Unfortunately, the right wing propaganda sites, like Breitbart, continue to feed the Welfare Queen ripping off the government stereotype because it drives traffic to their sites and helps with ad revenue. The actual statistics aren't nearly as interesting and so they just get ignored and the stereotype continues to persist.

This reminds me of the debacle in Florida where the "drug testing for welfare" idea ended up costing more money than it actually saved.

Well, it at least it transferred taxpayer $ to Scott's cronies at the state-contracted drug-testing company.... so that was the point of the whole silly program, right?

You don't really know that since you can't say how many people stopped buying drugs so they could pass their test. If the goal of the program was to reduce the welfare rolls then it may have failed. But if that was the goal then there's better ways to do that. A more likely goal was to get people on welfare to stop using drugs - thus making them more employable. If it wasn't just about saving money its not a big surprise when it didn't actually save any.

Different drugs stay in your body system (and stay detectable) for different lengths of time. Months, for some. Passing a drug test isn't a simple as just not taking them on the day you're tested.

That, and depending on how addictive the drug is, most people simply don't have the capacity to stay clean long enough to pass. There's a reason it is so hard for smokers to quit smoking.

I see. It stopped all the imaginary drug users. Like the imaginary fraudulent voters. we can't see 'em because they're so slick. There's one now!
.....too late, you missed him.

Yet they all could go get a bottle of Night Train. It is not helping, it is just favoring one drug for the poor over another.

Being poor sucks big time, we should include an ounce of weed with every check, have a fricken heart man, even the bible says let those suffering have a damned drink.

"Let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." Proverbs 31:7

Also the stuff you'd really want to catch runs out of your system pretty quick. Meth is out in 3-6 days, crack/cocaine 48-72 hrs and heroin 1-2 days.

And how long can users of those drugs go without them. 3-6 days sounds easy but it would be extremely difficult for an addict.

This only proves that the testing methodology employed was inefficient, not that 'drug testing for welfare' is inherently a bad idea.

It proves nothing of the sort. Let's shave with Occam's Razor, shall we? Hypothesis #1: people applying for welfare don't tend to be drug addicts because they can't actually *afford* drugs. Hypothesis #2: people applying for welfare tend to be drug addicts, but they're so slick that they almost always manage to pass the drug test required of welfare applicants in Florida. Hypothesis #3: people applying for welfare tend to be drug addicts, but the testing methodology--which is identical to the one used by any number of actual *employers*--fails to detect them, even though the exact same testing methodology detects drug addicts for the aforementioned employers.

Me, I'm going with hypothesis #1. Not only is it simpler, it actually makes sense.

Steriotypes sell. Just go to Google news and read the headlines. Do this for a while and eventualy you'll be able to tell which one is the headline for a story on Fox or a story on the Huffington Post.

Sterotypes exist for a reason. I have seen people buying luxury items with food stamps (these days the card, not stamps) at stores, then hop into a really nice car and drive off. You may think there are not people cheating welfare but I've seen it for myself first hand. There are lots of people out there using food stamps who obviously do not need them.

OK, this has got to be some kind of meme or a paid troll for Crossroads GPS because I have seen this exact same post so many times! Almost with the exact same words! Sometimes a specific make or model of car, sometimes listing the luxury items purchased- caviar, lobster, etc.

Oh, and BTW, stereotypes, by definition, do not "exist" per se, they are a creation of the mind, like unicorns or dragons, such that yeah, we all know what that is, but no sane person for one sweet minute believes they actually "exist"

Maybe that really nice car was paid for in full before the main breadwinner lost their job. Maybe those luxury items (interesting that you won't specify what "luxury items" you're talking about) were a special treat for somebody's birthday that they saved up for. But hey, if you're so disgusted by this food stamp fraud that you claim is such an epidemic, you can always report them and see what happens.

But I'm guessing you haven't actually seen this sort of thing happen in person. I'm guessing you're just trolling an article with a "liberal" bent because you don't have anything better to do with your time.

Really, stupid? Because you see them in a nice car you just know what their situation is, Mr. Clairvoyant?

http://www.washingtonpost.c...

Yes. I was just about to suggest the same article. You cannot know a person's every circumstance just from looking at them--you just can't.

Florida should know a thing or two about fraud. Their governor Rick Scott lead a company which committed the largest known medicare fraud in US history. Columbia/HCA plead guilty, payed over two billion dollars in fines and penalties.

And folks worry about a few EBT cards...

That's not fraud. That's called returning taxpayer money to the taxpayer. In this case, to Rick Scott.

or OTHER taxpayers' money to Rick Scott.

I wonder if you are familiar with so-called "revenue cycle management" technologies that enable payers, including Medicare, to verify contract reimbursements and thus identify potential fraud.

Because Medicare is such a huge program, the ability to aggregate contract data and automatically detect billing anomalies is an enormous time saver. Granted this is still a reactive process, and we've yet to build a system whereby all Medicare reimbursement structures are housed in one place. But the technology is there to do this. I'd definitely add it to your list of fraud-combating investments...

And that takes us back to the main point: For the most part, fraud isn’t the product of scheming low-income beneficiaries . . . , but rather someone other than the beneficiary standing to make a buck off it.

Yet Americans largely believe welfare recipient fraud is huge. Why is that? Why are Americans so sure that an army of Welfare Queens are draining the treasury like vampires? It's all part of the hate-the-poor aspect of American culture, and the root of that hatred comes from one thing: religion, more precisely, Protestantism.

SImplified to the max, the big break in Christianity, between Catholicism and Protestantism, came down to the question of who was saved. Catholicism held that every person was a blank slate, and that the balance of their good and bad deeds determined if they were saved or consigned to Hell. This was the same belief the Egyptians held two thousand years before. Protestantism held, however, that people were saved by God's grace alone. If God said you would be saved, you would be saved no matter how evil you were. After all, God held the ultimate, unquestionable power to save.

This Protestant belief became, in the case of Calvinism, the belief that you could tell who God had determined would be saved by how well they lived on this Earth. Someone who was wealthy and lived very comfortably obviously enjoyed God's favor, since God had the power to render any man into poverty. So while Man couldn't know God's designs, it was pretty clear that the wealthy were the good, moral people who would be saved, and the poor were the wretched sinners who would suffer eternal fire in the afterlife.

American culture received a strong dose of Calvinist thought, even though Calvinism, as a specific religion, never got big. Calvinism went well with rugged individualism, and so today, we admire the wealthy and loathe the poor, and further ascribe to them all sorts of criminal tendencies, including welfare fraud.

Calvinism never got big? Presbyterian churches abound here in the U.S., as far as I can tell. I don't know if you can say that Catholicism held people to be a blank slate. All people are sinners from the moment of birth in both branches of Christianity. It's just that the Catholic church said that one could do good works to facilitate earning God's favor. Protestants believed that it was only through Christ that one could earn favor with God.

It's all silly in the end.

The Catholic Church believes, and has always believed, that those who will be saved are saved by God's grace. However, that's just arelativelyminor theological distinction that's tangential to the issue.

The main issue is how you're able to pin fraud by providers, managers, etc. on the Protestant work ethic.

The biggest fraud out there is completely legal. The military industrial complex is a huge scam, foreign aid goes out to corrupt dictators and their cronies so long as they toe the line when the government wants them to. Big agro businesses buy land and get paid to not grow crops. These are much bigger issues than a handful of welfare cheats.

As long as fraud can be the narrative for the GOP, it will never be talked or written about honestly.

Do food stamps get traded for cigs, booze, or drugs? Perhaps, but it is NOT an out of control behavior resulting in a need for an overhaul of a program that has proven itself over and over to be successful-- with minimal waste (as this piece points out). However what I am sure MAY happen more frequently is trading food stamps for cash that is then used for toilet paper, dish soap, laundry detergent, access to the laundromat, pet food, shampoo, soap etc.

A nuanced analysis. It'll never get any traction on the right.

This article might be more convincing if the author didn't try to classify "trafficking" in food stamps as a fraud committed by somebody other than the beneficiary.

If you click the link, you see that the definition of trafficking is "selling food stamp benefits to food retailers for cash." So while as you suggest the beneficiary is a party, the food retailer is as well. Which is involved in more transactions, do you think -- the individual recipient, or the store?

By the same logic -- whom do you think constitutes the larger group of fraudsters: the individual recipient, or the store?

This essay on the nature of government fraud in the US will blow your mind wide open.

http://thelastpsychiatrist....

Let me tell you how the scam works. Person with EBT or WIC goes into store. He/she offers to buy other shoppers groceries with their card in exchange for cash. Usually it's a "good deal" for the other person because they'll give $20 cash for $40 worth of groceries.

Now, why do you think the EBT card holder wants cash? Drugs? Alcohol? Congrats. .. your taxpayer money is now paying for that. This scam was attempted on me on a weekly basis when I lived in NYC. And the great thing is that it's not traceable, so it doesn't show up on these reports claiming that there isn't any fraud with EBT. Those of us that live in the city know better.

The article didn't say there wasn't any fraud. It states that fraud levels are comparable to fraud levels in other areas and "most" of the fraud, in dollar terms, is not with beneficiaries but with middle men and managers. No one would say that fraud is never committed by a benefiicary.

so what? Do you seriously think such petty scams are the big-deal fraud that conservative media make it out to be? So a poor person with food stamps tries to buy some ciggies with their food stamps --- hardly large scale fraud, even if multiplied a few thousand times throughout the state.

most parents with food stamps need to buy food for their kids and that's what they do with the food stamps.

i once lived, during a transition from suburban housewife to working single mom, in a transitional housing program for single moms. All the moms in the building got food stamps and many of them would sell some of their food stamps for cash, typically discounted at half price. This practice appalled me so I would offer to buy their food stamps at face value: if they gave me $20 in food stamps (this was when they still came in paper-like money form) I gave them $20. I figured that might help their kids, give the mom whatever she wanted cash for.

