Archive for Welfare

That Didn’t Take Long

Give me your tired, your poor—and they won’t be either no more!

Under President Obama’s new program to protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, many of those affected will be eligible to receive Social Security, Medicare and a wide array of other federal benefits, a White House official said Tuesday.

“A wide array of federal benefits”? How wide are we talking about?

Federal law says that people who pay the taxes and are deemed “lawfully present in the United States” can collect benefits under those programs when they become eligible. They may also receive survivor and disability benefits.

“If they pay in, they can draw,” White House spokesman Shawn Turner said by e-mail.

Turner noted, however, that the estimated 5 million immigrants granted protection from deportation will not be eligible for other federal benefits such as student financial aid, food stamps or housing subsidies. Nor are they eligible to purchase health insurance through the federal health-care exchange under the Affordable Care Act.

Yet.

The article actually doesn’t mention even a narrow array of benefits available to the “shadow people”, so I wonder of the author wasn’t betraying a cynicism (I might say honesty) akin to my own. How long before Chuck Schumer moans from well of the Senate (so-called because he’s a drip and all wet) about the inequity suffered by these poor semi-documented Americans living in the chiaroscuro? How long after that do they get that wide array of benefits, up to and including free dental? (Teeth are a human right.)

I’m sure it has already occurred to others what has just occurred to me: how good a deal is this for criminal aliens? We know the number of foreign invaders dropped during the recession (sorry, Recession)—indeed some emigrated—so not all of them are here for mom and apple pie (though if the pie is free…). What’s in it for them for “getting right with the law”? What if the shadows are more profitable? Why pay into a system from which they may not stick around to collect? They may be wholly illegal and largely illiterate, but they ain’t stupid.

Comments

Come Out of the Shadows and Get Right With the Law

And pick up a check:

The illegals will get work-permits and Social Security cards, and will be required to pay taxes, according to Cecilia Munoz, the former immigration lobbyist who is now a top Obama aide.

That means they’re part of the tax system, she said, when she was asked if the illegals would get annual payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program.

“They are subject to our tax law,” she said, carefully.

Carefully, so she didn’t burst into laughter.

[O]nce illegal immigrants are enrolled in the tax system, they’re would be entitled to EITC payments

The payments may be huge, and will rise each year.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997.

A family with two kids, and an income of $20,000, would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone.

Parents who earn less than the threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child, and $5,460 if they have two children.

The EITC program is already poorly monitored and may be subject to large amounts of fraud, according to critics.

Another study says that 47 percent of legal and illegal immigrants and their children are classified as living in poverty or in near-poverty…

Not anymore.

You can take the peasants out of Guatemala, but you can’t take the Guatemala out of the peasants. Even in the land of milk and honey, it’s rice and beans.

But that’s all changed. Like most things Obama has done, it’s just another voter registration drive. I was a loyal Democrat voter for 26 years. Where’s mine?

“Get right with the law.” He’s one to talk.

Comments (1)

He’s a Two-Time Loser!

The food stamp president is also the homeless president!

The number of homeless children in the United States has surged in recent years to an all-time high, amounting to one child in every 30, according to a comprehensive state-by-state report that blames the nation’s high poverty rate, the lack of affordable housing and the effects of pervasive domestic violence.

Titled “America’s Youngest Outcasts,” the report being issued Monday by the National Center on Family Homelessness calculates that nearly 2.5 million American children were homeless at some point in 2013. The number is based on the Education Department’s latest count of 1.3 million homeless children in public schools, supplemented by estimates of homeless preschool children not counted by the agency.

The problem is particularly severe in California, which has about one-eighth of the U.S. population but accounts for more than one-fifth of the homeless children, totaling nearly 527,000.

Follow my line of thinking: California has lots of illegal aliens; California has lots of homeless children; Obama wants to let in (has already let in) thousands more illegal (hence homeless) children.

I can never remember—is he Dumb or Dumber?

But there is good news!

After soaring in the years since the recession, use of food stamps, one of the federal government’s biggest social-welfare programs, is beginning to decline.

There were 46.2 million Americans on food stamps in May, the latest data available, down 1.6 million from a record 47.8 million in December 2012. Some 14.8% of the U.S. population is on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, down from 15.3% last August, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show.

Okay, it’s not that good:

Food-stamp use remains high, historically speaking. The share of Americans on the benefit—which lets them buy basics like cereal and meat and treats like cookies, but not tobacco, alcohol or pet food—is above the 8% to 11% that prevailed before the financial crisis.

