Journalist/write gets three "Obama" phones rather easily

[WackyDan]

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354867/me-and-my-obamaphones-jillian-kay-melchior

From the article:

"Confession: You’re paying my phone bill.

In the past month, I have received three shiny new cell phones, courtesy of American taxpayers, that should never have fallen into my hands."

I don't care whether they are called "Obama" phones or not. It is a benefit too easily abused. Time to enforce some accountability on the part of these wireless providers.

 

[Ldir]

Sounds like fraud. I hope he is prosecuted.

 

[berzerker60]

*Goes and sets fire to a park*
Parks are too easy to set on fire! Get rid of parks!



What do you mean, I ought to not set fire to parks, and maybe ought to back up such an argument by showing that there's an actual problem of park fires aside from those I cause?

 

[WackyDan]

Sounds like fraud. I hope he is prosecuted.

In the name of journalism he gets a pass.

 

[thraashman]

*goes and sets fire to a park*
parks are too easy to set on fire! Get rid of parks!



What do you mean, i ought to not set fire to parks, and maybe ought to back up such an argument by showing that there's an actual problem of park fires aside from those i cause?

Quit using logic in P&N!!!


Note: apparently if you type in all caps, your post is automatically converted to all lower case. The more you know!

 

[Yreka]

*Goes and sets fire to a park*
Parks are too easy to set on fire! Get rid of parks!



What do you mean, I ought to not set fire to parks, and maybe ought to back up such an argument by showing that there's an actual problem of park fires aside from those I cause?

Here's the park fire epidemic you were looking for:

Getting rid of parks might be excessive, but it looks like a good time to install a couple fire hydrants don't you think ?

 

[berzerker60]

That's funding. That's not fraud/waste. You would expect any safety net spending to spike when the economy crashes and people need the safety net. The question is whether it's being abused. That's entirely plausible - some level of waste and corruption happens in everything, public and private, and there definitely ought to be some kind of auditor in place if there isn't. I strongly suspect there is. Anyway, claims of waste require actual evidence that it's happening, not just that it CAN happen.

If someone shows it IS happening, by all means spend on eliminating fraud, but that doesn't mean cut the program beyond that fraudulent use. It's always a balancing act, like when Florida spent more pee testing welfare recipients than it saved by catching drug-using welfare recipients using the pee tests. Too much spent checking for waste is waste itself.

 

[Yreka]

That's funding. That's not fraud/waste. You would expect any safety net spending to spike when the economy crashes and people need the safety net. The question is whether it's being abused. That's entirely plausible - some level of waste and corruption happens in everything, public and private, and there definitely ought to be some kind of auditor in place if there isn't. I strongly suspect there is. Anyway, claims of waste require actual evidence that it's happening, not just that it CAN happen.

If someone shows it IS happening, by all means spend on eliminating fraud, but that doesn't mean cut the program beyond that fraudulent use. It's always a balancing act, like when Florida spent more pee testing welfare recipients than it saved by catching drug-using welfare recipients using the pee tests. Too much spent checking for waste is waste itself.

Fair point on spending vs fraud, but it is a dramatic increase regardless of the economy. The other troubling point, is the spending increase rises sharply right around the time the program went from land line (which could be easily limited to 1 per residence) to wireless ( which could in theory be unlimited depending on how its set up)

As for the bolded, isnt that exactly what the author linked in the OP trying to do ? The CAN vs IS argument seems spurious to me. It CAN and IS happening ( guy linked in the OP just pulled 3).. The question is not is any of this spending fraud, but how much..

The FCC supposedly buckled down on eligibility standards last year and established other safeguards aimed at reducing fraud. I was curious about how tough it was to get one of these phones, so last month, I hit the streets of New York. And out of respect for the law and my journalistic integrity, I did not lie to obtain a phone.
Now is the point, I suppose, where I should explain that I really, really shouldn’t have received a single phone. Despite what you hear, not all 20-something writers in the Big City are starving. Given my earnings, even if I were supporting a family of eight, my income would still rule me out. Nor do I receive any type of government benefit. By the Lifeline program’s standards, I am unambiguously ineligible.

 

[michal1980]

That's funding. That's not fraud/waste. You would expect any safety net spending to spike when the economy crashes and people need the safety net. The question is whether it's being abused. That's entirely plausible - some level of waste and corruption happens in everything, public and private, and there definitely ought to be some kind of auditor in place if there isn't. I strongly suspect there is. Anyway, claims of waste require actual evidence that it's happening, not just that it CAN happen.

If someone shows it IS happening, by all means spend on eliminating fraud, but that doesn't mean cut the program beyond that fraudulent use. It's always a balancing act, like when Florida spent more pee testing welfare recipients than it saved by catching drug-using welfare recipients using the pee tests. Too much spent checking for waste is waste itself.

so roughly 2-3 times growth in unemployment = 6-10 times growth in welfare?

 

[berzerker60]

so roughly 2-3 times growth in unemployment = 6-10 times growth in welfare?

That would be a sign of a problem if the program had saturated the populace who need it ahead of time. Like foodstamps, there were lots of people eligible who didn't know they were, or were too proud to take part until it got REALLY bad, or didn't even know the program existed going into the recession. Obama's administration has worked to make sure people know what they're entitled to.

I know lots of you will read that as "Obama getting people hooked on entitlements!!" and whatever, you're entitled to your opinions, but it's equally "Obama helping people get back on their feet using established programs instead of starting new ones or just letting them sit unemployed when they could get a job if they had a call-back number and a full stomach.

