done, Celeste.
OK – so we’re debating the merits of tattoo removal that is .000002% of the total budget. The whole earmarks debate is a diversion for the small minded… What is really more important is what is in the other 98% of the budget that NO ONE is talking about? Let’s get into a good discussion of $500 toilet seats and billion dollar airplanes, OK?
Celeste, I know that the Court ruled for the woman, as it awarded her exactly $200,000 OF TAXPAYER MONEY. If I make a mistake in business, I pay. If a government employee makes a mistake, I still pay. What’s wrong with this picture?
Celeste, do you have a rose tattoo? Inquiring minds want to know.
It’s a great fad these days to bash earmarks.
But many earmarks are valid expenses – it’s just a way of designating what the money is to be spent on.
A less honorable, but inevitable, use of earmarks is for political horse trading – I’ll vote for your bill if you vote for my earmark.
Then there’s earmarks for pure corruption and pure idiocy.
For many years, Democrat Senator Proxmire would award the “Golden Fleece” award for government spending that sounded really dumb – a study on the sex life of prairie voles, or something. Most of the projects he singled out were valid. Many earmarks are likewise appropriate (and many are really wrong).
It doesn’t matter how “wonderful” the program is. Maybe it’s “wonderful” to remove tatoos, but should all of America be paying for it? That’s the problem!