Showing posts with label Waste-Fraud-Abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Waste-Fraud-Abuse. Show all posts

Sunday, April 28, 2019

TheLIRR has some strange clocks...

Caputo, who made $461,646 last year after logging an improbable 3,864 hours in OT and will likely retire with a $162,000 a year pension, has been busy car shopping and making home improvements.

A normal work year assuming a 40 hour work week times 48 weeks, given a four week vacation comes to 1920 hours. So, 3,864 hours of overtime equals 80.5 hours per week...is this even possible or is the union finger on the scale?

Sunday, January 6, 2019

Report: Rachel Dolezal, aka Nkechi Diallo, faces trial for allegedly stealing thousands in welfare

Report: Rachel Dolezal, aka Nkechi Diallo, faces trial for allegedly stealing thousands in welfare



Diallo also falsely claimed in 2015 that she is black


The former president of an NCAAP chapter, Rachel Dolezal — also known as Nkechi Diallo — now faces a March trial on welfare fraud charges following several legal maneuvers that have irritated a Spokane County judge in Washington state, KAYU-TV reported.

Who is she?

Diallo, 41, is the woman who made headlines in 2015 after her parents made the bombshell revelation that her claim of being African-American was false.
Judge Michelle Szambelan told Diallo's attorney Bevan Maxey at a hearing Friday that enough time was given to prepare for the trial, KAYU reported. Diallo was arrested in May 2018 on charges of first degree theft by welfare fraud, second degree perjury and false verification for public assistance. Her case has been repeatedly rescheduled since it appeared on the docket in June, the report states.
Diallo reportedly has a strained relationship with her parents. After they exposed that Diallo is white, she allegedly began falsifying her income to obtain public assistance. Diallo got on welfare by allegedly claiming she was living on just a few hundred dollars a month that friends were giving to her as gifts.
From August 2015 through November 2017, Diallo collected about $9,000 in state financial assistance.
But in March 2017, a state investigator found that she had deposited more than $80,000 during that same period. She was reportedly making money from an autobiography she wrote titled "In Full Color," along with "speaking engagements, soap making, doll making and the sale of her art," Fox News reported.

What was the fallout?

After the June 2015 disclosure by her parents, Diallo "resigned as Spokane NAACP president, was kicked off a police oversight commission, lost a position as a freelance columnist for a weekly newspaper in Spokane and was fired from her job teaching African studies at nearby Eastern Washington University," according to Fox News.

Since her arrest, Diallo's case has languished on the court docket and was rescheduled numbers times since her arraignment in June.
Judge Szambelan told attorneys Friday that all of the delays are getting old. A new trial date is set for March 4.


Tuesday, September 4, 2018

"The leftist "narrative" up until now is that illegals never take welfare." But, it appears not to be so!

September 4, 2018
Illegals drop out of government programs, welfare bureaucrats hardest hit

By Monica Showalter

Welfare bureaucrats are putting the scream on, with news that President Trump's efforts to enforce U.S. immigration law are incentivizing illegal immigrants to drop out of assorted welfare programs.
Get a load of this alarmism from the welfare administrative mafias quoted by Politico:
Immigrants are turning down government help to buy infant formula and healthy food for their young children

because they’re afraid the Trump administration could bar them from getting a green card if they take federal aid.
Local health providers say they’ve received panicked phone calls from both documented and undocumented immigrant families demanding to be dropped from the rolls of WIC, a federal nutrition program aimed at pregnant women and children, after news reports that the White House is potentially planning to deny legal status to immigrants who’ve used public benefits. Agencies in at least 18 states say they’ve seen drops of up to 20 percent in enrollment, and they attribute the change largely to fears about the immigration policy.
Are they serious? This is a crisis? We are supposed be alarmed, pound our feet, shout to our congressmen, and mobilize to put illegals back on taxpayer-funded welfare programs?

