Urine test for welfare?

[Busyman™]

What about the concerns raised by Rose (post #44)?

What do you plan on doing with those who fail your drug test...obviously they no longer qualify for benefits, so do you put them in a drug treatment facility?
Funded by whom?

That already goes on and is funded by taxpayers.

What happens to the unfortunate spawn of the fertile welfare mother?
Doesn't denying benefits to this kid just reinforce the cycle of poverty and end up creating another future dependent/abuser?

Benefits wouldn't be denied. The point of the shot is to reduce the likelihood of her getting pregnant while on benefits. end. stop.

Nothing more.

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

Busy, you seem willing to risk an awful lot to save a very little.

Small risk from where I'm standing. It may even increase productivity and even.

[JunkBarMan]

Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993).

That Statement is the BIGGEST load of Shyt I've ever heard. Since when is it considered "welfare" when the government TAKES less of my money or actually GIVES some back??? So, when the government takes your money and then returns some to you that should be filed under "welfare"?

All my grandfathers life he PAID INTO Social Security AND Medicare and when he retired he recieved the benefits of that HARD WORK, not welfare. The basic premise of those programs were for years of hardwork to retire into, not to benefit abusers and the like.

A capital gains tax is when you take something, i.e. a home, buy it and then turn around and sell in a certain amount of time. Less then a year it's a certain tax bracket ( higher) and there after it's a lesser tax bracket (15% or the sale price). So if by limiting the amount of money the government can take from you is "welfare" then I must be in idiot.

All of those things listed no way, shape, or form fall under this definition:

wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.

a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.
Idiom:
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance(money) from the government or private agencies because of need.


Translation:

Getting something for nothing.
bullshyt .

How is anything that you are PAYING for OR HAVE PAID FOR translate into getting aid????

[Busyman™]

Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993).

That Statement is the BIGGEST load of Shyt I've ever heard. Since when is it considered "welfare" when the government TAKES less of my money or actually GIVES some back??? So, when the government takes your money and then returns some to you that should be filed under "welfare"?

All my grandfathers life he PAID INTO Social Security AND Medicare and when he retired he received the benefits of that HARD WORK, not welfare. The basic premise of those programs were for years of hardwork to retire into, not to benefit abusers and the like.

A capital gains tax is when you take something, i.e. a home, buy it and then turn around and sell in a certain amount of time. Less then a year it's a certain tax bracket ( higher) and there after it's a lesser tax bracket (15% or the sale price). So if by limiting the amount of money the government can take from you is "welfare" then I must be in idiot.

All of those things listed no way, shape, or form fall under this definition:

wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.

a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.
Idiom:
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance(money) from the government or private agencies because of need.


Translation:

Getting something for nothing.
bullshyt .

How is anything that you are PAYING for OR HAVE PAID FOR translate into getting aid????

I agree with your post for the most part. However, some things are considered "assistance".

Social security is not especially if you are middle class since you paid into it.

Subsidies are a form of assistance though. So is Medicare.

That quote is rather biased. The difference is that the middle and upper-class pay into the government pot and the lower class mainly doesn't.

[Skiz]

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.

Here's a bit...

"The UCOWF Child Care Fraud Survey:
The cost of providing child care is significant, to say the least, (Virginia’s Child Care Program budget for FY 2003 is $115,000,000), and the potential for fraud is high. From my own experience as a welfare fraud prosecutor, I can assure you that a case of child care fraud can result in a substantial loss of taxpayer monies in a very short period of time. The extent of the problem nationwide, while recognized generally, is still being evaluated, but many states have not kept statistics. The United Council on Welfare Fraud, in an effort to reach a better understanding of the extent, nature and impact of child care fraud across the nation, conducted a survey in 2002.

A questionnaire was sent to the state fraud directors of each of the states and the District of Columbia seeking information on whether, in their view, child care fraud was a state problem, the types of child care fraud experienced in the state, if statistics were kept, prosecution was pursued, recoveries made and penalties imposed in cases of child care fraud. Forty-two states responded. The document containing the full list of questions, eleven in all, and the responses is too large to include with my written testimony, however it may be viewed on the organization’s website, ucowf.org.

