At first glance, this seems like a victory for taxpayers over the evil welfare recipients out there, but when you see quotes such as these, mentioned within this very article, is does make you think twice if this is really a thinly-veiled case of the oppression of the poor. This is especially true when you read the comments at the bottom of this article. For example: The woman charged with improperly getting $41,540 in daycare over a three-year period has three kids, ages 3 to 11, and works full-time at Walmart. Another woman who faces lower-end charges was arraigned Thursday morning. She collected benefits for which she wasnt eligible because she failed to report that she owned a car. These two examples hardly sound like intentional lawbreakers. Rather, they sound very much like people who are in desperate need of assistance. When you claim to go after a woman for failing to report a car, youre not a hero of the taxpayer. When you go after another woman for working full-time at Wal-Mart and collecting more money in daycare benefits, you have to ask if this also matches the profile of a typical welfare queen. These are only two examples listed here, but simply scratching the surface of this article reveals more questions than answers. The fact that, these two examples at least, are being punished, while showing an attempt to have supported themselves shows that this dragnet is aimed at the all-too-obvious boogeymen of society - the urban black, hispanic and even white poor. Will they be going after Kiryas Joel as well? Or is it only welfare fraud when the obivious minorities are concerned? This should cast some doubt on this particular dragnet - not all of these suspects fit the bill for intentional welfare fraud, which would include an absolute unwillingness to work, failure to follow reporting requirements and applying for benefits that any reasonable person would not need in a certain circumstance.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:49:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015