Obviously, someone's rice bowl is threatened and it's not actually that of the illegals. For starters, this whole thing looks funny.
The leftist "narrative" up until now is that illegals never take welfare. That looks rather tattered with this report about illegals dropping out of welfare. Actually, it confirms what conservatives have noticed all along: that illegals do take taxpayer-financed welfare, in large numbers, and come here with skills so low their capacity to succeed in a Western economy is compromised. Meanwhile, the very existence of that welfare, open to all comers, is acting as a "magnet" for more of them to head to el norte, kids in tow.
The second "narrative" it blows apart, is that illegals care so very much about their kids, much more than the rest of us, as the
border show around family separations for people caught breaking the law, demonstrated. What they're claiming now is that without government programs, these people would let their own kids starve in front of them instead of take other measures (such as getting jobs or going to private charities.) Politico reports the bureaucrats (notice they didn't find any narrative-perfect illegals) in full hysteria-call:
“One way or another society is going to pay for this,” said Hennessey of Public Health Solutions in New York City. “It’s very expensive for a baby in the NICU. It’s very expensive when a child’s developmental needs aren't met, or there’s a severe maternal morbidity event.”
So illegals, who come here for jobs, not welfare, and adore their kids so much they can't bear to be separated from them, would stand there and let their kids starve if America doesn't cough up a full food ride for them through the Women, Infants, and Children program, and no other resources are available for them.
Nope, this is about bureaucratic rice bowls. Bureaucrats and their wealthy NGO allies get cash and funding based on the numbers of people they can enroll in their programs. A booming economy is bad news for them, because people take jobs and leave welfare rolls. So is President Trump's bid to enforce existing U.S. immigration law.
The bureaucrats and do-gooders quoted all admit that they aren't actually entirely sure why the Women Infants and Children program has seen its numbers drop from 7.4 million to 6.8 million since President Trump took office. There is a dismissive note about the "improving economy" but no recognition that the sudden availability of jobs in the Trump economy tends to have a very large effect on whether people (legal and illegal) stay on welfare rolls. For a lot of the poor, the promise of a job with the prospect of higher wages and an improved standard of living -- and no government supervision, no need to keep heads down and incomes low -- is preferable to any state welfare, so they're taking the jobs and running. Jobs in that much-dismissed 'improving economy' is likely the biggest reason the numbers of welfare recipients, both legal and illegal, is going down. This by the way, is correlated with falling food stamp rolls (illegals supposedly can't get those) and declines in other welfare populations in the Trump economy.
But the quoted bureaucrats do say that because they have fielded inquiries from illegals, those same people who supposedly aren't bright enough to manage a voter id card, yet are amazingly cognizant on the minutia of maintaining the exact qualifications for welfare, and who want to make sure that being a public charge won't hurt their green card chances.
What this shows is that the open borders lobby and the welfare industrial complex are amazingly integrated, and President Trump's effort to restore rule of law at the border and protect taxpayer assets is a threat to their money interests and raison d'etre. What it also shows is that President Trump can't keep pushing hard enough on this. Striking out at the money trail has always been a surefire effort to ending corrupt regimes, and by extension, corrupt bureaucratic empires.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The Left lives in a world of fantasy the causes insane behavior: California city gears up for universal basic income trial. Here’s how they’ll pay for it.

California city gears up for universal basic income trial. Here’s how they’ll pay for it.

California city gears up for universal basic income trial. Here’s how they’ll pay for it.
Under the leadership of Mayor Michael Tubbs, the city of Stockton, California, will debut its universal basic income program in Feb. 2019. (Image source: YouTube video screenshot) 
Despite recent failures of similar programs in other countries, a California city is gearing up for a universal basic income trial program to begin early next year, according to Business Insider.
Mayor Michael Tubbs of Stockton, California, where the trial will take place, announced details of the program Monday. The trial is scheduled to last 18 months.
“We hope to challenge the entrenched stereotypes and assumptions about the poor, and the working poor, that paralyze our pursuit of more aggressive solutions,” read a reportfrom Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, which is providing the money. “We aim to illustrate how widespread and episodic poverty is.”
Tubbs and SEED are optimistic about the program, despite the recent failure of a three-year program in Canada that ended after only a year, and the non-renewal of a similar program in Finland.

What are the new details?

The SEED universal basic income program is scheduled to begin in February 2019 and run for a year and a half. Under the program, 100 residents will be selected to receive $500 dollars per month, to use however they like.
One thousand residences in eligible neighborhoods will be randomly selected by SEED and given the opportunity to apply for the program, then SEED will randomly select 100 from the group that applies.
Eligible neighborhoods include those with a median income of $46,033 or less, although individuals who earn more than that can be selected if they live in an eligible neighborhood.
Researchers will monitor those receiving the money to see what impact it may have on health, civic engagement, and financial security, and compare the results to a control group that will also be monitored during that period.

Who is paying for this?

The trial program will be funded by donations from several individuals and organizations. From Business Insider:
The city’s basic income pilot is fully funded by private donations, not tax dollars, according to a SEED report released Monday. Donors include Facebook co-founder Andrew McCollum and sociologist Gretchen Sisson, who is McCollum’s wife. The Economic Security Project— co-chaired by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, Center for Community Change Action president Dorian Warren, and Peers.org co-founder Natalie Foster — is a major donor as well.
Tubbs, whom some residents recently wanted removed from office for wasteful spending and lack of concern for the community, said he wants to change the perception toward people in poverty.
“In our economic structure, the people who work the hardest oftentimes make the least,” Tubbs told Business Insider for a previous article. “I know migrant farm workers who do back-breaking labor every day, or Uber drivers and Lyft drivers who drive 10 to 12 hours a day in traffic. You can’t be lazy doing that kind of work.”