Back to the homeless kids:

Child homelessness increased by 8 percent nationally from 2012 to 2013, according to the report, which warned of potentially devastating effects on children’s educational, emotional and social development, as well as on their parents’ health, employment prospects and parenting abilities.

That was during years three and four of the “recovery”. And after nearly a trillion dollars in “stimulus”. Almost six years of Obamanomics, fifty years of the so-called Great Society—anybody want to try something different? Maybe Reaganomics? Again? Or do you want to double-down on Elizabeth Warren?

The only downside of the burgeoning reporting (better late than never) of Obama’s corruption is that it overshadows the reporting (or lack thereof) of his incompetence.

Comments

Welfare Fraud: A Tautology

You can defraud some of the people all of time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t defraud all of the people all of the time.

Or can you?

Food stamp recipients were selling their benefits online in exchange for money, housing or even art, according to a report federal investigators released Thursday that showed states manage to catch just a fraction of potential fraud in the sprawling program.

Use of the food stamps, now officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has skyrocketed under President Obama, reaching 47 million recipients at a cost of $76 billion last year. But states recovered just $74 million in fraudulent payments the previous year, according to the Government Accountability Office.

GAO investigators reviewed records from 11 states and found they lacked sufficient staff and tools to catch fraud in the ballooning program.

“Such rapid program growth can increase the potential for fraud unless appropriate agency controls are in place to help minimize these risks,” the investigators said in their report.

The most egregious examples of government waste, fraud or abuse from TWT … more >
In one online posting from Jacksonville, Florida, someone was asking for $100 cash in exchange for $228 in food stamps. One ad from Raleigh, North Carolina, offered 10 days of cooking and cleaning services in exchange for food stamps. A Charlotte, North Carolina, poster said he would trade food stamps for beer, and a Houston ad proposed exchanging food stamps for a catalytic converter.

Then there was the Worcester, Massachusetts, advertisement proposing up to $3,000 in electronic benefit food stamp transfers in exchange for art.

Investigators said most states surveyed reported that their employees were overloaded with recipients. In Massachusetts, just 37 investigators were responsible for monitoring almost 500,000 SNAP recipients. State investigators were also responsible for pursuing fraud in other federal programs such as Medicaid.

One analyst said a lack of employees in the program is no excuse.

“The issue of fraud in food stamps is more than just understaffing for Food and Nutrition Services,” Nicole Kaeding, a budget analyst with the Cato Institute, told The Times. “According to the Department of Agriculture, improper claims amount to 3.4 percent. That’s almost $3 billion of taxpayer money that is wasted annually on fraud and abuse.”

Three billion dollars of fraud may sound like a lot of stolen money, but it’s only four cents out of every dollar. You’d forget it like lint in your pocket.

But the feds recover only $74 million out of that $3 billion, barely two cents out of every thieved dollar. Put another way, the fraudsters get away with almost 98% of their deceit. That’s not a bad investment.

That’s the way it is with Big Government. For every deserving mouth you may feed, there are scores of slobbering lips sucking at the teat of the bedraggled taxpayer.

Remember the story of fraud with ObamaCare?

According to the findings of an investigation conducted by the Government Accountability Office which were presented to Congress on Wednesday, some of those taxpayer-funded subsidies are not merely legally problematic but are also subject to extensive fraud.

The GAO found that 11 of 12 applications for federal assistance while applying for insurance provided through the ACA using “fictitious identities” were accepted.

As pathetic as that record is, it’s four times better than the welfare cheats.

PS: It’s not that hard to catch the cheats when they advertise. How many more rely on word of mouth?

Last night’s snowstorm postponed the snow job that is Deval Patrick’s State of the State address. But don’t worry, I can sum up the State of the State in three words: Kelly Jean Gagnon.

Age 37, she was arrested in Taunton last week and charged with possession of 19 grams of heroin.

And 13 EBT cards. That’s right, 13 EBT cards.

So governor, how’s that crackdown on welfare fraud coming along?

Comments

Out, the 99%; In, the 35.4%

Nice lack of work, if you can get it:

109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded “means-tested programs” — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau has not yet reported how many were on welfare in 2013 or the first two quarters of 2014.

But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.

