So, the obvious rebuttal to my last posting might be something relating to there being laws about fraud or some kind of enforcement or regulation, etc.
Let me tell you a bit about SB 5327 that was passed this year in Washington State. If you want to read all about it you can go to the info on the state legislature website, but generally it limits use of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards at places deemed to be reasonable exclusions, such as businesses specializing in adult entertainment, gambling, and the like. Sounds like the legislature is really looking out for the taxpayers, right? Well, what they don't publicize is that the state employees who suggested this to the legislature also suggested they limit use of EBT cards at ATMs, because if a person can't use their EBT card like a debit or credit card to pay for their tab at the strip club the way they can at the grocery store, but they can use the ATM at the door to get cash... well, do you see where that's going? But the legislature didn't bother with that part. So, if you're a legislator who wants to stop people from using government benefits funded by your taxpaying constituents for illegal activity, well, you just left a loophole big enough for everyone to walk right through. If, on the other hand, you're a legislator who wants to make it look like you're putting in place sound anti-fraud policies, while effectively doing very little to offend the persons committing the fraud you are supposedly fighting, then you have succeeded quite nicely.
Now, I recognize that some people reading this who identify themselves as "compassionate liberals" and classify those other kind of people who point out opportunities to commit welfare fraud as "heartless conservatives bent on the destruction of all that is good" assume that people who carry around EBT cards are in desperate need and use their benefits for essentials that aren't covered by food stamps like toothpaste. To these people, I apologize for the writers of the memos about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy; apparently, they forgot to send you this one: not all those who are referred to by politicians as "our most vulnerable citizens" are as honorably needy as you think... Sure, there are victims of abuse who need support, there are victims of the recession who need some help getting back on their feet and making ends meet, there are people with developmental disabilities, children in foster care, people with substance abuse problems, and children of parents with substance abuse problems. I believe there are a lot more people in such circumstances now than there have been at any other time, as least so far in my lifetime. But, to pretend that fraud doesn't happen, or that it doesn't happen enough to be concerned with... well that is just plain stupid.
I participated in a conference call a few weeks ago that was with regard to the new Office of Fraud and Accountability, which isn't really new, it just has a new name and a new boss. I'm guessing their purpose is fairly obvious. I am not sure how detailed I can be in releasing information that was given to us, but just to be safe I won't be too specific and just say this: they have backlogs in fraud cases numbering in the thousands, some dating back to a year ago, and the number of employees to work these cases is in the teens. In the last couple years this particular group of employees has been cut by more than 80%. According to management they are hoping to increase their abilities through utilization of better computer techniques for detecting patterns of fraud, but it still seems to me that it might be helpful to have a few more employees dedicated to this function.
Not that there haven't been some successes in limiting fraud. There was a flurry of excitement when one of my coworkers saw a story in the newspaper about federal raids that shut down businesses participating in welfare fraud. Unfortunately, as this story and follow-up stories acknowledge, the individuals trading in their food benefits for cash to buy drugs and other illegal items will probably just go somewhere else. The story said that in one year alone the two stores that were shut down cashed out $2 million in food benefits at 50 cents on the dollar.
If you're like me, your next question is, what happened to all the people who illegally traded in all those benefits? Well, generally, probably nothing. However, the fraud investigator who works at my office was exultantly telling anyone who would listen about a big break with one individual. Let us say, for example, that this client used most of their benefits in the area where they lived, but then on one occasion happened to make a purchase using their card at one of the stores that was raided. Let us also suppose that this store was hours away from their home and that their purchase was a surprisingly round number. It could be that this person would deny that they have ever used benefits illegally. They may, if pressed, admit that they have used benefits illegally in ways other than cashing them out at this particular store, but of course they have good reasons and didn't know it wasn't allowed and won't do it again. Then perhaps this person was told that the store was under surveillance, and asked what might be seen on that video? At which point, the individual's demeanor may have changed. They may have also been presented with an internet printout of a social networking site where the individual advertised sale of their benefits card. At this point, the person may or may not have agreed to sign a statement admitting their guilt in exchange for having their food benefits denied for 1 year. Wow! What a fabulous success it would be if something like that really happened. Stopping crime dead in its tracks...
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
20.5 million dollars... just a drop in the bucket...
As a State Employee, I try to pay a little bit of attention to the ongoing state budget issues. As are most government agencies, companies, and individuals, the State of Washington is struggling financially and is trying to figure out how to make ends meet. Here is a link to the Office of Financial Management's Budget Reduction Alternatives.
Two of the many proposed cuts are the State's programs that provide welfare and food stamp benefits to people who do not qualify for the federal versions of the same programs "due to lack of documentation of citizenship". It is estimated that elimination of these two programs would save the state $20.5 million dollars during one biennial budget cycle. Also, it should be noted that adult persons who do not have documentation of citizenship can still receive benefits on behalf of minors in their household who are citizens.