Monday, June 4, 2018

Stockton area drug dealers celebrate anticipated boost in business. It didn't work in Finland so what are the chances...?





California city fights poverty with guaranteed income




STOCKTON, Calif. (Reuters) - Michael Tubbs, the 27-year-old mayor of Stockton, California, has a radical plan to combat poverty in his cash-strapped city: a “no strings” guaranteed basic income of $500 a month for its residents.


Starting in early 2019, Tubbs plans to provide the monthly stipend to a select group of residents as part of a privately funded 18-month experiment to assess how people use the money. 
“And then, maybe, in two or three years, we can have a much more informed discussion about the social safety net, the income floor people deserve and the best way to do it because we’ll have more data and research,” Tubbs told Reuters. 
The city has not yet decided how many people will receive income from the trial project, which is funded by The Economic Security Project, a philanthropic network co-chaired by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. 
The idea of governments providing a universal basic income to their citizens has been gaining traction globally. The Finnish government is running a two-year trial to provide 2,000 unemployed people with monthly payments of approximately $660. 
In Alaska, each resident has long received an annual dividend check from oil revenues from the Alaska Permanent Fund, which Tubbs said is a model for his approach. Last year, the payout in Alaska was $1,100. 
The Economic Security Project is providing $1 million to fund the Stockton trial after approaching Tubbs to ask if his city would be interested in piloting a basic income program. 
“I jumped at the opportunity,” said Tubbs, who was familiar with the concept from the writings of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. 
Hughes, 34, has proposed the U.S. government give a guaranteed income of $500 a month to every working American earning less than $50,000 a year, at a total cost of $290 billion a year. He says a 50-percent tax rate on income and capital gains for Americans earning more than $250,000 would pay for it. 

ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT 

The issue of economic empowerment is a personal one for Tubbs. Growing up in Stockton, where one in four residents live in poverty, his family relied on government assistance to meet their basic needs. 
“My mom was on welfare for the first five, six years of my life,” he said. “You’d get food stamps, but that’s not cash, and maybe food’s not the biggest need ... So this gives people more agency to kind of make the best decision.” 
The scheme is not without its detractors. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development argues that providing an unconditional basic income to everyone of working age would do little to combat poverty if not funded by extra taxes. Critics also say it would encourage people not to look for work. 
Finland’s government has opted not to extend that country’s two-year trial when it ends next December. Some lawmakers and economists had argued the scheme was too expensive and narrow to yield credible conclusions. 
For 31-year-old Shay Holliman, though, an extra $500 a month would just allow her to make ends meet. She was recently released from prison after an 11-year sentence and works a 9-5 job at a local nonprofit then drives for Uber and Lyft in the evenings and at weekends. 
“I still can’t pay all my bills,” she said. 

Michael Tubbs, the 27-year-old mayor of Stockton, sits in his office at Stockton City Hall in Stockton, California, U.S., April 24, 2018. Picture taken April 24, 2018. REUTERS/Jane Ross

‘MORAL RESPONSIBILITY’ 

The criteria for participation in the experiment has not yet been decided, Tubbs said. But already, he has been receiving letters and emails from residents asking to be considered. 
Tubbs says he “felt almost a moral responsibility” to do something “a little bit out the box” for his city of 300,000 east of San Francisco. 
“And I know, for me, I want to live in a community where people’s basic needs are met,” he said. 
Community organizer Trina Turner, a pastor who deals with economically disadvantaged people, hopes the experiment will change the way people see Stockton, which declared bankruptcy in 2012 and has high rates of crime and homelessness. 


Slideshow (3 Images)
“I think it will begin to shift the narrative about Stockton,” she said. “Instead of being the miserable city, we’ll be the city that people are waiting to come to for all of the right reasons.” 
Reporting by Jane Ross; Editing by Bill Tarrant and Daniel Wallis

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Another UN agency that spends huge on themselves not so much on their mission.