Regarding "waste is possible" vs. "waste is happening in significant numbers," again, it's plausible, but for example at my university there was an "honor code" regarding cheating. It was entirely possible for someone to cheat all over the place, but that would just ruin it for everyone. Sure, some people still cheated - studies have shown such honor codes don't have a particularly large impact either way on cheating rates - but it wasn't the wholesale "everyone cheats all the time, we have to crack down on this HARD" scenario you might extrapolate from someone publishing an article about how they managed to cheat on three exams. People can be shitty, but they're not always, and it's worth checking if there's a real problem before spending money to fix it.

 

[boomerang]

The lengths to which lefties will go defending waste, fraud and abuse is absolutely sickening.

 

[WackyDan]

The lengths to which lefties will go defending waste, fraud and abuse is absolutely sickening.

Basically. You show that it indeed does happen (like some voter fraud) and they say "prove it happens enough to give a shit".

What's a couple more billion amongst friends right? What the author proved was not that people on welfare can get multiple phones, but that people who didn't even qualify could get phones. That is a fairly good barometer in my book that fraud is happening and there should be tighter controls/standards for signups. You don't need to go back and audit every phone and have a costly fraud audit, but simply require everyone who has one to recertify if they've had one of these phones for at least one year coupled with tighter controls on the vendors. It will weed them out over period of a couple years certainly and ensure the program actually stays funded as a viable benefit/need for those who truly need it.

 

[berzerker60]

Basically. You show that it indeed does happen (like some voter fraud) and they say "prove it happens enough to give a shit".

What's a couple more billion amongst friends right? What the author proved was not that people on welfare can get multiple phones, but that people who didn't even qualify could get phones. That is a fairly good barometer in my book that fraud is happening and there should be tighter controls/standards for signups. You don't need to go back and audit every phone and have a costly fraud audit, but simply require everyone who has one to recertify if they've had one of these phones for at least one year coupled with tighter controls on the vendors. It will weed them out over period of a couple years certainly and ensure the program actually stays funded as a viable benefit/need for those who truly need it.

Uh, yes, "happens enough to give is a shit" is a pretty good metric for deciding to take action. You're aware that it's impossible to stop 100% of all fraud and waste, right? The private market does. Every retail store has a certain amount of "breakage" they calculate into running costs, because actually stopping every bit of theft is cost prohibitive and unnecessary. But I guess it's "defending waste and theft" for them to do that?

What you've described might work, but how do you know there aren't already policies in place to accomplish exactly this goal, but take longer than the 1 day since the author got these phones in order to function? Because your plan wouldn't stop him from getting the phones either, it would just stop him from keeping them.

 

[Schmide]

Fraudulent title. They're Regan/Bush phones.

 

[Lanyap]

Fraudulent title. They're Regan/Bush phones.

They're ObamaPhones now.

 

[WackyDan]

Fraudulent title. They're Regan/Bush phones.

Notice the quotes around "Obama" phone? Notice that that label is indeed in the title of the article?

I never implied they were "Obama phones", but you got your panties in a wad over it anyway. Title stands.

 

[WackyDan]

Uh, yes, "happens enough to give is a shit" is a pretty good metric for deciding to take action. You're aware that it's impossible to stop 100% of all fraud and waste, right? The private market does. Every retail store has a certain amount of "breakage" they calculate into running costs, because actually stopping every bit of theft is cost prohibitive and unnecessary. But I guess it's "defending waste and theft" for them to do that?

What you've described might work, but how do you know there aren't already policies in place to accomplish exactly this goal, but take longer than the 1 day since the author got these phones in order to function? Because your plan wouldn't stop him from getting the phones either, it would just stop him from keeping them.

Databases... If the gov't can consolidate all our phone records and internet browsing habits on a whim (NSA) then certainly they can have the wireless vendors ping off the same lifeline database of recipients.... or have the vendors do an ETL to each other's databases. That would give near real time data for sign up and verification.

 

[boomerang]

Uh, yes, "happens enough to give is a shit" is a pretty good metric for deciding to take action. You're aware that it's impossible to stop 100% of all fraud and waste, right? The private market does. Every retail store has a certain amount of "breakage" they calculate into running costs, because actually stopping every bit of theft is cost prohibitive and unnecessary. But I guess it's "defending waste and theft" for them to do that?

What you've described might work, but how do you know there aren't already policies in place to accomplish exactly this goal, but take longer than the 1 day since the author got these phones in order to function? Because your plan wouldn't stop him from getting the phones either, it would just stop him from keeping them.

Run for Congress. You'll fit right in.

 

[ivwshane]

so roughly 2-3 times growth in unemployment = 6-10 times growth in welfare?

Understanding the history of the program would help to answer your questions. You could, all by yourself, look into that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/



I'm sure there is a lot of waste with this program, I'm pretty sure there is zero incenrive for the companies providing the service not to curb such waste/fraud.

Another shady business? Yeah probably.

 

[Acanthus]

so roughly 2-3 times growth in unemployment = 6-10 times growth in welfare?

Actually, yes.

Read up on the differences between U3 and U6 unemployment, and current rates.

 

[Attic]

The lengths to which lefties will go defending waste, fraud and abuse is absolutely sickening.

to be fair its certain indivuduals, not all lefties who engage in this behavior. Taking money from others fills part of some individuals needs to have control. That they would defend waste, fraud, and abuse in a government program is standard.

 

[michal1980]

Understanding the history of the program would help to answer your questions. You could, all by yourself, look into that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/



I'm sure there is a lot of waste with this program, I'm pretty sure there is zero incenrive for the companies providing the service not to curb such waste/fraud.

Another shady business? Yeah probably.

LOL on factcheck.org

"Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, ...." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill."

Only a lib group can claim that's not a tax, because its called a fee.

 

[Sonikku]

People are making a conscious choice to break the law and defraud the government. Deep down, I know Obama is to blame.

 

[justoh]

ring ring ring ring ring ring ring ring obama phone.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Obama caters to these fraudsters. It's part of how he appeals to the vast majority of his voting demographic.