By Patrick J. Miller | Observer Contributor
I am a college student. You can usually spot me in the library working on some paper while listening to music. You may also catch me in my regular history class, front row. I maintained a passing GPA and have a vested interest in History/Political Science. And finally, I want to become a history professor in my future. But there may be one thing that might inhibit me from fulfilling this dream: I have used government benefits to live my life.
Now before any of you out me for being a leach, I want to explain my stance. I was born poor. I’ve been relatively poor for what amounts to my entire life. My mother was shut out of work for years due to the sinful act of having to raise two kids who were born with a genetic defect known as cystic fibrosis. We needed those benefits to keep a roof over our heads, to put clothes on our backs, and put food on the table. If we didn’t have those benefits, then let’s just say that I wouldn’t be here writing to you about these benefits.
Of course, based on the title of this article, it will be about those who leach precious government money, and why it should be considered a crime.
The government benefits system, at least when it was started as just Social Security in 1935.08.14, was commissioned with the intent as a temporary safety net for any working-class citizen who would need some financial help while out of a job. Which means that if you are just using the system as it was originally intended, then good for you. You are not the problem. The problem, however, resides with leachers.
A leacher could be best described as someone who drains vital materials from an otherwise sturdy structure. In this case, these leachers suck away government benefits of various kinds that is provided by the current financial structure.
They usually do this by breaking or circumventing the rules on how you are supposed to spend your EBT benefits. And then there are those who outright abuse the system for their own gains, no purchase may be necessary. These leachers are particularly bad, because they end up ruining the overall system for everyone else, especially those who legitimately need these systems the most.
One good example of government benefits abuse is the classic story of a New Hampshire woman who was fired for refusing to accept an EBT card purchase for cigarettes. The former clerk, Jackie Whiton, had since seen widespread support, which led to her filing a petition to abolish said cards. That’s a little extreme, since that would mean punishing everyone for one person’s stupid purchase, but it isn’t in New Hampshire.
To elaborate, EBT cards are usually issued with a pre-set and renewable amount of tax-payer dollars with the intent of said money only being used for “goods” that would overall benefit both you and anyone else you would be providing for. Food is an obvious example of beneficial to the family, to the point where specific cards may be issued for just that. Other kinds of goods that would be classified as essential might include bathroom needs, cleaning utensils, and clothes. Cigarettes, however, are not really beneficial to anyone, except maybe the tobacco companies themselves. New Hampshire, however, does not impose a restriction on tobacco products, which was certainly the result of her suspension. However, of the 27 states that issue certain restrictions on EBT purchases as listed on NCSL’s website, just 11 states impose tobacco restrictions. The situation is just small potatoes compared to what I’m going to get into next.
Out of the 27 states that impose EBT restrictions, Massachusetts holds some of the strictest limitations of certain purchases, which range from tobacco & alcohol products to gambling ventures. However, even with them in place, an even worse crime could occur within these borders: EBT fraud. The Food and Nutrition Service considers EBT, or SNAP fraud in this case, involves trading benefits for cash, lying on their applications for whatever reason, and, specifically for retailers, trying to get back on the program after they’ve been disqualified for past abuse, all of which are against the law. One might think that MA’s strict SNAP program would make crime close to impossible, but believe or not, it still happens.
On 2015.09.28, justice.gov reported on Vida Ofori Causey, the owner and operator of J&W Aseda Plaza, a convenience store on Worcester’s Main street, and how she managed to defraud the USDA of $3.638 million dollars. She managed to accumulate that much by purchasing the benefits from recipients at a discounted value for four years, from April 2010 to October 2014. This says a lot about the current system in Massachusetts when a crook could commit fraudulence for four years under one of the strictest EBT programs in the country.
But the worst part about EBT fraud is that many states are having problems containing the fraudulence. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), for example, has reviewed 11 states, and found that even with applying every single trick up their sleeve, they have found that SNAP fraud control is “mixed.”
Some of the states found difficulty enforcing anti-fraud laws regarding to SNAP, usually because staffing was either level or dwindling, in comparison to a sharp increase in recipients in 2009. For example, in 2013, both Massachusetts and New Jersey reported having 498,580 and 432,270 recipients, respectively, while MA has just 37 enforcers, and NJ had nearly 300.
Additionally, between 2009 and 2013, Florida reported a massive increase in recipients, to the point where the number of SNAP households per investigator jumped from 7,705 to 19,635. Florida also reported that they lost 27 investigators, from 130 to just 103. The staffing problems that have been witnessed in these three states have been attributed to attrition, turnover, and/or lack of funding.
Even worse, in Texas and one North Carolina county, they won’t pursue fraudulent claims due to a vast lack of resources needed to prosecute. Even if the offender(s) go to court, Tennessee and Florida prosecutors note that juries in those states will not prosecute them, as they would be sympathetic to those who are ignorant of the strict thresholds or are knowingly breaking the law in order to support their families.
It’s results and stories like these that really make me feel ashamed for depending on government benefits to actually have a chance at life. It’s gotten to the point where I’m starting to even doubt my own research on this subject, and if the results that I found were really “objective.”
In the end, I want to make my closing statements. No, I do not want food stamps, or EBT benefits, or any other government benefit to be outright shut off. However, I want the system to be tweaked somewhat. I don’t know exactly what, but I hope that the overall government benefits systems would still be in effect while being able to track down on those few cases where EBT/SNAP/whatever fraud was committed, no matter how many opposing politicians and mainstream news shows would tell you otherwise.
Comments are closed.