It is appallilng that foiks poor enough to receive food stamps sell them at deep discounts for cigs and alcohol . . . but one thing we all have to realize is that poor people live in the same culture as everyone else and are bombarded by the same corporatist/consumerist messaging. They want what everyone else wants and they are stressed -- because they are poor, because they are in painful life transitions. I don't begrudge such a parent a few smokes or a drink. I know that's not the point of food stamps but food stamps are just assets to the folks getting them. Everyone converts their assets to get what they want. Why should we expect poor people to live outside our cultural norms?

Do I approve of food stamp parents converting food stamps to cash for cigs and booze? No. But I understand it. And geez, everyone needs a little relief from stress, poor people most of all. We act like all poor folk should be saints but no one, so far, has gone after the banks that raped the country's real estate. The message, to me, seems to be "if you have money, you can conduct fraud on a large scale, rape federal programs in New Orleans" but if you are poor, woe be tide you if you seek normal, human escapist relief like a beer or a smoke.

Watch the great, under-apprecitaed HBO series Treme. It is about post-Katrina New Orleans and does a nice job showing how real estate rehabbers scammed millions and millionso from fed programs. Everyone knows it goes on and no one stops it but many like to deride a stressed out single parent looking to buy a carton of smokes.

I was lucky when I was on food stamps, which I was long, long ago, and also on welfare cause my ex didn't pay his alimony and child support (or I wouldn't have turned to welfare! but I got blamed for taking welfare and he was an upstanding lawyer short on cash who got sympathy -- many believe I was a grasping witch for wanting my $300 a month in child support from a guy who made hundreds of thousands a year).

I was lucky cause my mom had a little money and once in awhile, she'd give me some and order me to treat myself. When I would self flagelate myself for wanting to order a pizza or go out for ice cream, she'd say "sometimes when you are at rock bottom, that's when you need a little indulgence the most".

People who can't control themselves and are a risk to themselves or others (such as spending their grocery money on drugs) -- well, we have nice, secure institutions for people like that.

Where they would be relieved of the stress of looking after themselves.

. . .I've been in a lot of grocery stores in a lot of poor neighborhoods, and I have never seen that scam being run. And with good reason: because it doesn't pass the common sense test. The people who do have cash aren't going to hand over either their money or grocery list and wait outside, and the people who have the EBT's aren't going to buy if they can't be sure they're getting paid. And everyone in line would notice some third wheel standing next to you, especially if you then hand the food over.

Sorry dude, not buying it. Even supposing that $100/month (the maximum allowable amount of money in the EBT program divided by 2, as your guide suggests) being spent fraudulently were that big a deal, there just isn't enough trust on either side for this fraud to be managed in the way you're suggesting. It would be easier to just steal the money or groceries and run.

How amazingly naive of you. First off, this wouldn't work in the poorest of neighborhoods since nearly everybody would be on EBT so there wouldn't be any people to target.

Secondly, contrary to your assertion and having seen people fall for the scam, the person just joins you in line while you check out. Do you think the cashier really cares?

It's interesting watching the people who do this. They target white, Asian, Indian people... basically people they think aren't also using EBT or WIC ( which isn't always true).

If you still don't belive me. .. go to any C-Towne above 115th street on a Friday night and see for yourself.

I do my shopping near 100th, so I'll take you up on that suggestion tonight.

Thrasymachu
I cant speak for other cities. But ive lived in the DC and Baltimore area for many years.And have personally seen corner store owners pay 40-60 cents on the dollar for food stamps. DC store owners used to give 60 cents on the dollar.And Baltimore was 40 cents. But recently Baltimore stores started to give 50 cents on the dollar.

Its that widespread. Everyone in the city knows what the going rates are. You give a corner store owner $100 off your Independence Card. And he gives you $50 in cash. Its easy for him to ring up a fake reciept

Ive personally seen it happen over a dozen times. And i dont even live in a "poor " neighborhood. There are hundreds of corner stores in cities like Baltimore. And im guessing that the Government doesnt try too hard to find out what they are doing

Yes, but that's more to the point the article is making. That's provider fraud, not recipient fraud, and the law recognizes it as such. If they were caught, the recipient would face losing his benefits, but the store owner could face prison time.

Actually, I think these reports are likely trying to capture such small time fraud as well. However, I agree with others here that it is likely a very small fraction of the total fraud.

compared to company's lobbying for new airplanes then having 200% cost overruns? just one V-22 could fund the SNAP program. tell me how we can not cut the pentagon budget fact check close the pentagon for 4 hours would pay for SNAP for the year, i am a veteran and i think that would be a fair trade.

But who is the one actually perpetrating the scam? The person with the EBT/WIC or the store owner who plays along?

and what about the person who gives cash for double the amount of purchase s/he would otherwise get for the cash?! I see a few folks here blaming the person receiving food stamps or welfare, and a few blaming the stores but there are three parties to this fraud: Joe Q. Holier-than-thou looking for a bargain. Nobody ever blames him or her!

whoever made you that offer stole the foodstamps.

You can't steal foodstamps today --- they are all electronic benefits on a card, like a credit card, with a PIN.

I don't know if fraud is really the main thing they're concerned about. There probably aren't a whole lot of welfare queens out there defrauding the government for a welfare check. But there are an awful lot of able bodied people collecting welfare and that bothers those of us who are counter-parties to their life on the dole.