So, take for example an undocumented single mom with 3 documented children who works 20 hours a week at minimum wage... in Washington the minimum wage is $8.67 per hour, so she makes an average of $751.40 per month gross. Not enough to raise 3 kids, right? Especially if your rent is, say, $800/month. Well, with that income and rent you could get $668 in food stamps for 4 people, and if you reduce due to the rule change to the amount for just the three kids it would be $526. (If you want you can try out the online calculator here). Technically, of course, if the mom or anyone else other than those 3 children eats any of the food she buys with that $526 she is breaking the law, but that's just a technicality, right? Also, any children in public school would automatically be enrolled in the school lunch program. Furthermore, there isn't an online calculator, but with income that low and that many kids I bet you she qualifies to get cash benefits for her kids too. And bundled with cash benefits is medical coverage for the kids, plus eligibility for cash assistance opens the door to a variety of other programs including things like subsidized childcare while she is working, Section 8 housing, even a new program that provides recipients of state benefits with free cell phones and 250 free minutes per month through Assurance Wireless.
Also, perhaps you should consider that this scenario assumes that our single mom has voluntarily provided information about her job and proof of her income. If she has no social security number there may be no way to trace her income otherwise, and if she chooses not to report her income her benefits would be calculated assuming a zero income. (If you can't guess, that means they go up...) This scenario also assumes that she has truthfully declared her living situation and that she is a single mom. If she lives in a home owned by relatives or friends and pays no rent, but they write a statement saying that she does her benefit is increased to adjust for her supposed housing costs. You see, the common definition of "homeless" here at the "welfare office" is not that you actually sleep on the sidewalk at night, or under a bridge, or in a tent city, but rather that your name is not on the lease or the deed to the place where you live.* It also helps if you use a PO box and don't give the USPS your home address. Furthermore, if the father of her children also has no social security number, it may be impossible to prove that he is or ever has been in this country, let alone that he lives with her and their children, or that he works under the table framing houses, as a painter, or as a farm worker in Yakima where the going rate for cherry pickers was $15/hour this summer... And, of course, people who work under the table, whether they are citizens of our country or not, don't pay taxes on any of the money they are earning, which means they aren't "paying into the pot" from which government benefits are funded.
As a disclaimer, I'm not racist, nor to I have a grudge against immigrants. What I do find upsetting is people who cheat the system and commit fraud. That goes for people of all races, nationalities, etc. But, it does make it a bit easier to stay "under the radar" and "off the books" when you were never "on the books" to begin with...
You may think that the types of fraud that I have hinted at above are a bit far-fetched, but in the course of my job I see examples of these kinds of fraud many times a day. I am not even an employee of the Community Services Division which actually administers these programs. I work for a separate division, but there is some overlap in our clientele and our programs affect each other enough that clients tell us a completely different story, and we have to figure out how to deal with it...
* I was told a few weeks ago by a fellow state employee that over the multiple decades she has been a government employee, she only ever had one client who claimed to be homeless that she believed actually fit the traditional street/bridge/tent definition of homelessness. On the flipside, I have seen people walk into the state office where I work and apply for benefits, and then drive off in a Mercedes or a Hummer. Of course, for some benefits only reported income is a factor, not assets like a vehicle, or, say $20.5 million dollars in a retirement account...
Two of the many proposed cuts are the State's programs that provide welfare and food stamp benefits to people who do not qualify for the federal versions of the same programs "due to lack of documentation of citizenship". It is estimated that elimination of these two programs would save the state $20.5 million dollars during one biennial budget cycle. Also, it should be noted that adult persons who do not have documentation of citizenship can still receive benefits on behalf of minors in their household who are citizens.
So, take for example an undocumented single mom with 3 documented children who works 20 hours a week at minimum wage... in Washington the minimum wage is $8.67 per hour, so she makes an average of $751.40 per month gross. Not enough to raise 3 kids, right? Especially if your rent is, say, $800/month. Well, with that income and rent you could get $668 in food stamps for 4 people, and if you reduce due to the rule change to the amount for just the three kids it would be $526. (If you want you can try out the online calculator here). Technically, of course, if the mom or anyone else other than those 3 children eats any of the food she buys with that $526 she is breaking the law, but that's just a technicality, right? Also, any children in public school would automatically be enrolled in the school lunch program. Furthermore, there isn't an online calculator, but with income that low and that many kids I bet you she qualifies to get cash benefits for her kids too. And bundled with cash benefits is medical coverage for the kids, plus eligibility for cash assistance opens the door to a variety of other programs including things like subsidized childcare while she is working, Section 8 housing, even a new program that provides recipients of state benefits with free cell phones and 250 free minutes per month through Assurance Wireless.
Also, perhaps you should consider that this scenario assumes that our single mom has voluntarily provided information about her job and proof of her income. If she has no social security number there may be no way to trace her income otherwise, and if she chooses not to report her income her benefits would be calculated assuming a zero income. (If you can't guess, that means they go up...) This scenario also assumes that she has truthfully declared her living situation and that she is a single mom. If she lives in a home owned by relatives or friends and pays no rent, but they write a statement saying that she does her benefit is increased to adjust for her supposed housing costs. You see, the common definition of "homeless" here at the "welfare office" is not that you actually sleep on the sidewalk at night, or under a bridge, or in a tent city, but rather that your name is not on the lease or the deed to the place where you live.* It also helps if you use a PO box and don't give the USPS your home address. Furthermore, if the father of her children also has no social security number, it may be impossible to prove that he is or ever has been in this country, let alone that he lives with her and their children, or that he works under the table framing houses, as a painter, or as a farm worker in Yakima where the going rate for cherry pickers was $15/hour this summer... And, of course, people who work under the table, whether they are citizens of our country or not, don't pay taxes on any of the money they are earning, which means they aren't "paying into the pot" from which government benefits are funded.
