It's not my 'plan', I'm just extending your argument to things other than Social Security.

On your other point, yes, Fraud is Fraud. Not all fraud is equal though (just as not all theft is equal), and so the amount and circumstances would mean different punishments. In principle I agree, though, that if the same amount is defrauded, and in similar circumstances, then it matters not whether it is someone on Social Security or a defence contractor.

So, do we have any stats for people who have committed benefit frauds and what punishments they receive, compared to others?

Do we have figures for the amount that the government spends on trying to detect fraud (and how much they find)?

We recently had a local case where a man failed to tell the authorities that his circumstances had changed (partner moved in who had income, he had extra income), and he was fined £350 for defrauding about £1000 in benefits (which I presume he either paid back or still owes). Embarrassingly, he was a Conservative councillor, and had to resign to cause a by-election.

dan

Maybe that's what he's saying (or he's just indulging in that good ole fashioned whataboutery)

I like to think of it as prioritizing. If you really want to save some tax dollars, go after the big offenders first...
Unfortunately they are also big campaign contributors, have big lobby firms and a lot of lawyers.
Welfare recipients are an easy target though and can easily distract the outraged from the big plunderers..
Its a common theme of American populism. Target some weak powerless group with popular rage, in order to obscure the ongoing process of corporations fleecing taxpayers.
In effect Green is involved in whataboutery, the whataboutery of populist rage. ...that is focussing on something of lvery imited importance to his pocket book, but emotionally fulfilling his need to rage against someone.

Your thoughts are not mine.

I will force myself to work at McDonalds...... before i claim welfare.

There are alot of dole bums here in Australia and whilst i respect that some people are legitimate to needing help the majority could get off there ass and find a job but there just to frakking lazy.

Rolls,
I respect that show of character. Good on ya!

Yeah, it takes real 'character' to say what you'd do in a hypothetical and then slag off loads of people in a sweeping generalisation...

Danivon,
Why do you turn everything back on those who state what they think? Do you think it is wrong for welfare recipients to abuse the system? You don't speak much about it. RickyP tries to turn the forum to corporate welfare, and you attack the feelings people have. Ask yourself why people have these feelings? Does the abuse have anything to do with the feelings?

I have stated before that there are conditions for being on welfare that I would agree. Heck, as a youngster, we were on government assistance, but we did not abuse the system. When I said I felt disrespected, it was by those who are not working to better their situation, and by those who are not really trying to work to get money (thus the false advertising claim that MX made).

I still give to those who need it, as I feel it is the person's responsibility to give, not the government's. Do you give, or do you rely on the government to give for you?

danivon wrote:Yeah, it takes real 'character' to say what you'd do in a hypothetical and then slag off loads of people in a sweeping generalisation...

It's just a sad truth that some jobs don't pay much more than welfare and people then decide that it's not "worth" to work 40 hours a week just to earn a little bit more.
That of course annoys people who pay taxes no end and leads to all kinds of trouble.

Green Arrow wrote:Danivon,
Why do you turn everything back on those who state what they think? Do you think it is wrong for welfare recipients to abuse the system? You don't speak much about it.

How dare you! I've already said it's wrong to commit fraud. And the last time you accused me on this, I pointed out where I'd said it. Do I have to do it again? Do I have to be repetitive in order to 'keep up' with the level of opprobrium that you believe I should be expressing?

Perhaps that's the difference between us, GA. I respond to what people write. You respond to what you assume we think. Problem is, that when you do that and it's contradicted by what others have written, it makes me wonder what you are really trying to say.

RickyP tries to turn the forum to corporate welfare, and you attack the feelings people have. Ask yourself why people have these feelings? Does the abuse have anything to do with the feelings?

It wasn't the feeling, as much as the assumption that the majority are undeserving. What is the evidence for that? Are we suddenly living in a world where jobs are plentiful?

I still give to those who need it, as I feel it is the person's responsibility to give, not the government's. Do you give, or do you rely on the government to give for you?

Yes, I do give. Did assume otherwise for some reason?

Faxmonkey - that is a very real issue. Some would argue that this means welfare is too high. But it could well be because wages are too low. One possible solution is to not cut welfare so sharply when people get jobs. But this is effectively state-subsidy for cheap employers. There are no easy answers (as much as people would like there to be).

Danivon,
I do respond to what you write. You say fraud is wrong, but all fraud is not equal(see above). That is where I disagree with you.

Fraud is wrong.
Theft is wrong.

Corporate, Government or Personal... Doesn't matter.

You say I respond to what I believe you think. Yet you write this directly after accusing me of the same thing!

It wasn't the feeling, as much as the assumption that the majority are undeserving. What is the evidence for that? Are we suddenly living in a world where jobs are plentiful?

Where have I said that the majority is undeserving? All I want is punishment and loss of benefits for those who commit fraud.

Green Arrow wrote:Where have I said that the majority is undeserving? All I want is punishment and loss of benefits for those who commit fraud.

Problem with that is that what you want would mean a huge increase in bureaucracy (which i believe you hate) which in turn will lead to skyrocketing costs.
Fact is if you have a system of wellfare you have people who will abuse it, same way you have people who don't pay their taxes.
Thing is while it might generate increased revenue hunting tax evaders it only generates costs to hunt wellfare frauds.
It's a bit like the war on drugs, it just generates enormous costs without increasing revenue.

Green Arrow wrote:Danivon,
I do respond to what you write. You say fraud is wrong, but all fraud is not equal(see above). That is where I disagree with you.

Fraud is wrong.
Theft is wrong.

Corporate, Government or Personal... Doesn't matter.

My differentiation was not about the type, but the amounts and circumstances. Theft of $100 is wrong. Theft of $1000 dollars is also wrong, but is worse. Theft of $1M is worse still. The $1M theft does not justify the $100 theft in any way.

