By Jeff Jacoby
Monday, June 03, 2013
Is welfare corrupt? Of course it is, and in a damning
report last week, the Massachusetts state auditor, Suzanne Bump, rounded up
some of the scams:
Welfare payments issued to recipients long after they
were listed as dead. Multiple recipients using one Social Security number – and
multiple Social Security numbers being used by one person. Electronic benefit
cards from Massachusetts being used in places like Hawaii, Las Vegas, and the
Virgin Islands. Tens of thousands of blank EBT cards missing from state welfare
offices. Repeated requests for "lost" benefit cards to be replaced.
In a report that covered only a two-year period, Bump's
investigators identified at least $18 million in illegal or suspicious welfare
payments. "It pains all of us," Bump told reporters, "to think
that the program's integrity is not being maintained."
If this sounds familiar, it should. Blistering exposés of
welfare fraud and abuse, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, have become almost
routine.
Over a 22-month period in New Jersey, that state's
comptroller disclosed last week, prison inmates collected almost $24 million in
unlawful welfare benefits – including $10.6 million in unemployment checks and
$4.2 million in food stamps. TV reporters in Florida documented the use of
welfare benefit cards in strip clubs, liquor stores, bowling alleys, and bingo
parlors. A 65-year-old cashier in New Hampshire was fired last year for
refusing to let a young man use an EBT card to buy cigarettes.
The new Massachusetts audit, meanwhile, followed an
earlier report by the state's inspector general, who estimated that the state
is squandering $25 million a year on improper welfare payments. And before that
was a national investigation by the US Department of Agriculture, which
administers the food stamp program. It uncovered fraud in every state it
reviewed.
Is welfare corrupt? Is it ever. And yet the infuriating
waste of taxpayer funds is only the beginning of the corruption.
More Americans rely on government assistance today than
ever before. Food stamps have become almost a middle-class entitlement. At the
end of 2012, a record 47.8 million people were on food stamps. Of the 115
million households in the United States, 23 million – one in five – are on the
food dole.
It wasn't so long ago that such a degree of dependency
would have been inconceivable. In 2001, according to federal data, 17.3 million
people were receiving food aid. In little more than a decade, the food stamp
rolls have almost tripled.
That didn't happen by accident. Under the last two
presidents, increasing food stamp enrollment became an explicit government
goal. George W. Bush sharply expanded eligibility, rebranding food stamps as
"nutritional assistance" instead of welfare. States were encouraged
to sign up more recipients – a ball the Obama administration took and ran with.
The Agriculture Department promotes food stamps through radio ads and
"public service" announcements; billboard-style ads appear on city
buses. To attract even more participants, USDA advises local welfare agencies
to "host social events where people mix and mingle" – show them a
good time, and try to get them on welfare.
Is this any way to help the poor? FDR didn't think so. In
his annual message to Congress in 1935, President Roosevelt warned that
"continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration
fundamentally destructive to the national fiber." The father of the New
Deal knew that "to dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic,
a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a
sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America."
It is a mark of how far we have declined that a political
figure who dared to say such a thing today would be denounced as heartless, a
hater of the poor, even a racist – as Newt Gingrich found out when he tried to
make an issue of soaring food stamp rates during the presidential campaign.
When Massachusetts lawmakers last year tried to prevent EBT cards from being
used to pay for tattoos, guns, or jewelry, Governor Deval Patrick vetoed the
measure, saying he would not be a part of "humiliating poor people"
or making them "beg for their benefits."
FDR feared the effect of long-term dependence on
government. Political leaders today enable it.
Welfare corrupts in so many ways. What it does to
taxpayers is bad, and what it does to welfare recipients is worse. But what it
is doing to our nation's character and deepest values may be its most damaging
impact of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment