More Social Benefit Fraud

Overheal

http://consumerist.com/2011/09/govt-paid-over-600-million-in-benefits-to-dead-workers.html

A new report by the Office of Personnel Management's inspector general say the federal government has paid out over $600 million in benefits in the past five years to dead people. The money was meant to go to retired or disabled federal workers.
The AP reports the main part of the problem is that families don't always tell the government when the deaths occur. Sometimes this is to their benefit. In one case, a son of a recipient took in $515,000 over the course of 37 years. The waste was only discovered after the son died.
The inspector general laid out 14 recommendations for fixing the holes in the system. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) says they've already adopted 10 of the proposals. Some of the methods include cross-referencing their database with Social Security death records, checking out tax records, and speeding up death reporting.
"Though we have implemented many positive reforms, I remain deeply committed to keeping this a top priority and to working with our IG to ensure the proper internal controls are in place to protect the taxpayers and our employees and retirees," OPM's director told the AP in a written statement.
Gov't Paid $600 Million in Benefits to Dead People [AP]

I'm at least glad they've started taking what should have been obvious steps to correct some of these issues. But still disappointed at the figures we're talking about here: $600,000,000 USD. Over the course of years, but still $600 million. That's still money that is ultimately reflected in the National Debt. And still very disappointed that they are still failing to stop it:

The government has been aware of the problem since a 2005 inspector general's report revealed defects in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Yet the improper payments have continued, despite more than a half dozen attempts to develop a system that can figure out which beneficiaries are still alive and which are dead, the report said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/govt-paid-600-million-benefits-dead-people-14590632

See also our previous discussion about $7 million (and likely more) in EBT/Food Stamp fraud: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056353579

Somewhere in there people starting thinking 'oh this is just an isolated incident' - well doubters here is another case for you to study and not one of the dozen of already mentioned EBT instances I linked to in my last, but fraud of an entirely different nature that further exemplifies more holes in the system. I'm sure it won't be the last or the biggest dollar figure that suddenly gets reported as being defrauded from the taxpayer's treasury and I'll be sure to note them as they come.

Last year, government investigators found that more than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each from the massive economic recovery package went to people who were either dead or in prison.

Definitely not the last.

Victor

So this costs everyone in the USA about 38c per year?

There are bigger fish to fry, e.g. non payment of the taxes that pay for those benefits.

Overheal

Victor wrote: »

So this costs everyone in the USA about 38c per year?

There are bigger fish to fry, e.g. non payment of the taxes that pay for those benefits.

That's pretty much the argument from last thread about $7m. Now we have $600m reported gone. Thats an 86% jump? What, will the next case of reported fraud be $50bn?

If there are systemic failures, you can bet the problem is far greater than the sum of one reported figure. It's like arithmetic error when you're solving a calculus problem: the error might be tiny as **** all by itself but it will wildly change the result of your equation.

Amerika

Victor wrote: »

So this costs everyone in the USA about 38c per year?

There are bigger fish to fry, e.g. non payment of the taxes that pay for those benefits.

"Look after your pennies and your pounds will look after themselves."

Victor

There will always be errors. Sure, you can minimise them, but eventually, one starts spending more on checking than one does on cheques.

Overheal wrote: »

That's pretty much the argument from last thread about $7m. Now we have $600m reported gone. Thats an 86% jump?

86-fold = 8571%

Perhaps the real problem is math, not accounting. :pac:

Overheal

Victor wrote: »

There will always be errors. Sure, you can minimise them, but eventually, one starts spending more on checking than one does on cheques.86-fold = 8571%

Perhaps the real problem is math, not accounting. :pac:

I uh... math score. THE POINT IS THIS(!) /Stewart - you screw up your arithmetic, and you end up wildly off in your math. As exemplified by my spectacular lapse in good mathimications. And as previously exemplified by the social programs in our federal government, I'm pretty thoroughly convinced the buck won't stop here.