Similarly, fraud through accidental omission is not as serious (necessarily) as fraud through deliberate deceit. Again, they are both wrong.

The reason that we have judges and juries, and allow them some discretion on sentencing is precisely because society has recognised that a strict prescriptive approach can be unjust.

My post in reply to your opening post was, I think, pretty clear about welfare fraud. I'd kindly ask you not to keep suggesting I see it as being different from any other kind of fraud.

You say I respond to what I believe you think. Yet you write this directly after accusing me of the same thing!

It wasn't the feeling, as much as the assumption that the majority are undeserving. What is the evidence for that? Are we suddenly living in a world where jobs are plentiful?

Where have I said that the majority is undeserving? All I want is punishment and loss of benefits for those who commit fraud.

You didn't say that, and I didn't accuse you of it.

Rolls said it. I responded to him, then you criticised me. I was pointing out one part of Roll's post which was not about 'feelings' but an assertion. Comprendé?

Faxmonkey - another very good point. It costs money to detect fraud. However, detecting fraud saves money. Depending on how people read the figures, political capital can be made either way. Striking a balance means lower (but not zero) fraud, reasonable costs in detection, and people who get caught getting punished.

fax

It's a bit like the war on drugs, it just generates enormous costs without increasing revenue

It's really more like a "war on shop lifting".
The kind of money that would be invested in eliminating a small amount of welfare abuse would never be returned. Meanwhile the experience of receivng welfare would become even more demeaning.
I have a business associate in chicago who always gives his change to people on the street who ask for "spare change" Seeing him do this repeatedly, I asked him if he didn't wonder about whether there was genuine need on the behalf of the beggar.
His answer "I figure if he needs and I I can afford it , I should be willing to give genorously. And if he's lieing - shame on him, buts its not worth my effort being angry about what I could afford anyway.

There is a genuine myth about welfare waste, fraud and abuse. Its a pittance. There are always anecdotes about cases which are egregious. But they rarely represent a real trend. If Green you could attempt to quanitfy a number, and suggest an efficient way to eliminate the abuse while ensuring those in genuine need can still receive help that would be something. Otherwiseits just Scrooge like ranting, "Are there no poor houses!!!!"
Why does comparing the abuse of "corporate welfare" as you call it versus abuse of welfare for the poor bother you? In the business world, if one is going to commit resources to saving money from abuses within the system, one starts where the rewards are greatest.

What should the penalty be for fraud? Should it be set at a loss of benefits (Corporate, Private, Government), or a physical detriment (caning?), incarceration, or just disregarded?

RickyP,
The comparison with "Corporate Welfare" does not bother me. Your "small potatoes" attitude about private welfare fraud does. I want fraud punished with a standard. When I see the money from my government wasted, it bothers me. It bothered me in the military, it bothers me now. The system is FULL of waste. I use an example of welfare fraud and how a government agency tries to combat it, and you suggest going after business because that is where the "big fraud" is. Yes, Corporate should not have any funds given it from the government. But neither should we disregard private fraud.

Now you ask to quanitfy ? [sic]. Step up and tell me what you think a convicted fraud should receive for punishment (financially, physically, incarceration and benefit impact). Are you saying that fraud is a pittance, so don't worry about it?

1.) In 1977, the executive director of the Illinois Legislative Advisory Committee for Public Aid took action against Linda Taylor, a Chicago resident. It was claimed that Taylor used 14 alias names to receive an estimated $150,000 in medical coverage, cash assistance and food stamps. It was said that the woman migrated from district to district using these aliases to fraudulently obtain benefits.

2.) In 1981, Dorothy Woods was jailed on 12 counts of welfare fraud. She claimed 38 non-existent children and manipulated the system for more than $300,000. The most disturbing part about this story is that Woods was rumored to be a wealthy woman before committing the crime.

3.) Arlens Otis of Cook County, Illinois was indicted on 613 counts of fraudulently receiving $150,839 in welfare benefits from July of 1972 to February of 1978.

4.) The biggest case of welfare fraud came when Barbara Williams was found guilty of manipulating Los Angeles County for $239,000 in benefits. The crime provoked a conviction that sentenced her to eight years in prison.

Four cases bring a million dollar price tag. That was only the first link on Google! That million could be used to help others who really needed it. That is my point. Fraud hurts those who are using the system properly. If welfare was a system to help people get back on their feet, I would love it. As it is, I don't see it that way.

Close every international military base.

Do not "rescue" ANY business. No business is "too big to fail" GM just paid it's employees a bonus rather than paying back the Fed stock holdings...

Give me your punishment for fraud, and you will get mine. No doubt, mine will be stricter. (prove me wrong, if you so choose)

I'm all for convicting the four people you've identified.
Will it save money? Whats the cost of incarcerating someone for 8 years?
But you started this with an article about cash cards being used at casinos. More penny ante abuse than what you've identified here...

Cash welfare benefits, distributed monthly on debit cards known as EBT cards, are supposed to be used only for the care of needy children and the disabled.
The KING 5 Investigators used ATM transaction records to track an estimated $2 million in welfare cash withdrawals at casinos in Washington over the course of one year.
KING 5 quickly found withdrawals at ATMs in other adult businesses, as well.
EBT transaction records show $220 in ATM withdrawals at Fantasy Unlimited, a Seattle sex shop, in July and August of last year. In that same time period, 260 welfare dollars were withdrawn from the Déjà vu strip club in downtown Seattle.

Seems to me that the way to end this is to provide the welfare in the form of "gift cards" usable only at food stores or clothing stores, rather than general cash cards. ... A simpler easier way to end the abuse without some expensive investigation and charges. Not as emotionally satisfying...but more effective.