A Great Spot To Reduce The Budget!

Dead People Doled Out $2.6 Billion Worth of Food Stamps

Feds have 'little assurance that retailers are who they say they are'

SHARE

TWEET

EMAIL

AP

      

BY: Elizabeth Harrington
January 13, 2017 1:30 pm

Dead retailers redeemed more than $2 billion worth of food stamps, according to a new audit.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s inspector general reviewed billions of transactions through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. It found that thousands of stores authorized to accept food stamps were using the Social Security numbers of deceased persons.

An audit released Thursday found instances of potential fraud where the Food and Nutrition Service issued food stamps through stores that claimed to be owned by children or the dead.

“We found that 3,394 authorized SNAP retailers (retailers) used Social Security Numbers (SSN) that matched SSNs of deceased people,” the inspector general said. “Additionally, 193 retailers listed owners who were not at least 18 years of age. While FNS did have some controls to edit or verify SNAP retail owner information, these controls were not adequate to ensure owner information accuracy.”

Between October 2013 and June 2015, the inspector general identified 3,394 stores owned by 1,819 people who were using SSNs listed on the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File.

“These 3,394 retailers redeemed about $2.6 billion in SNAP benefits,” the inspector general said. The 193 businesses that reported child owners redeemed $41 million in food stamps.

“Without accurate retail owner data such as birth dates and SSNs, [the Food and Nutrition Service] FNS has little assurance that retailers are who they say they are,” the inspector general said. “This could leave the program open to abuse by disqualified individuals and others wishing to hide their identity for possible fraudulent purposes.”

“If indeed some of these retailers are wholly owned by deceased persons or persons under the age of 18, this situation could leave FNS with little recourse other than disqualification in the event that adverse action needs to be taken against a particular retailer,” the inspector general added.

An average of 46 million Americans receive food stamps every month through the food stamp program, which costs $70 billion per year.

For the audit, the inspector general reviewed roughly 280,000 retailers responsible for 1.56 billion food stamp transactions worth $23 billion.

The department said some of the businesses that reported minors as owners had mistakenly entered the date they applied to redeem food stamps as their date of birth.

The government admitted it “did not have formal procedures for what action, if any, should be taken to secure FNS interests” if a store owner was recorded as being under the age of 18.

The Food and Nutrition Service said it does have an edit check in one of its databases to “ensure owners were at least 5 years old.”

The government said it is reviewing the 1,819 owners using the SSNs of dead people.

So far the department has reviewed 147 owners and removed 122, or 83 percent, from the program.

Of the remaining stores, seven are no longer authorized to redeem food stamps for other violations. Eighteen cases were found to be valid; in some of these cases, the business owner had died but the business was still operated by the deceased owners’ spouse.

If Only We Could Learn From The Animals!

No One In This Administration Does Anything Without White House Approval. Once Again We Are Seeing How A Dictator Runs His Office!

New Emails Reveal White House Role in Sherrod Ouster

Monday, 03 Nov 2014 04:58 PM

Share:

  Get Short Link |

  Comment  |

   Contact Us  |

  Print  

|  A   A  

• 0
  inShare

A 2010 email from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says his department was "waiting for the go-ahead" from the White House before accepting the resignation of employee Shirley Sherrod, according to newly released documents, despite Obama administration assertions that her ouster was Vilsack's decision alone.
The email, which was made public Friday in an ongoing federal court case over the matter, shed more light on the evening of July 19, 2010, when the USDA hastily asked Sherrod to resign after a video showing her making supposed racist remarks surfaced on a conservative website. Her dismissal turned into a racial firestorm after it became clear that the video had been edited and her remarks were meant to tell a story of reconciliation.

Both the White House and Vilsack have repeatedly said the agriculture secretary made the decision to ask for Sherrod's resignation without White House input. The emails, along with earlier emails obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act in 2010 and 2012, make it apparent that Vilsack wanted Sherrod to leave the department and ordered her resignation. But a newly-released email sent by Vilsack himself suggests he was awaiting a decision from White House officials on how to proceed.

