The kindness con: Fraudsters exploit America’s safety net



Governments have been handing out public work since men were laying stones on the Appian Way. And wherever government hands out money, people line up to get some.

Abraham Lincoln was said to have faced so many office-seekers and applicants for government favors that he finally complained, in his usual earthy fashion, that “there are too many pigs for the teats.”

The Democratic Socialists of America do not own the word ‘kindness.’

The pigs have multiplied.

During the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt dramatically expanded Washington’s role in the economy. His administration also strengthened organized labor. The Wagner Act of 1935 guaranteed workers the right to organize and bargain collectively, and unions became a central pillar of the Democrat coalition that dominated American politics for decades.

The same political pattern appeared again during the War on Poverty.

Michael Harrington’s 1962 book, “The Other America,” helped force poverty onto the national political agenda. Lyndon Johnson’s anti-poverty task force later brought Harrington to Washington as a consultant.

The federal government also needed a way to measure poverty. That measure was developed principally by Mollie Orshansky, an economist at the Social Security Administration, whose thresholds became the basis of the official federal poverty measure.

Then came the Great Society: Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, housing programs, and a vast expansion of Washington’s responsibility over Americans’ lives and livelihoods.

The political argument over those programs has raged ever since. But one fact should not be controversial: Americans have transferred staggering amounts of wealth through government because they believe people in genuine need should be helped.

That is kindness on an industrial scale. And wherever kindness operates on an industrial scale, thieves notice.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion every year to fraud, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022.

That is not “waste” in the loose political sense. The GAO is estimating losses from deliberate fraud.

Look around the country. In Minnesota, the House Oversight Committee says at least $300 million was stolen through the Feeding Our Future child-nutrition scandal. The committee also says federal prosecutors estimate that fraud involving several high-risk Medicaid programs could total billions.

RELATED: The government would like to discuss your allowance

Erhui1979 / Getty Images

In New York, federal prosecutors charged 15 defendants in health care schemes involving more than $10.6 billion in fraudulent billings to Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

Arizona’s Medicaid system was hit by another grotesque scheme aimed at programs serving Native Americans struggling with addiction. The state attorney general says losses from the wider scandal reached into the billions. In one recent federal case alone, an addiction-treatment operator was sentenced to 14 years after fraudulently billing Medicaid more than $69 million.

In California, Paul Richard Randall orchestrated a scheme that submitted nearly $270 million in false Medi-Cal claims for expensive medications that were often unnecessary or never provided. Medi-Cal actually paid about $179 million. Randall got 30 years in federal prison.

Across seven Southeastern states, the Justice Department this summer announced 17 cases involving more than $350 million in intended losses involving SNAP, housing benefits, Small Business Administration loans, and tax fraud.

This thieving from American kindness is nationwide.

The Trump administration has now made federal fraud a major target. This month, the government canceled Affordable Care Act policies covering roughly 760,000 people whose enrollments it says were fraudulent or otherwise ineligible. The administration projects about $2.2 billion in savings.

It turns out that industrial-scale redistribution creates industrial-scale opportunities for fraud.

The Biden-era immigration surge adds another political argument. The Congressional Budget Office estimates net immigration at roughly 1.5 million people in 2021, 2.8 million in 2022, 3.3 million in 2023, and 2.7 million in 2024. Much of that increase fell into the CBO’s “other foreign national” category, which includes people who entered without lawful status as well as others admitted under temporary authorities.

But illegal immigrants are generally barred from SNAP, nonemergency Medicaid, SSI, TANF, and most federal housing assistance. States can choose to spend their own taxpayers’ money anyway. California sure does, to the tune of $22 billion a year.

And immigration has a political consequence separate from voting. The census counts residents, not merely citizens, for congressional apportionment. Illegal aliens count in those population totals just like everyone else living in the country.

When Washington spends money on a colossal scale, responsibility becomes diffuse. A federal agency sends money to a state. The state sends it to a provider. The provider bills a program. A nonprofit administers another piece. Somewhere along that chain, the pigs find the teats.

Then everybody expresses shock.

RELATED: Can a $1.2 trillion giveaway become a fiscal bargain?

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Perhaps the 50 states should shoulder far more responsibility for caring for their own poor. Perhaps Washington should stop pretending that every human problem requires another federal funding stream.

The alternative is industrial-scale socialism accompanied by industrial-scale fraud.

Something else eventually gets stolen, too: trust. Every dollar stolen from Medicaid makes taxpayers more suspicious of Medicaid. Every fake food-benefit claim makes it harder to defend assistance for the family who actually needs groceries. Every crooked nonprofit feeds the suspicion that “compassion” has become a business model.

That may be the most destructive theft of all.

The Democratic Socialists of America do not own the word “kindness.” Neither does any political party. Americans who work, pay taxes, and agree to help their neighbors have every right to demand that their money reach the people it was intended to help.

And they have every right to be furious with the pigs at the teats who steal it.

