Tag: government programs
Some School Food Program Recipients Ineligible, Audit Finds

Some School Food Program Recipients Ineligible, Audit Finds

By Michael Doyle, McClatchy Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — School districts in California, Florida, and Texas are providing free or low-cost meals to ineligible students, Agriculture Department auditors warn in a new report.

The failures cost taxpayers millions of dollars in benefits provided to children from households whose income was later found to be excessive or unsupported, auditors say. With 97 percent of the assisted households not double checked at all, the full cost is unknown.

Auditors suggest it might be time to require more proof of poverty from families applying for free or low-cost meals.

“The act of turning in income documentation with applications may discourage applicants from being dishonest about household income levels,” the Agriculture Department’s Office of Inspector General noted in the report made public this week.

But while USDA officials acknowledge the room for improvement and say they have the legal authority to require income documentation, they also resist imposing new application barriers.

“Significant other legal, policy, and operational concerns remain,” the department’s Food and Nutrition Service stated.

Requiring applicants for free or low-cost meals to submit proof of income “could create barriers to participation for eligible children (and) cause significant administrative and record-keeping burden for participating schools,” the agency stated.

Elyse Homel Vitale, a nutrition policy specialist with California Food Policy Advocates, added in an interview Wednesday that the most “administratively efficient” means of checking applicants is “direct certification.” Instead of requiring separate applications and documentation, families already found eligible for other federal food or cash assistance programs are automatically enrolled in school meals.

“Having schools take additional steps to verify eligibility may not be the best use of their resources,” Vitale said.

The National School Lunch Program operates in more than 100,000 schools and institutions nationwide; the newer School Breakfast Program serves somewhat fewer. Upward of 31 million children eat free or low-cost meals every day, at an annual cost of some $15 billion.

Texas and California lead the nation in participation, with 3.3 million and 3.2 million children, respectively, served under the school lunch program. In Florida, 1.6 million children benefited last year.

Within each state, some regions in particular rely on the federal aid. In California’s San Joaquin Valley, as many as 78 percent of schoolchildren in certain counties are eligible for the free or low-cost meals. In Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston, more than half a million children participate.

Auditors examined school regions authorized to operate nutrition programs that included 17 schools each in California and Texas and 26 schools in Florida. The individual districts and schools were not named. Schools were also examined in Delaware, Rhode Island, and Wyoming, where participation rates are much lower.

Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals, while those at or below 185 percent of the poverty level can get reduced-price meals. Currently, families can simply attest to their income and need not show proof. Districts, in turn, must take small samples to verify eligibility.

Often, there are errors. A separate study released by the Food and Nutrition Service this week found that roughly ten percent of school lunch or breakfast program payments were improper, a combination of underpayments and, mostly, overpayments amounting to about $1.5 billion.

“Reducing errors in our school meal programs is a top priority for USDA,” Kevin Concannon, undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, said in a statement.

The Office of Inspector General auditors noted that in one large, unnamed California district, 886 out of 1,020 sampled households turned out to be ineligible for the level of meal aid received.

“Based on these results, we conclude that it is likely that other students receiving free or reduced-price meals may not be eligible for them,” auditors stated.

In Texas, auditors found a district where 796 out of 1,198 sampled households didn’t respond to a request for documents. In Florida, auditors found a woman who had submitted a pay stub indicating she was married, even though her meal application said she was single.

“FNS is at risk for improper payments because there is no assurance that household self-reported income is accurate,” auditors cautioned.

Photo: U.S. Department of Agriculture via Flickr

4 Things The Koch Brothers Love About Big Government

Koch Brothers

They head the largest private oil company in the United States, rake in billions of dollars in profit, and pour millions into political campaigns and lobbying efforts.

They are the Koch brothers, Charles and David, and they absolutely hate “crony capitalism” – except, of course, when it benefits them.

