- A bottle of champagne at Hooters in San Antonio: $200
- A stash of "Girls Gone Wild" on video: $300
- "Adult erotica products": $400*
- A night out in a strip club: $600
- Paying your divorce lawyer in Houston: $1,000
- Damages received for a fraudulent claim on personal property, which turned out to be a cemetery: $2,360
- Damages paid to a GAO informant who submitted a false claim on a vacant lot, which inspectors could not even find: $6,000
- Damages received by a prisoner who claimed property damage on a post office box: $20,000
- Losing track of 750 FEMA-issued debit cards: $1.5 million
- Soaking the Federal Government - and American taxpayers - with $1 billion in fraudulent claims: PRICELESS
I've got no problem with assistance for real damages, and for helping people who are REALLY in need. Heck, I'm all in favor of it! And I know bad apples in any group will always try to beat the system and cheat others by taking advantage for themselves. But clearly, these are all examples of a poorly-run system with insufficient checks and balances - or even the ability to follow some of its own policies with due diligence - to make sure that aid was being distributed properly. Sure, you can argue that FEMA and its contractors weren't prepared for an emergency of this scope. But should that be an excuse? Or just an explanation?
3 comments:
What scares the crap out of me is that these awful folks will make it harder for people with LEGITIMATE needs to get funding and resources.
when I worked for FEMA in Florida with people who really needed the help in an emergency situation weeks after the storms, I decided it was my job to make sure that the people who needed the help got it and I couldn't spend too much energy weeding out the fakers. In SJ terms, I felt it was the "preferential option for the poor." I agree that this is outrageous, but I think you do get some collateral "waste, fraud and abuse" (to use the gov term) when you're trying to make sure that the people who are for real do get help quickly.
AS
Who knew that Hooters sold $200 champagne?
It sounds like the linked article was using a *very* broad definition of fraud. "Double dipping" and providing incomplete or false information to get a FEMA debit card that you aren't otherwise entitled to? Very bad, and most likely fradulent and criminal. Truthfully applying for and receiving a card, then using that money to buy porn instead of food? Wasteful, ill-advised, and really stupid. But I just don't think that rises to the same level as the person who collected a big payout from FEMA by using a cemetery as his home address.
Post a Comment