AP Exclusive: Strapped UN health agency spends big on travel

LONDON (AP) — The World Health Organization routinely spends about $200 million a year on travel — far more than what it doles out to fight some of the biggest problems in public health including AIDS, tuberculosis or malaria, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press.
As the cash-strapped U.N. health agency pleads for more money to fund its responses to health crises worldwide, it has also been struggling to get its own travel costs under control. Despite introducing new rules to try to curb its expansive travel budget, senior officials have complained internally that U.N. staffers are breaking the rules by booking perks like business class airplane tickets and rooms in five-star hotels.
Last year, WHO spent about $71 million on AIDS and hepatitis. On malaria, it spent $61 million. And to slow tuberculosis, WHO invested $59 million. Still, some health programs do get exceptional funding — the agency spends about $450 million trying to wipe out polio every year.
On a recent trip to Guinea, where WHO director-general Dr. Margaret Chan praised health workers in West Africa for triumphing over Ebola, Chan stayed in the biggest presidential suite at the Palm Camayenne hotel in Conakry. The suite has an advertised price of 900 euros ($1,008) a night. The agency declined to say who picked up the tab, noting only that her hotels are sometimes paid for by the host country.
But some say that sends the wrong message to the rest of the agency's 7,000 staffers.
"We don't trust people to do the right thing when it comes to travel," said Nick Jeffreys, WHO's director of finance, during an in-house seminar on accountability in September 2015 — a video of which was obtained by the AP.
Despite WHO's numerous travel regulations, Jeffreys said staffers "can sometimes manipulate a little bit their travel." He said the agency couldn't be sure they were always booking the cheapest ticket or that the travel was even warranted.
"People don't always know what the right thing to do is," he said.
Ian Smith, executive director of Chan's office, said the chair of WHO's audit committee said the agency often did little to stop misbehavior.
"We, as an organization, sometimes function as if rules are there to be broken and that exceptions are the rule rather than the norm," Smith said.
Earlier that year, a memorandum was sent to Chan and other top leaders with the subject, "ACTIONS TO CONTAIN TRAVEL COSTS" in all-caps. The memo reported that compliance with rules that travel be booked in advance was "very low" and also pointed out that WHO was under pressure from its member countries to save money.
Travel would always be necessary, the memo said, but "as an organization we must demonstrate that we are serious about managing this appropriately."
In a statement to the AP, the U.N. health agency said "the nature of WHO's work often requires WHO staff to travel" and said costs had been reduced 14 percent last year compared to the previous year — although that year's total was exceptionally high due to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
But staffers are still openly ignoring the rules.
An internal analysis in March, obtained by the AP, found that only two of seven departments at WHO's Geneva headquarters met their targets, and concluded the compliance rate for booking travel in advance was between 28 and 59 percent.
Since 2013, WHO has paid out $803 million for travel. WHO's approximately $2 billion annual budget is drawn from the taxpayer-funded contributions of its 194 member countries, with the United States the largest contributor.
After he was elected, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted : "The UN has such great potential," but had become "just a club for people to get together, talk, and have a good time. So sad!"
Some health experts said while WHO's travel costs look out of place when compared to some of its disease budgets, that doesn't necessarily mean that travel expenses are inflated.
Michael Osterholm, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Minnesota, has frequently been flown to WHO meetings — in economy — on the agency's dime.
"This may just speak to how misplaced international priorities are, that WHO is getting so little for these disease programs," he said.
During the Ebola disaster in West Africa, WHO's travel costs spiked to $234 million. Although experts say on-the-ground help was critical, some question whether the agency couldn't have shaved costs so that more funds went to West Africa , where the three stricken countries couldn't even afford basics like protective boots, gloves and soap for endangered medical workers or body bags for the thousands who died.
Dr. Bruce Aylward, who directed WHO's outbreak response, racked up nearly $400,000 in travel expenses during the Ebola crisis, sometimes flying by helicopter to visit clinics instead of traveling by jeep over muddy roads, according to internal trip reports he filed.
Chan spent more than $370,000 in travel that year, as documented in a confidential 25-page analysis of WHO expenses that identified the agency's top 50 spenders. Aylward and Chan were first and second on that list. Three sources who asked not to be identified for fear of losing their jobs told the AP that Chan often flew in first class.
WHO said the travel policy, until February, "included the possibility for the (director-general) to fly first class." It said Chan flew business class and requested the policy be changed to eliminate the first-class option.
"There's a huge inequality between the people at the top who are getting helicopters and business class and everyone else who just has to make do," said Sophie Harman, an expert in global health politics at Queen Mary University in London.
Other international aid agencies, including Doctors Without Borders, explicitly forbid their staff from traveling in business class — even having the charity's president fly in economy class, a spokeswoman said. With a staff of about 37,000 aid workers versus WHO's 7,000 staffers, Doctors Without Borders spends about $43 million on travel a year.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would not provide its travel costs but said staffers are not allowed to fly business class unless they have a medical condition that warrants it. The U.N. children's agency UNICEF, which has about 13,000 staffers, said it spent $140 million on global travel in 2016.
"When you spend the kind of money WHO is spending on travel, you have to be able to justify it," said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Global Health Institute at Harvard University. "I can't think of any justification for ever flying first class."
Jha warned that WHO's travel spending could have significant consequences for fundraising. Several weeks ago, WHO asked for about $100 million to save people in Somalia from an ongoing drought. In April, it requested $126 million to stop the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen .
"If WHO is not being as lean as possible, it's going to be hard to remain credible when they make their next funding appeal," Jha said.