Dem House Nominee Paige Cognetti Uses Husband's ‘Upscale’ Food Store, Which Doesn't Accept Food Stamps, To Accuse Corporations of Exploiting ‘Little Guys’

Scranton, Pa., mayor Paige Cognetti, the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania's Eighth Congressional District, released a campaign ad on Tuesday accusing corporations of exploiting the "little guys" by price gouging groceries. Yet her husband's gourmet food store, which reviewers have described as "expensive" and "upscale," doesn't accept food stamps, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

The post Dem House Nominee Paige Cognetti Uses Husband's ‘Upscale’ Food Store, Which Doesn't Accept Food Stamps, To Accuse Corporations of Exploiting ‘Little Guys’ appeared first on .

Exclusive: USDA Bureaucrats Bemoan Move To Red States, In-Person Work To Run Food Welfare Programs

'Washington bureaucrats are eager to work from home, as long as home isn’t a red state where the people they serve live,' said FGA's Amelia Kuntzman.

‘Paperwork’ Is Driving People Away From Food Stamps. Good

The problem isn't just welfare fraud. It's all the hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare itself, starting with food stamps.

White House: Loss Of ‘High Trust’ Society Requires Congress To Institute Harsher Penalties For Fraud

Welfare programs were created in a 'high trust' America that no longer exists.

Who wants to eat a trillionaire?



Let me tell you about the very rich,” F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a century ago. “They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand.”

Last week’s SpaceX initial public offering made company founder and CEO Elon Musk the world’s first publicly known trillionaire — very different from all of us, at least on paper.

Bad enough he became too rich. Worse, Elon Musk became too independent.

On paper is doing plenty of heavy lifting. We’ll get back to that.

If billionaires “shouldn’t exist,” as our boring socialist friends never tire of saying, then a trillionaire must be not merely obscene but downright apocalyptic. If the existence of billionaires is a policy failure, the arrival of a trillionaire is a crime scene. Call Congress! Summon the United Nations! Eat the rich!

Let me tell you about the very left-wing. They are different from you and me. They enjoy little, and it does something to them. It makes them covetous where normal people are merely curious, bitter where normal people are merely skeptical, and stupid where the rest of us are trying very hard to be charitable.

Musk’s gargantuan wealth is a test no leftist can pass.

“If we liquidated Elon Musk as a financial entity we could each pocket $3,000,” one frivolous X user wrote. “Just putting that out there. 3K. Not bad.”

“Elon Musk is a trillionaire but it’s def the people on SNAP ruining your life,” a tedious Democratic strategist posted.

“Right? He could fund SNAP himself and still have a boatload left to spare,” a pseudonymous Marxist replied.

This is what happens when resentment collides with arithmetic.

“Elon Musk could easily fund” makes for a terrific party game, especially if everyone playing has skipped high school civics, freshman economics, and the day in third grade when Mrs. Campbell broke the news that Monopoly money was not legal tender.

RELATED: A child’s guide to why billionaires should, in fact, exist

RapidEye/iStock/Getty Images

With $1 trillion, Musk could buy every major carmaker in America, Europe, and Japan. With $1 trillion, Musk could fund global famine relief dozens of times over, provide clean water to the world, rebuild Gaza, or hand every person on earth a modest cash gift. With $1 trillion, Musk could cover the United Nations’ humanitarian appeals, the Australian budget, or — according to my friend Mac Owens — roughly 3.5 miles of Gavin Newsom’s high-speed rail system.

Cool. Put it all on the board. Have fun. Pour another drink. (Maybe pour me one, too.)

But Musk does not have $1 trillion in a checking account. He is not Scrooge McDuck swan-diving into a vault of gold coins (not that it would even work that way). He owns shares in companies that other people believe are valuable because those companies build things, launch things, connect things, sell things, and promise things investors think may be worth a lot more later.

His wealth is not a pile of cash. It is a claim on productive enterprise.

The socialist imagination never really gets past the pile. The left sees wealth and pictures a dragon atop a hoard. It sees equity and imagines stolen bread. It sees a balance sheet and imagines a pantry that can be raided without consequence.

But Musk’s wealth cannot be “liquidated” without destroying much of the value the envious wish to seize. Sell enough shares, and the price falls. Seize the company, and watch the engineers leave. Convert capital into consumption, and the thing that made the wealth possible begins to disappear.

Welcome to Economics 102. Economics 101 teaches scarcity. Economics 102 teaches that capital is not loot.

None of this makes Musk a saint. I don’t know if he is a good man. I don’t know if any man should have as much influence as he has, and neither do his fanboys. Musk is erratic, strange, reckless, sometimes brilliant, and often his own worst enemy. But he is not a political theory. He is not a catechism. He is not your dad.

I know do this much, though: If Musk had not bought Twitter in 2022 for the eye-watering sum of $44 billion, Americans would know less about their own country and less about the people who presume to manage it.

That purchase did not make him richer. It made him more dangerous.

Dangerous to whom? To the people who think “misinformation” means information they cannot control. To governments that prefer pressure campaigns to open censorship. To NGOs that discovered a business model in laundering political speech control through the language of “safety.” To journalists who miss the days when a few institutions could decide which scandals were real and which ones respectable people were expected not to notice.

RELATED: Democrats love free speech — until conservatives get some

mikkelwilliam/iStock/Getty Images

This is why the hatred aimed at Musk is never really about money. The money supplies the moral pretext. Control supplies the motive.

The left does not hate Musk because he could “fund SNAP.” The federal government already spends enormous sums on SNAP, and no serious person believes American nutrition policy should depend on one weird rich guy hawking rocket shares. The left hates Musk because he took a portion of his unrealized fortune and bought a speech platform that was supposed to belong forever to the consensus managers.

Bad enough he became too rich. Worse, he became too independent.

A billionaire who funds the approved foundations may be vulgar, but he can be managed. A billionaire who underwrites lawsuits, climate conferences, university centers, “democracy” initiatives, and grants for people who use the word “equity” as an incantation may still be welcomed at the proper tables. His money can be baptized.

Musk’s money did something else. It bought the key to a door the regime wanted to remain locked.

No wonder they want to eat him.

Trump DOJ charges illegal aliens in Boston with nearly $1.5 million in welfare fraud



The Trump Justice Department announced on Thursday in the Democrat-run sanctuary city of Boston that it has charged 11 illegal aliens and four Americans with over $1.4 million in alleged benefit fraud.

The defendants — at least six of whom are illegal aliens from the Dominican Republican and at least one of whom is from India — are accused of defrauding various welfare programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and MassHealth.

'They allegedly stole tens of thousands of dollars each in benefits for which they are not entitled.'

"These cases highlight a broader, deeply troubling pattern: the exploitation of America’s safety-net by illegal aliens," Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald for the National Fraud Enforcement Division said in a statement.

The Trump administration, which has in recent months ramped up its crackdown on fraud, has long sought to eliminate the monetary incentive for foreign nationals to steal into the country and to pressure those noncitizens presently taking advantage of citizen supports to wean off them or hit the road.

In his Feb. 19, 2025, executive order titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders," President Donald Trump tasked agencies with taking meaningful steps "to prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States, and to ensure, to the maximum extent permitted by law, that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens."

One of the agencies that promptly took action was the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which beefed up the minimum expectations for eligibility verification to prevent "ineligible aliens" from participating in the program.

While the USDA and other agencies were making it more difficult for those who would exploit citizen welfare programs, the DOJ is nabbing numerous fraudsters across the country who have already unlawfully enjoyed a fortune in benefits.

U.S. Attorney Leah Foley, who established a benefit and voter fraud team in March devoted to flushing out fraudsters in Massachusetts, said, "Today’s announcement is just the beginning."

"The defendants charged today stole from a number of programs, including SNAP and MassHealth — which are designed to assist U.S. citizens in need of food and health care," continued Foley. "They allegedly stole tens of thousands of dollars each in benefits for which they are not entitled."

The Massachusetts defendants charged this past week included:

  • Santo Escolastico Cuello, a 56-year-old illegal alien from the Dominican Republic who was living unlawfully in Worcester. Cuello is charged with aggravated identity theft and making false statements relating to a health care program in connection with $162,180 in MassHealth fraud.
  • Mario Baez Romero, a 45-year-old illegal alien from the Dominican Republic who was living unlawfully in Somerville. Romero has been charged with aggravated identity theft and passport fraud in connection with $26,942 in SNAP fraud and $48,785 in MassHealth fraud.
  • Richard Odelis Vallegas Nunez, a 35-year-old illegal alien from the Dominican Republic living unlawfully in Allston. He has been charged with aggravated identity theft and unlawful production of an identification document in connection with $48,865 in MassHealth fraud.
  • Miguel Diaz Matos, a 54-year-old illegal alien from the Dominican Republic living unlawfully in Lynn. Matos is charged with illegal acquisition or use of SNAP benefits, theft of government funds, and aggravated identity theft in connection with $13,431 in SNAP fraud and $50,494 in MassHealth fraud.

If convicted, these and other similarly charged defendants could do some hard time.

SNAP fraud over $100 can result in a sentence of up to five years in prison, and SNAP fraud exceeding $5,000 can result in a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Both also carry a potential fine of $250,000.

A report published last week by the Center for Immigration Studies provided some startling insights into welfare use and abuse by noncitizens, about half of whom are apparently illegal immigrants.

Citing Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement data, the report said that 47% of households headed by noncitizens use one or more traditional welfare programs — 19 percentage points higher than the 28% for U.S.-born households.

"Noncitizens use traditional welfare or are EITC/ACTC eligible at higher rates than the U.S.-born in states with generous welfare systems, such as Massachusetts (61% vs. 36%) and Illinois (51% vs. 30%); and in states with less generous systems, like Arizona (60% vs. 30%) and Florida (53% vs. 30%)," said the report.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!