For years, the brothers, who run Koch Industries, have poured their monetary support behind conservative politicians – nearly all of whom have taken firm stances against welfare or safety-net programs. According to David Koch, their political involvement aims only to “minimize the role of government, to maximize the role of private economy and to maximize personal freedoms,” which would explain their supposed backing of libertarian candidates and causes.

Libertarian, however, is just the term used by the billionaire brothers to disguise their corporatist and Tea Party views. As ultra-conservatives, the Kochs have focused their efforts on advancing the careers of far-right lawmakers who vigorously oppose government programs they deem intrusive and socialist.

Ironically, though, Charles and David Koch’s ongoing crusade against government policies that often benefit the nation’s middle and lower classes has not stopped them from discreetly taking advantage of big-government programs and taxpayer money themselves.

Read on to learn how Koch Industries has spent years benefiting from government programs and taxpayer money.

Obamacare Subsidies

Creepy Uncle Sam

In the midst of campaigning against the Affordable Care Act, the Koch brothers still managed to reap benefits from the new health care law.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has accused Koch Industries of having received subsidies under the Affordable Care Act’s temporary Early Retiree Reinsurance Program — a charge that the Associated Press confirmed on Wednesday. Federal records reveal that Koch Industries received $1.4 million in early retiree subsidies, which are meant to compensate employers who have to provide insurance for employees who retire before becoming eligible for Medicare.

Screenshot via Generation Opportunity’s YouTube channel

Corporate Welfare

Koch brothers

Though the Koch brothers are outspoken critics of welfare programs that tend to help the poor and disabled, they have aggressively lobbied for taxpayer handouts for Koch Industries refineries — the primary form of corporate welfare.

Additionally, according to a ThinkProgressreport, a failing Koch Industries oil refinery based in Fairbanks, Alaska once asked then-governor Sarah Palin’s administration for the type of taxpayer-funded bailout that libertarians routinely decry.

Photo: Screenshot via Al-Jazeera

Government Intrusion

charles koch2

Despite advocating for a laissez-faire economic system, the Koch brothers obtained massive government contracts that allowed Koch Industries to buy millions of barrels of crude oil from the Middle East – specifically from Iraq, during the U.S. occupation.

Koch Industries has also benefited from billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies in the form of federal government contracts and awards – billions of dollars Koch Industries never declined to accept.

Screenshot via YouTube

New Deal Socialism

koch brothers

The Kochs have also benefited from an existing provision of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program, which conservatives over the years have condemned as socialist.

According to ThinkProgress, a Koch Industries subsidiary and cattle ranching company, Matador Cattle Company, actually uses one of the New Deal’s existing provisions — the Land Utilization Program —  to “profit off of federal land for free.”

Photo: Truthout.org

Yes, Social Security Is an ‘Entitlement’ — Literally

Q: In a recent column, you advised a 55-year-old man who had just lost his job and had some back problems to file for Social Security disability benefits. To quote from your column: “It doesn’t hurt to try filing for disability benefits.” That’s what’s wrong with our country today. We have an entitlement culture. Everyone thinks they are due something from the government. And you are just perpetuating this entitlement problem by encouraging this guy to file for Social Security benefits!

Q: Your recent column advising a man to file for disability benefits really ticked me off. You [blankety-blank] liberals never met a government program you didn’t like. And by trying to get as many people as possible on the taxpayer’s gravy train, you’re just adding to the problem. No wonder our country is in such a mess. We need to start cutting government programs, not encouraging more people to apply for them!

A: Gosh, sometimes I write what I think is the simplest little column trying to help a guy in a tough situation — and I catch all kinds of grief for it. These two emails are just a sampling of the many I received chastising me for suggesting that a man file for Social Security disability benefits. And some of the responses I got were downright mean and nasty! I guess I pushed a few buttons that are indicative of the conservative “get the government off my back” mood our country seems to be in.

Here was the story. A 55-year old man had worked at the same job for the past 30-plus years and had recently been laid off. He said he was looking for work but wasn’t having any success. He mentioned that he had severe back pain and although he was reluctant to do so, his wife wanted him to file for Social Security disability benefits. He emailed me asking what chance I thought he had of qualifying for such benefits.