Oh, and by way of comparison:

In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States (including 16,606,000 full-time year-round government workers). Thus, the welfare-takers outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000.

Another point of comparison:

In the fourth quarter of 2008, when President Obama was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After four years, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that had grown by 13,434,000.

Let’s do a little cipherin’ as Jethro used to say on the Beverly Hillbillies. Obama took office during the worst recession in recent memory, but not an overly long one: the economy started growing again in early-to-mid 2009. Even so, the welfare rolls swelled by more than the population of Illinois (or the nation of Chad). Meanwhile, more people receive welfare than pay for it—by six-and-a-half million.

And if one includes all social spending (SocSec, Medicare), but excludes veteran benefits, nearly half the country (48.5%) receives a check from the gummint every month. Hard to win elections on the motto of limited government against that demographic.

PS: The economy has continued to grow—if you can call it that—since the end of 2012. How many of you think people have left welfare and gone back to work over the last year and a half? Me neither.

Comments

Anniversary Season

There’s an old saying among unionized workers: “don’t kill the job”. It means don’t work too efficiently or quickly, make it last.

That seems to be the belief liberals have toward their politics. Don’t celebrate achievement; lament how far we have to go:

It was supposed to have been a slow news day. Reporters covering the Supreme Court had been told not to expect very much on Monday, May 17, 1954, when the court’s press officer shifted signals. “Reading of the segregation decisions is about to begin in the courtroom,” said Banning E. Whittington, while putting on his coat and leading a pack of journalists up a flight of marble steps into the chamber, and into history, according to The New York Times.

It was 1 p.m. when newly confirmed Chief Justice Earl Warren began to read the opinion of the court in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. The key sentence was unpoetic, but it belongs in American scripture as surely as any words of Jefferson’s or Lincoln’s do: “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” With these words the American Revolution that had begun in the aftermath of the French and Indian War on the North American continent in the latter half of the 18th century entered a new and dazzling phase.

Awesome, right? High fives all around.

Not so much:

The 1954 decision was epochal—but it was only the beginning. The following year the court returned with an enforcement decision to make clear that it was quite serious about ending the segregationist order made possible by Plessy v. Ferguson. And as we all know, the work of making the promise of equal opportunity real for all Americans is not over even now. That’s worth remembering on even the slowest of news days.

It’s real under law, but perhaps not in reality, I suppose. But can we not see—and celebrate—how far we’ve come? Donald Sterling’s leaked private comments would have been commonplace 60 years ago; today he’s a leper (no aspersions meant toward the leprotic community). The hick sheriff who called Obama the N-word is a pariah; 60 years ago, his role was played by Bull Connor (a Democrat, btw). In Bill Clinton’s immortal words, a few years ago, Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States, “would have been getting us coffee.”

Then there are the anniversaries less worthy of celebration:

Fifty years ago this Thursday, at the University of Michigan, Johnson had proposed legislating into existence a Great Society. It would end poverty and racial injustice, “but that is just the beginning.” It would “rebuild the entire urban United States” while fending off “boredom and restlessness,” slaking “the hunger for community” and enhancing “the meaning of our lives” — all by assembling “the best thought and the broadest knowledge.”

How’s that working out?

Between 1959 and 1966 — before the War on Poverty was implemented — the percentage of Americans living in poverty plunged by about one-third, from 22.4 to 14.7, slightly lower than in 2012.

You think that’s bad, hold on to your hats:

But these anti-poverty policies have been, Eberstadt says carefully, “attended” by the dramatic spread of a “tangle of pathologies.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined that phrase in his 1965 report calling attention to family disintegration among African-Americans. The tangle, which now ensnares all races and ethnicities, includes welfare dependency and “flight from work.”

Twenty-nine percent of Americans — about 47 percent of blacks and 48 percent of Hispanics — live in households receiving means-tested benefits. And “the proportion of men 20 and older who are employed has dramatically and almost steadily dropped since the start of the War on Poverty, falling from 80.6 percent in January 1964 to 67.6 percent 50 years later.” For every adult man ages 20 to 64 who is between jobs and looking for work, more than three are neither working nor seeking work, a trend that began with the Great Society. And what Eberstadt calls “the earthquake that shook family structure in the era of expansive anti-poverty policies” has seen out-of-wedlock births increase from 7.7 percent in 1965 to more than 40 percent in 2012, including 72 percent of black babies.

LBJ’s starkly bifurcated legacy includes the triumphant Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 — and the tragic aftermath of much of his other works. Eberstadt asks: Is it “simply a coincidence” that male flight from work and family breakdown have coincided with Great Society policies, and that dependence on government is more widespread and perhaps more habitual than ever?

I think we can say objectively that racism has been stigmatized in American society, while poverty (however it is defined) has gotten, if anything, worse. Yet the Left would have you believe we are still a racist society, and the War on Poverty was a just war.

Ass-backwards, as usual.

Comments (1)

It’s Lackluster!™

President Obama is an expert at declaring victory and going home. Never mind the blood spilling through the streets of Kabul and Baghdad and Damascus, our work there is done. Domestically, he has officially declared the debate over ObamaCare at an end.

Can we declare victory in the War on Poverty and go home?

McDowell County, the poorest in West Virginia, has been emblematic of entrenched American poverty for more than a half-century. John F. Kennedy campaigned here in 1960 and was so appalled that he promised to send help if elected president. His first executive order created the modern food stamp program, whose first recipients were McDowell County residents. When President Lyndon B. Johnson declared “unconditional war on poverty” in 1964, it was the squalor of Appalachia he had in mind. The federal programs that followed — Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunches and others — lifted tens of thousands above a subsistence standard of living.

But a half-century later, with the poverty rate again on the rise, hardship seems merely to have taken on a new face in McDowell County. The economy is declining along with the coal industry, towns are hollowed out as people flee, and communities are scarred by family dissolution, prescription drug abuse and a high rate of imprisonment.

Fifty years after the war on poverty began, its anniversary is being observed with academic conferences and ideological sparring — often focused, explicitly or implicitly, on the “culture” of poor urban residents. Almost forgotten is how many ways poverty plays out in America, and how much long-term poverty is a rural problem.

Of the 353 most persistently poor counties in the United States — defined by Washington as having had a poverty rate above 20 percent in each of the past three decades — 85 percent are rural. They are clustered in distinct regions: Indian reservations in the West; Hispanic communities in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas; a band across the Deep South and along the Mississippi Delta with a majority black population; and Appalachia, largely white, which has supplied some of America’s iconic imagery of rural poverty since the Depression-era photos of Walker Evans.

McDowell County is in some ways a place truly left behind, from which the educated few have fled, leaving almost no shreds of prosperity. But in a nation with more than 46 million people living below the poverty line — 15 percent of the population — it is also a sobering reminder of how much remains broken, in drearily familiar ways and utterly unexpected ones, 50 years on.

God, how depressing.

You ain’t read nothing yet:

Fifty years ago today [January 8, 2014], President Lyndon Johnson delivered his first State of the Union address, promising an “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Looking at the wreckage since, it’s not hard to conclude that poverty won.

If we are losing the War on Poverty, it certainly isn’t for lack of effort.

In 2012, the federal government spent $668 billion to fund 126 separate anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in another $284 billion, bringing total anti-poverty spending to nearly $1 trillion. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

Spending on the major anti-poverty programs increased in 2013, pushing the total even higher.

Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.

Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent.

Why?

The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable – giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, etc. – rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. As a result, we have been successful in reducing the worst privations of poverty. Few Americans live with out the basic necessities of life, yet neither do they rise out of poverty. Moreover, their children are also likely to be poor.

Hard to argue with the facts.

Such as:

The National Bureau of Economic Research, the semiofficial arbiter of business cycles, judges that the U.S. economy began expanding again in June 2009, just over 58 months ago. That means the current stretch of growth, in terms of duration, is poised to drift past the average for post-World War II recoveries.

Yet after almost five years, the recovery is proving to be one of the most lackluster in modern times. The nation’s 6.7% jobless rate is the highest on record at this stage of recent expansions. Gross domestic product has grown 1.8% a year on average since the recession, half the pace of the previous three expansions.

But there is one flicker of good news:

“Perhaps the very fact we’ve been growing slower means we haven’t burnt out all the fuel,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan Chase. “By a lot of metrics, the expansion still has quite a bit of room to run.”

Federal Reserve officials forecast growth at least through 2016, which would make the expansion the fourth longest since the Civil War, according to NBER.

Put simply, a sucky recovery is a long recovery, perhaps even the longest. Congratulations Obama, you’re the world’s tallest dwarf.

Comments

So Much Owed to So Many by So Few

In the few remaining minutes we can even remotely trust anything from the Census Bureau…

Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.

