.jpg)
James 2:1-7
Why do we hate poor people?
Seriously. Maybe hate is too strong a word, but it’s a visceral reaction.
A friend posted an article from The Atlantic by Eric Schnureraug titled, “Just How Wrong Is Conventional Wisdom About Government Fraud?” A summary at the top of the article said, “Entitlement programs, from food stamps to Medicare, don't see unusually high cheating rates -- and the culprits are usually managers and executives, not ‘welfare queens.’”
The article does not break new ground. Anyone who has been paying attention probably knows that the government has made great progress in reducing the fraud in food stamps and other benefits to poor people, and that the bigger fraud issues are at higher levels.
Schnureraug concludes:
“For the most part, fraud isn’t the product of scheming low-income beneficiaries … living high on the hog on your dime, but rather someone other than the beneficiary standing to make a buck off it. Medicare and Medicaid fraud is largely committed not by patients -- very few people are trying to rip off taxpayers to obtain unneeded spinal taps or root canals -- but by providers: unscrupulous (or sometimes just incompetent) doctors and hospitals billing for procedures the patient didn't need or didn't receive."
Again, not surprising.
If we know that most of the fraud is not at the bottom of the food chain, why has the government been working so hard to eliminate fraud at that level? Of course, fraud is wrong at every level, but that begs the question. Why are we so focused on fraud committed by poor people?
Years ago, before the advent of electronic transfers and debit cards, when Food Stamps were given out at coupons, it was very obvious when someone used them at the grocery store. I can remember standing in line behind someone using the coupons and looking at what was being purchased. Was she buying potato chips? If he needs Food Stamps, how can he afford cigarettes? I can also remember that when I would catch myself unconsciously judging the stranger in front of me and turn aside, I would quickly find that my eyes were not the only ones focused on a stranger’s purchases.
One of the key lessons of modern life is that when we read articles on line we should not read the comments. It makes no difference what the article is about. We should never read the comments. Never.
But of course I did read the comments on the Atlantic article. Although the article was nuanced and discussed many types of public and private fraud, and suggested several steps that could be taken to reduce fraud, the comments were almost all very narrowly focused on fraud committed by poor people.
Many of the comments shared a common theme. One writer declared:
“I object to giving money to people that WON'T work. I object to paying for their health care and their groceries. I object to politicians who buy votes by providing welfare for scumbag loafers.
“Here's an idea: when we wrote the constitution we screwed up. We give the vote to people that have no stake in making the system work. We should thus limit the vote to tax payers and veterans. Let the scumbag loafers starve.”
If pressed, I’m sure the writer would say that he does not hate poor people, he hates lazy people. According to the article, the best estimate is that fraud committed by Food Stamp beneficiaries amounts to about one percent of the total. It is amazing how much energy we invest in trying to reform that one percent.
If we know that most of the fraud is not at the bottom of the food chain, why has the government been working so hard to eliminate fraud at that level? Of course, fraud is wrong at every level, but that begs the question. Why are we so focused on fraud committed by poor people?
Years ago, before the advent of electronic transfers and debit cards, when Food Stamps were given out at coupons, it was very obvious when someone used them at the grocery store. I can remember standing in line behind someone using the coupons and looking at what was being purchased. Was she buying potato chips? If he needs Food Stamps, how can he afford cigarettes? I can also remember that when I would catch myself unconsciously judging the stranger in front of me and turn aside, I would quickly find that my eyes were not the only ones focused on a stranger’s purchases.
One of the key lessons of modern life is that when we read articles on line we should not read the comments. It makes no difference what the article is about. We should never read the comments. Never.
But of course I did read the comments on the Atlantic article. Although the article was nuanced and discussed many types of public and private fraud, and suggested several steps that could be taken to reduce fraud, the comments were almost all very narrowly focused on fraud committed by poor people.
Many of the comments shared a common theme. One writer declared:
“I object to giving money to people that WON'T work. I object to paying for their health care and their groceries. I object to politicians who buy votes by providing welfare for scumbag loafers.
“Here's an idea: when we wrote the constitution we screwed up. We give the vote to people that have no stake in making the system work. We should thus limit the vote to tax payers and veterans. Let the scumbag loafers starve.”
If pressed, I’m sure the writer would say that he does not hate poor people, he hates lazy people. According to the article, the best estimate is that fraud committed by Food Stamp beneficiaries amounts to about one percent of the total. It is amazing how much energy we invest in trying to reform that one percent.
Bill, one other thing that commenter got wrong is the original Constitution. When it was written it didn't give the vote to just anybody. Only property owning males could vote and then only for President/VP and the House of Representatives. The Senate was chosen by the individual State legislatures.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty common with the haters, they don't let a little thing like reality get in the way of their hate. Once they are invested in that much hate they can create any justification they need without concern for whether it represents any logical reality.