In my column, I essentially told him two things. First, I told him the obvious: He would have no chance if he never filed for disability benefits. And then I did say that it wouldn’t hurt to try filing for such benefits, and I told him how to do so. But the second thing I told him is that I thought there was a pretty good chance he would be considered simply unemployed and not disabled.

I explained that to qualify for Social Security disability benefits, you must have an impairment so severe that it is expected to keep you out of work for at least 12 months. Because he himself said he was looking for work, it sounded to me like he wouldn’t meet that legal definition of a disabling condition.

But here is the point: He has every right in the world to file for Social Security disability benefits. We all do. And it’s my job to tell him so. In this guy’s case, he worked and paid Social Security taxes for more than 30 years. He’s out of work. He has a medical condition that is causing him pain. And I have learned in four decades of working with the Social Security program that many people who file for Social Security disability benefits have more medical problems than they initially allege.

For example, in addition to his back problems, this guy might have high blood pressure. He might have a little heart tremor. He might have hearing loss. His back pain alone may not be enough to qualify him for benefits. But a combination of impairments might make him legally disabled.

I don’t know anything about the man other than what he wrote in his short email. But I would have been entirely negligent had I answered him by saying something like: “You’ve got a bad back. Well that’s tough! I’ve got a bad back, too. You are not eligible for Social Security disability benefits, and you have no right to apply for them!”

I guess that’s the message all the people who got upset with my answer wanted me to deliver to this guy.

Many people throw around the term “entitlements,” as if all government programs are free giveaways. And according to these folks, everyone today feels entitled to something, and that’s why this country is going to you-know-where in a hand basket! They are especially upset with those “[blankety blank] liberals,” who just encourage everyone to get on the entitlement train. And if you listen to the anti-government crowd, they’ll tell you that Social Security is the lead car on that gravy train.

Well, Social Security truly and literally is an “entitlement” program. Retirement, disability, and survivor’s benefits make up what is known as Title II of the Social Security Act. And the law says that if you work and pay taxes for a required amount of time and if you meet all the other eligibility requirements, you are indeed entitled to Social Security benefits.

I must, however, make this important semantic point: There is a difference between being eligible for a government benefit and being entitled to it. On the very first day of my training class, when I joined the Social Security Administration over 40 years ago, I was taught that everyone who works and pays taxes is potentially “eligible” for Social Security benefits, but you don’t actually become “entitled” to them until you file and sign a legal application for benefits and your claim is approved.

Like it or not, Social Security is an entitlement program. And as taxpayers, each one of us has every right to apply for such benefits.

If you have a Social Security question, Tom Margenau has the answer. Contact him at thomas.margenau@comcast.net.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Study: Tea Party Thinking Driven By Question Of Work And Deservingness

A Harvard study that got some buzz earlier this month deserves some (delayed) mention. Assembled by political scientist Theda Skocpol and two graduate students, Vanessa Williamson and John Coggin, the work, “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism” essentially posits that it is not opposition to government spending in general or even welfare programs that drives Tea Party sentiment, but rather anger and frustration with the supposedly undeserving, foreign mooch scarfing up government programs:

Untethered from recent GOP baggage and policy specifics, the Tea Party has energized disgruntled white middle-class conservatives and achieved widespread attention, despite stagnant or declining favorability ratings among the general public. As participant observation and interviews with Massachusetts activists reveal, Tea Partiers are not monolithically hostile toward government; they distinguish between programs perceived as going to hard-working contributors to U.S. society like themselves and “handouts” perceived as going to unworthy or freeloading people. Whether Tea Party activism persists or subsides in 2011 and beyond, it has sapped Democratic momentum, revitalized Republican conservatism, and pulled the national Republican Party toward the far right.

Democrats should use this knowledge to drive a wedge between the national conservative movement — dedicated to privatizing popular social programs — and a Tea Party grassroots that wants its benefits.