As a disclaimer, I'm not racist, nor to I have a grudge against immigrants. What I do find upsetting is people who cheat the system and commit fraud. That goes for people of all races, nationalities, etc. But, it does make it a bit easier to stay "under the radar" and "off the books" when you were never "on the books" to begin with...
You may think that the types of fraud that I have hinted at above are a bit far-fetched, but in the course of my job I see examples of these kinds of fraud many times a day. I am not even an employee of the Community Services Division which actually administers these programs. I work for a separate division, but there is some overlap in our clientele and our programs affect each other enough that clients tell us a completely different story, and we have to figure out how to deal with it...
* I was told a few weeks ago by a fellow state employee that over the multiple decades she has been a government employee, she only ever had one client who claimed to be homeless that she believed actually fit the traditional street/bridge/tent definition of homelessness. On the flipside, I have seen people walk into the state office where I work and apply for benefits, and then drive off in a Mercedes or a Hummer. Of course, for some benefits only reported income is a factor, not assets like a vehicle, or, say $20.5 million dollars in a retirement account...
Cha-cha-cha-changes!!!
Ok, so as far as song references go, I think there are more cha's, but, whatever...
So, those of you who knew me in college may know that a few of my friends sometimes lovingly referred to me as a dirty socialist. Not because I really believe that socialism is a feasible economic system, but because I was a sociology major and less conservative than your average LDS student at BYU living in Provo.
In an almost humorous contrast to this, I am now one of the most conservative people around... Seattle, that is.
What happened in the intervening years to produce this change? I spent a year in law school, during which I realized that, being a person who did not particularly want to be an attorney, a Juris Doctorate is not a particularly cost-effective post-graduate educational option. Having realized this, I got a job in the nearest large city, which happened to be Seattle. As many a person with a sort-of-fancy paper that says Bachelor of Science in Sociology on it, as well as some other stuff, displayed in a cheap frame I got at the big, bad Wal-Mart on a bookshelf I got at Big Lots... I got a job working for the government. I also met a fantastic man who thinks I'm irresistibly attractive and likes to buy me things. He is a police officer. And together, we are a crime-fighting duo... wait, ok, maybe not... He fights crime, I just fight non-payment of child support, but that's kind of like crime too...
So, here's the deal... For those of you out there who consider yourself to be "liberal", or something similar in terms of political labels, and who do so because you feel that it is more humane or compassionate than ideologies that are referred to as "conservative" or "libertarian": I commend you for your desire to be a compassionate person, but apparently you know little of the realities of government social programs. I see these realities on a daily basis, and it is stunning how little information the general public has and ridiculous the way media portrayals twist and deform the truth. Thus, I hope to use this forum to share with you some bits of information and truth that you may not have been aware of...
So, those of you who knew me in college may know that a few of my friends sometimes lovingly referred to me as a dirty socialist. Not because I really believe that socialism is a feasible economic system, but because I was a sociology major and less conservative than your average LDS student at BYU living in Provo.
In an almost humorous contrast to this, I am now one of the most conservative people around... Seattle, that is.
What happened in the intervening years to produce this change? I spent a year in law school, during which I realized that, being a person who did not particularly want to be an attorney, a Juris Doctorate is not a particularly cost-effective post-graduate educational option. Having realized this, I got a job in the nearest large city, which happened to be Seattle. As many a person with a sort-of-fancy paper that says Bachelor of Science in Sociology on it, as well as some other stuff, displayed in a cheap frame I got at the big, bad Wal-Mart on a bookshelf I got at Big Lots... I got a job working for the government. I also met a fantastic man who thinks I'm irresistibly attractive and likes to buy me things. He is a police officer. And together, we are a crime-fighting duo... wait, ok, maybe not... He fights crime, I just fight non-payment of child support, but that's kind of like crime too...
So, here's the deal... For those of you out there who consider yourself to be "liberal", or something similar in terms of political labels, and who do so because you feel that it is more humane or compassionate than ideologies that are referred to as "conservative" or "libertarian": I commend you for your desire to be a compassionate person, but apparently you know little of the realities of government social programs. I see these realities on a daily basis, and it is stunning how little information the general public has and ridiculous the way media portrayals twist and deform the truth. Thus, I hope to use this forum to share with you some bits of information and truth that you may not have been aware of...
Wow! A lot can change in 2 years, huh?
This is to announce that after a surprisingly long hiatus, I plan to return to blogging. Not because I am depressed and annoyed because of some silly man, as has often been the case in the past, (because I have an awesome husband-to-be who consistently wins the best-boyfriend award among my female friends), but because I am annoyed with other things! Are you excited? You should be...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)