Of the 103,087,000 full-time, year-round workers, 16,606,000 worked for the government. That included 12,597,000 who worked for state and local government and 4,009,000 who worked for the federal government.

Why does he single out private sector workers? Don’t public sector workers work too (after a fashion)? Maybe so, but they are paid by the taxes of the 86 million private sector workers.

Which gets to his point:

At first glance, 86,429,000 might seem like a healthy population of full-time private-sector workers. But then you need to look at what they are up against.

The Census Bureau also estimates the size of the benefit-receiving population.

This population, too, falls into two broad categories. The first includes those who receive benefits for public services they performed or in exchange for payroll taxes they dutifully paid their entire working lives. Among these, for example, are those receiving veteran’s benefits, those on unemployment and those getting Medicare and Social Security.

The second category includes those who get “means-tested” government benefits — or welfare. These include, for example, those who get Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Women, Infants Children.

There were 108,592,000 million people in the fourth quarter of 2011 who lived in a household that included people on “one or more means-tested program.”

Those 108,592,000 outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private-sector workers who inhabited the United States in 2012 by almost 1.3 to 1.

This brings us to the first category of benefit receivers. There were 49,901,000 people receiving Social Security in the fourth quarter of 2011, and 46,440,000 receiving Medicare. There were also 5,098,000 getting unemployment compensation.

And there were also, 3,178,000 veteran receiving benefits and 34,000 veterans getting educational assistance.

All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who “received benefits from one or more programs” in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

Baby boomers are starting to retire. Each former worker who starts to collect benefits represents a two-person swing. (If ten people work to support ten beneficiaries, and one retires, the difference is now two, nine to eleven.)

One can make a moral case against this (it’s unfair and improper for a nation of 320 million people to be supported by barely a quarter of the population). But one doesn’t need to resort to moral arguments (fear not, liberals). Who thinks this is sustainable? When does the precarious balance come crashing down? Always sooner than you think is the answer.

And only Mark Steyn will be laughing as he cashes his royalty checks.

Comments

What, Really, is the Point?

We barely notice Tom Friedman anymore, much less quote him. The other sages of the Times op-ed page, Kristof, Dowd, et al appear here more rarely still, if at all. The page has shrunk itself to insignificance.

About the only one who anyone notices these days is Paul Krugman. And that’s only because…

Well, have a look:

Yesterday, New York Times columnist and CUNY economics professor Paul Krugman had some very strong words about the position in Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s new poverty report that American welfare programs discourage work and “actually reduce opportunity, creating a poverty trap.” In fact, after contrasting the Ryan report’s view on poverty traps with some data on inequality and welfare states, Krugman resoundingly concluded that Ryan’s ideas were a total sham:

So the whole poverty trap line is a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy; the alleged facts about incentive effects are mostly wrong, and in any case the entire premise that work effort = social mobility is wrong.

Despite Krugman’s strong conclusions, however, Ryan’s views about US welfare policies and poverty traps are actually pretty mainstream – cited by people across the political spectrum as a big reason to reform state federal poverty programs. In fact, a New York Times columnist and Princeton economics professor expressed these widely-held views on the Old Grey Lady’s pages a mere two months ago:

But our patchwork, uncoordinated system of antipoverty programs does have the effect of penalizing efforts by lower-income households to improve their position: the more they earn, the fewer benefits they can collect. In effect, these households face very high marginal tax rates. A large fraction, in some cases 80 cents or more, of each additional dollar they earn is clawed back by the government.”

Even more, the Ryan report’s “poverty trap” analysis is based on the work of the Urban Institute’s Gene Steuerle’s (see p. 7 of the Ryan report), on whom the very same Princeton professor once wrote:

[I]t’s actually a well-documented fact that effective marginal rates are highest, not on the superrich, but on workers toward the lower end of the scale. Why? Partly because of the payroll tax, but largely because of means-tested benefits that fade out as your income rises. Here’s a recent discussion by Eugene Steuerle…

That professor, if you haven’t already guessed, was none other than Paul Krugman.

That could be called mailing it in, but he isn’t even licking the stamp. To have an intellectual debate, you need an intellect. This discussion is a waste of time. Krugman evidently did as much to earn his Nobel Prize in Economics as Barack Obama did for his in Peace.

Comments

Breaking News From the Welfare State

A post not about the stinking pile of poo that is ObamaCare—for once.