Forty of the 42 state fraud directors polled were of the opinion that child care fraud posed a problem in their states and of the two answering in the negative, one still provided examples of the types of child care fraud that has occurred within its boundaries.

Eighteen states had not been keeping statistics on child care fraud, but of them, several responded that the local county agencies administering the services did maintained fraud databases. In those states that did maintain detailed statistics, fraud was discovered in upwards of 69 percent of the investigations conducted with total annual discovered fraud amounts ranging from $10,000 to over $1 million.

All but three states referred fraud cases for criminal prosecution, with 17 having specific state laws regarding child care assistance fraud. Twenty-three relied on other state statutes to address criminal activity. Thirty-three states pursued administrative recovery of overpayments of child care assistance to recipients, although some could only collect through voluntary repayments, and four were capable of recovering from providers through a reduction in subsequent payments.

Eighteen states administratively penalized program-violating recipients by disqualification or other sanctions; seven undertook disqualification or de-licensing action against violating providers; one state penalized only providers but not recipients and the remainder had no penalty provisions or relied on criminal or civil restitution procedures.

An analysis of the results of this survey leads me to the conclusion that there is little uniformity in the manner in which child care fraud is addressed by the states, apart from the utilization of the criminal system. Where TANF mandates disqualification of program violators, there is no such provision in the area of child care assistance, particularly with respect to violating providers. A non-licensed, or informal, child care provider convicted of receiving fraudulent child care monies, in many states, is still eligible to provide child care services and receive government payments without regard to his or her previous fraud.

The types of fraud observed in the states were evenly divided between recipient (client) fraud and provider fraud, recognizing instances where there was collusion between both parties to defraud the system.

Types of Child Care Assistance Fraud and Various States’ experiences:
Child Care Assistance fraud can be committed by both recipients and providers individually or in collusion with each other.

A recipient may understate income to the household, rendering the household eligible for services. This can be done by underreporting the amount of hours worked or wages earned by the client, failing to report the presence of a responsible wage earner in the household, falsely claiming residence in the county or falsely claiming a child care expense when none exists. Failing to report a loss of employment or claiming non-existent employment, rendering a client ineligible for child care services also constitutes a fraud on the system.

In one recent Colorado case a client forged her pay stubs reducing the claimed amount of income to her household. As a result she received over $12,000 in child care assistance over 14 months to which she was not entitled.

Two Virginia women failed to report that their husbands were employed and residing in their homes resulting in losses of $16, 482.00 and $15, 962.00, respectively.

A Minnesota woman falsely reported living alone when her able-bodied husband was, in fact, in the household and collected more than $91,000 in child care assistance over four years.

In another Colorado case, a client claimed residence in one county while residing in another. A recovery of $33,553.00 was established for a two year period.

A Rochester, New York woman, whom I prosecuted, claimed that her brother was caring for her 11 children. Payments were sent in her brother’s name to her mother’s address. The brother, in fact, had been incarcerated for over 10 years on a rape conviction and her husband was, in fact residing in the household and caring for the children. The loss amount was limited to $77,000 because agency records failed to cover the entire period of the fraud. The illegally obtained money made the client ineligible for the food stamps the family received and the Section 8 housing in which they resided.

Another Rochester woman stole an acquaintance’s social security card, established a vendor account using the acquaintance’s social security number and her own mother’s address. Twenty-seven thousand dollars in child care payments were sent to her mother who signed the checks and gave them to the recipient over a two year period. Free care for five children was provided by the client’s mother and her 85 year old grandmother.

In Wyoming, two sisters claimed a third was providing day care for their children when, in fact, the third sister was fully employed and they were not. This resulted in a loss of $6,700 over a period of 14 months.

Similarly, two Virginia clients, employed by the same company, claimed each provided services for the other when, in fact, they worked the same hours. A claim of $36,474.00was established.

Another Virginia woman failed to report that she had lost her job on three separate occasions, yet continued to send her children to child care each time. The overpayments totaled nearly $4000.

Providers can commit fraud by claiming children who aren’t being watched, by misrepresenting the number of hours that services were provided or by charging more to care for government funded children than private pay children. They also engage in collusion with recipients and split payments to which they are not entitled.