"She has offered her resignation which is appropriate," reads an email from the initials "TJV" to Dallas Tonsager, then the USDA undersecretary of rural development and Sherrod's boss. "The WH is involved and we are waiting for the go-ahead to accept her resignation. I suspect some direction from WH soon."
The USDA would not comment on the email and a spokesman, when asked, did not dispute that Vilsack wrote it. The email, sent at 5:37 p.m. on July 19, is in reply to an earlier email from Tonsager addressed to "Mr. Secretary." Vilsack's middle name is James.
The correspondence is evidence in a federal defamation case that Sherrod filed in 2011 against the late blogger Andrew Breitbart, who posted the video, and his colleague Larry O'Connor. The Justice Department has been pushing to keep the emails sealed, but lost Friday afternoon when U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled they did not have to be kept private.
Vilsack's email was brought up at a court status hearing earlier last week. According to a transcript, a lawyer for Breitbart's wife, who was substituted as defendant after the blogger died unexpectedly in 2012, said the email was "extremely telling" and "contains a statement that is arguably inconsistent with the public statements."

Justice Department lawyer David Glass replied to the judge that "when there is a reference to the White House was involved, what it means is the White House liaison was involved."

USDA's White House liaison, Kevin Washo, was in touch with the White House through the night, according to the documents. In another newly released email, a White House aide writes to Valerie Green of the White House presidential personnel office, saying "USDA is looking for direction — can someone contact Washo?" Green replies that she is "reaching out now."
Green writes Washo asking him to loop her in, "Please. Please. Please."
The department that night accepted Sherrod's resignation as a USDA rural developmentofficial in Georgia. When her full speech came to light the next day, it was obvious that Sherrod, who is black, was speaking about overcoming her initial reluctance to help a white farmer decades ago.
As the administration came under fire, Vilsack reversed course, apologizing and asking her to return to the department — an offer she declined. President Barack Obama also offered Sherrod an apology.
White House officials acknowledged weeks later they had been more involved than they initially let on and had stayed in close touch with USDA that night. They still maintained, however, that the decision to seek Sherrod's resignation was Vilsack's alone.
The newly released emails also reveal for the first time missives between White House officials that night. By law, members of the public and the press cannot request internal White House documents directly from the White House.
In one email, then-White House Director of Presidential Personnel Nancy Hogan writes to other White House officials that Sherrod has offered to resign and says they will "need to determine what we say about resignation."
After the full video came out the next day, frustrated White House officials vented to one another through emails. Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett wrote then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that "I would not have fired her for it. We just don't need any of it."
"Agreed," Gibbs replied.

In another e-mail to Gibbs that next day, Jarrett notes that then NAACP President Ben Jealous had apologized for condemning Sherrod before knowing the whole story. "We need to do the same and this will do (sic) away. Even Fox said we railroaded Shirley." In another copy of the same email released by the court, Jarrett's same words are redacted, citing a FOIA exemption for "deliberative process."

Lawyers for Breitbart colleague O'Connor filed the emails in court to bolster their argument that government decisions were the reason for Sherrod's dismissal, not the blog post. The emails show that the officials were made aware there might be a longer video, and that they were concerned about political fallout from her comments. O'Connor's lawyers argue that the "deliberative process" exemptions prove their point.
"The government cannot assert a privilege to shield the production of decision-making communications, while simultaneously claiming to have had no role in a decision," the lawyers wrote in their filing.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Military CAN Be Used Against Americans--Posse Comititus Does Not Apply

REVEALED: OBAMA POLICY TO USE MILITARY AGAINST CITIZENS

Comes during buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies

Published: 12 hours ago

Americans concerned over the buildup of military-style units within non-security-related federal agencies – specifically Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams – are having those concerns confirmed.

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities reveals what critics say is a policy that outlines the potential use of military force against Americans by the Obama administration, reports the Washington Times.

While the document – signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn – contains standard provisions on support to civilian emergency services, special events and domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers, it also outlines presidential authority for use of military weapons and personnel against Americans during times of domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” a defense official opposed to the directive told the Times.

“Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming Our Reality,” marshals the terrifying evidence to show the world of Big Brother is much closer than we want to admit.

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” issued Dec. 29, 2010, provides “emergency authority” to U.S. commanders.

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions.”

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

• Military support required “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.”

• When federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

The military is authorized to provide assistance in the form of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft to engage civilians.

While the use of unarmed drones is specifically mentioned, “use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive states.

Among the federal agenicies with SWAT teams are the the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.

During the recent standoff between armed Bureau of Land Management agents and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, the administration considered deploying military force under the Directive No. 3025.18 but ultimately rejected the idea.

Read the full story ›

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/revealed-obama-policy-to-use-military-against-citizens/#6mjHRI2WLpiiJkRx.99