No food stamps for fun bags:

New York State Senators have voted to ban the withdrawal of EBT funds in casinos, liquor stores and strip clubs after a passionate debate Tuesday in Albany.

Those caught using their public assistance for any of the above circumstances more than three times will have it revoked for a lifetime, according to the proposed act.

It seems like common sense, doesn’t it? The state senators certainly thought so. Here’s part of Republican Sen. William J. Larkin, Jr.’s plea urging for responsibility and accountability among those using federal assistance:

“It is not ‘their money’! It’s the money of the taxpayers. […] Those who take this and abuse it, don’t deserve to get it […] “Why should I pay for someone to go to a nightclub or strip club. You wanna do that, find your own money. Don’t use mine or my constituents tax dollars.”

Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed reforms of his own in his 2014-2015 executive budget. His version, however, would not punish people on public assistance based on what they buy and the penalties he’s proposing are less severe.

As New York goes, so goes Maine:

The data released by the governor show more than 3,000 transactions from Jan. 1, 2011, through Nov. 15, 2013, at smoke shops, and more than 650 transactions at bars, sports pubs and strip clubs. Those transactions include purchases at the check-out counter and withdrawals from on-premises ATMs. The state does not track what is purchased in EBT transactions.

“This information is eye-opening and indicates a larger problem than initially thought,” LePage wrote in the release. “These benefits are supposed to help families, children and our most vulnerable Mainers. Instead, we have discovered welfare benefits are paying for alcohol, cigarettes and other things that hardworking taxpayers should not be footing the bill for.”

We’ve been going through the same nonsense here—worse:

A Granite Street woman was charged with drug trafficking Thursday afternoon after police said they recovered nearly 19 grams of heroin stuffed into her bra.

Police said 37-year-old Kelly Jean Gagnon also had 13 Massachusetts EBT food stamp cards and 13 Suboxone pills, which are prescribed to counter heroin addiction, stashed away in her first-floor apartment at 11 Granite St.

Electronic Benefits Transfer cards are commonly used by drug users and dealers in lieu of cash, according to police.

Really?

A Dorchester man accused of selling crack cocaine door to door had 22 packets of the drug in his underwear and a $200 EBT card he bought from another man when he was busted, police report.

Kelvin Barrow, 29, drove in a vehicle registered in Maryland to three separate locations in Dorchester and Mattapan Thursday night, conducting what police allege was “a drug delivery service.”

He was pulled over for driving with a suspended license. Later, cops report, they also found drugs and the EBT card on him. Barrow told police that he purchased the card from another man for $100, according to the police report.

Different strokes for different folks:

After recently legalizing marijuana in the state of Colorado, many people became upset over rumors that shops that sell medical and recreational marijuana would be allowed to have EBT-ready ATM machines, which would allow welfare recipients to get cash for their purchases. Recently, legislation approved the use of EBT benefits at marijuana shops.

State Senator Vicki Marble does not support improper use of government welfare funds being available to support recreational marijuana usage. Republican supporters have tried to add strip clubs and marijuana shops to a list of establishments that do not allow EBT cash withdrawals.

Republicans. The party of buzz-kills.

Comments

Weed is the New Welfare

Those of us lucky enough to have Howie Carr on radio (New England, and pockets of the country elsewhere), heard about welfare abuse in Maine yesterday.

It sure sounded like welfare abuse in Massachusetts, maybe with a Down East accent:

They were at smoke shop ATMs when they used their welfare cards to withdraw cash. At race tracks. At tattoo parlors. Even at Disney World-area resorts in Lake Buena Vista, Fla.

One example after another of apparent spending by Maine’s welfare recipients was contained in data released by the state last week.

Lawmakers immediately called it misuse. Abuse. Fraud.

But it can also be called something else: completely legal.

You might be surprised to learn that thus begins a defense.

[U]nder the rules, recipients are still allowed to buy whatever they want elsewhere, even if what they buy elsewhere is the same thing they would have bought in one of the prohibited places, including alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets.

In fact, a brochure for TANF recipients and the website that recipients use to access their accounts both make one thing clear: “Any item may be purchased using your cash benefit account.”

It’s an allowance that has been around as long as the TANF program itself.

What made the Howie Carr show different is that he talked not to a Maine MSM hack, but a conservative journalist who actually did the reporting.