A Wyoming provider got $41,600 over 1 ½ years claiming services for children who were not there and padding the hours for those that were there.

A Colorado provider billed $6,685 for children who had not been in his care for 4 months.

Another Wyoming provider filed claims for children who were not in attendance at a rate higher than that charged to non-child care assistance covered children; a claim was established for $112,800.for a three year period of fraud.

A Minnesota couple is under investigation for taking kickbacks from a child care center that billed the system for over $41,000 from November 2001 through December 2002 under the pretense of caring for the couple’s five children.

A California client sent her children to a free child care center and claimed that the services were provided by a family member. The two split $15,900 in illegal child care payments.

Cheats can take both forms. In a particularly egregious case, a Minnesota woman applied for child care assistance, claiming to support four children on an income of $3,100 a month. In another county, however, she operated an in-home day care center and was paid $854,000 over six years. She pleaded guilty to receiving more than $134,000 in fraudulently received child care reimbursements.

Recommendations:
The above is but a smattering of "horror stories" I have compiled from around the nation; I have omitted dozens more. They add up to a tremendous loss of taxpayer monies set aside for legitimate child care purposes and point out the need for adequate checks and balances in the system.

The United Council on Welfare Fraud recommends that, due to the substantial increase in child care funding made available to the state and the growing number of instances of fraud in the Child Care Assistance, Congress should demonstrate its commitment to Child Care program integrity by requiring all states to prepare a child care fraud control plan which, while allowing flexibility to address state-specific needs, requires, at a minimum:

* Procedures for recovery of child care overpayments.
* Federal tax intercepts for child care overpayments.
* Disqualification penalties for child care recipients and providers who have committed an intentional program violation.

These penalties would be modeled after and be similar to those formerly in place in the AFDC program (45 CFR 235.112) and currently in place in the Food Stamp program (7 CFR 273.16 [b]).
# Establishment of an incentive to promote anti-child care fraud activities by crediting child care fraud overpayment recoveries to the fraud funds of the individual states.

UCOWF gladly offers its assistance in drafting these changes to existing legislation and regulatory provisions.

Conclusion:
Child Care Assistance has been described by one of our member investigators as "the new pot of gold" in welfare fraud. It must be acknowledged, pursued and prevented. Efforts must be made by both the states and the federal government to insure that uniform and reasonable criteria are established to provide and receive child care assistance, that applications for assistance and vendor status are properly evaluated, that funds are available to ensure thorough investigation of suspected cases of fraud and penalties imposed on intentional violators of the program, and that procedures and vehicles are in place for recovery of child care program overpayments.

Again, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the United Council on Welfare Fraud, I thank you for the opportunity and honor of addressing you on this subject."

[cullen7282]

What's the UCOWF? Can you provide me with a link to that please?

[clocker]

@Skizo...

I saw not one instance from your post where urine testing would have been useful in exposing the fraud.
Nor would mandatory birth control.

[tusks]

What's the UCOWF? Can you provide me with a link to that please?

http://www.ucowf.org/ - United Council on Welfare Fraud

Link to Skizo's article:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearin...riendly&id=680

Scroll down a bit to find it.

[Busyman]

@Skizo...

I saw not one instance from your post where urine testing would have been useful in exposing the fraud.
Nor would mandatory birth control.

I was thinking the exact same thing. However, in your quotes, I didn't see anything in rebuttal.

His quote does address fraud though.

[clocker]

His quote does address fraud though.

In those states that did maintain detailed statistics, fraud was discovered in upwards of 69 percent of the investigations conducted with total annual discovered fraud amounts ranging from $10,000 to over $1 million

Halliburton has stolen more of your tax dollars in one month than all the welfare fraud in a year.

Therefore, we would all save money if Halliburton employees took piss tests and were sterilized.

[Busyman™]

In those states that did maintain detailed statistics, fraud was discovered in upwards of 69 percent of the investigations conducted with total annual discovered fraud amounts ranging from $10,000 to over $1 million

Halliburton has stolen more of your tax dollars in one month than all the welfare fraud in a year.

Therefore, we would all save money if Halliburton employees took piss tests and were sterilized.

Agreed.

We shouldn't ignore welfare fraud either.