And there's the cop out. "We can't control waste - it costs too much". What a wind up you are, Ricter. If the government isn't able to run a program correctly because it is unable to control waste, or ill-equipped to do so, then it shouldn't run the program.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/heAw4z71lvo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Where do you get that I'm saying we shouldn't control waste? Anytime the subject of government waste comes up I recall Reagan's $900 hammers (or was it toilet seats?) Egregious examples do occur. That's why we employ auditors. : )
I don't remember the $900 hammers, but I'm certainly not going to defend ANY previous administration's absurd spending habits. Government is ill-equipped to handle programs like SNAP. It should be outsourced, at the expense of the program's budget to a company that can properly monitor the benefit payments. Additionally, all lobbying done to get products on the list to be able to be purchased, should be eliminated. A product should only be on the list if it is considered a staple food. Instead, up to 50% of the program sees some type of fraud or purchasing of products that have no nutritional value. Additionally, luxury food items are purchased. The whole program is an epic disaster.
Oh, and I wanted to share this example I had in my personal life on SNAP fraud. There is a director in my company who makes close to what I do (which is a very good salary). She is Chinese. Her parents live with her. But because her parents have no income, they get SNAP. They are dependents in her household - if they didn't have SNAP, they would be just fine, as her income supports them. But since they get the SNAP card and benefits, she shops with it. We stopped at an Asian grocery store after lunch because she wanted to pick up some specialty item. I was appalled when she pulled out the SNAP card. She said "they are entitled to it" because of their income level. We drove back to the office in a heated argument, with even my liberal friend (who was also in the car and is a big democrat) trying to get her to see the irony in her words and how this was essentially fraud.
Are you actually implying the government, our government is run soooooo efficiently that it would cost to much money to weed out the waste fraud and abuse?
That's pretty much exactly what he's implying: that the cost of weeding out waste would be at or above the benefit in waste reduction. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
You're implying you know it's still cost effective to increase auditing; how do you know it, anecdotes?