Among his stories:

Maine Welfare Cash Spent in All 50 States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands…

Maine Welfare Cash Spent at Liquor Stores, Bars, Strip Clubs and Smoke Shops

Maine EBT Cards Used at Bowling Alleys, Tattoo Parlor, Pet Store…

Welfare Jackpot: Gambling with TANF Cash…

Welfare Cash Spent at Funtown Splashtown, Aquaboggan…

But entirely legal!

And you think Maine is bad?

An interesting debate in Colorado concerning marijuana shops was just resolved in a way that goes against what the owners of pot stores wanted. Colorado’s Republican legislators proposed to add stores that sell recreational or medical marijuana to the list of places where recipients of public assistance couldn’t use their EBT cards at ATMs.

Democrats on the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee voted along party lines to allow the use of public assistance cards on ATMs in pot shops. Their reasoning is that many neighborhoods are “banking deserts” with few bank outlets and few ATMs. State Senator Irene Aguilar (D-Denver) explained, “I’m not comfortable limiting that access until I’m certain we’ve done that due diligence to make sure people can access their benefits when they need to.”

Because who doesn’t go to a head shop to do their banking?

Comments (1)

Obamavilles Springing Up All Over

Doing to American health care what he’s already done to American prosperity:

An alternative way of measuring poverty shows that nearly 2.8 million more people are struggling across the country than officially calculated, the U.S. Census Bureau reports – and California has by far the biggest share of people in poverty, eclipsing states such as Mississippi and Louisiana.

The alternative yardstick, known as the supplemental poverty measure, is different from the official poverty rate in a few key ways: It takes tax credits and other government benefits into account. It also counts necessary expenses such as child care and out-of-pocket medical costs.

In addition, it considers the different costs of housing from state to state. That makes a big difference in California, where the broader measure counts more than 8.9 million people living in poverty between 2010 and 2012 — far higher than the 6.2 million tallied the official way.

The alternative measure found that 16% of Americans, nearly 50 million, are living in poverty, versus the 15.1%, or roughly 47 million officially counted.

Here, BTL is torn. His first instinct is to tease Obama and the Democrats (especially California Democrats) for their historic levels of poverty despite years in office. (Fox Butterfield, is that you?)

But his second instinct is to observe that this ain’t your granpappy’s poverty:

According to data contained in Census Bureau charts “Extended Measures of Well-being: Living Conditions in the United States, 2011” in 2011, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty line own a cell phone and 54.9 percent own a landline phone.

More than 96 percent of households below the poverty line owned a television and 83.2 percent owned a videocassette recorder (VCR).

Air conditioning cooled 83.4 percent of households with incomes below the poverty line and microwaves and stoves heated the food of 93.2 percent and 96.2 percent respectively.

Nearly 98 percent of such households owned a refrigerator, but just 26.2 percent owned a food freezer and 44.9 percent owned a dishwasher.

Additionally, 68.7 percent of households in poverty owned a clothes washer and 65.3 owned clothes dryer.

Those poor people—having to own a VCR! Consigned forever to watch reruns of “Who’s the Boss?”

Now, I won’t say that the lifestyle of welfare recipients could be confused with that of Bill Gates or George Soros. But they do sound better off—way better off—than many recent college graduates.

Does it sound right to you that almost one in every six Americans lives in poverty? It does not to me. Either I’m wrong, or the definition of poverty is wrong.

Even the Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature is looking twice:

The Massachusetts House today will take up a welfare reform bill that, at long last, may actually constitute real reform.

The bill, House 3737, follows the contours of a Senate measure that won passage earlier this year, and requires most recipients to at least look for work, while also implementing several anti-fraud measures, including photo identification on benefit cards, requiring Social Security numbers, and calling for state workers to check on the status of accounts with high balances, those with undeliverable addresses, and those that have not been accessed for a long period of time.

At the heart of the legislation is the creation of a “pathways to self-sufficiency program” which will be mandatory for all able-bodied welfare recipients age 18 and older who are not in school full-time or already participating in an education or training activity.

[T]he bill would require case reviews for those with benefit balances of $1,500 or more, and allow the state to recoup balances in excess of $2,500.

The emergence of substantive legislation on welfare reform follows abundant evidence that Massachusetts’ system is riddled with deficiencies that have cost taxpayers millions of dollars in fraud.

You could call them on their cell phones to make your enquiries; and if their washing machines or microwaves are too loud, you could email their computers.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »