Governments have been distributing public work for ages, dating back to when stones were first laid on the Appian Way. Wherever there’s government funding, you can be sure people are lining up for a share.
Abraham Lincoln, it’s said, grew weary of the many individuals clamoring for government positions and favors, famously remarking that “there are too many pigs for the teats.”
And it seems those pigs have certainly multiplied.
With Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the role of Washington in the economy expanded dramatically. Not only did his administration bolster organized labor, but the Wagner Act of 1935 also ensured workers could organize and bargain collectively. This shift led to unions becoming a key component of the Democratic coalition that shaped American politics for many years.
A similar trend was noted during the War on Poverty. Michael Harrington’s influential 1962 book, “The Other America,” pushed the issue of poverty into the political spotlight. This ultimately led Lyndon Johnson’s anti-poverty task force to bring Harrington on as a consultant in Washington.
The federal government needed a way to measure poverty, and this was largely achieved through the efforts of Mollie Orshansky, an economist at the Social Security Administration, who developed the thresholds used in the official federal poverty measure.
Then came the Great Society—think Medicare, Medicaid, food aid, and a massive increase in Washington’s oversight of the American populace’s lives and livelihoods.
The debates surrounding these programs have persisted ever since. Still, one argument seems indisputable: Americans have channeled immense resources through government systems because they collectively believe in aiding those who are genuinely in need.
This is kindness on a large scale. Yet, where there’s large-scale kindness, there’s also a risk of exploitation.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the federal government loses somewhere between $233 billion and $521 billion annually due to fraudulent activities, based on data from 2018 to 2022.
This figure represents losses from intentional fraud, not merely “waste” as is often suggested in political discussions.
Take a look across the nation. In Minnesota, a House Oversight Committee reveals that at least $300 million has been lost due to fraud linked to the Feeding Our Future child-nutrition scandal. Federal prosecutors estimate that fraudulent activities involving a few high-risk Medicaid programs could amount to billions.
In New York, over 15 individuals were charged in relation to healthcare schemes connected to more than $10.6 billion in fraudulent billings targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.
Arizona’s Medicaid system suffered from another egregious scheme involving programs for Native Americans battling addiction. The state attorney general reported that losses tied to this controversy could reach into the billions. In just one recent federal case, an operator of addiction treatment was sentenced to 14 years for wrongfully billing Medicaid by more than $69 million.
In California, Paul Richard Randall was behind a scheme that submitted nearly $270 million in false Medi-Cal claims for medications that were often either unnecessary or never actually delivered. Medi-Cal paid out around $179 million before Randall received a 30-year prison sentence.
Additionally, in the Southeastern United States, the Justice Department announced this summer around 17 cases involving over $350 million in intended losses across SNAP, housing benefits, Small Business Administration loans, and tax fraud.
This kind of exploitation of American kindness seems to span the entire nation.
The Trump administration made the issue of federal fraud a significant priority. Recently, they canceled Affordable Care Act policies for about 760,000 individuals whose enrollments were deemed fraudulent or otherwise ineligible, predicting savings of around $2.2 billion.
And it turns out, large-scale redistribution opens up large opportunities for fraud.
The increase in immigration, particularly during the Biden administration, adds another layer to this political conversation. The Congressional Budget Office projects net immigration figures of roughly 1.5 million in 2021, 2.8 million in 2022, 3.3 million in 2023, and around 2.7 million in 2024. A considerable part of this increase falls into the CBO’s category of “other foreign nationals,” which includes individuals who entered without lawful status as well as others admitted under temporary conditions.
However, illegal immigrants are generally prohibited from accessing SNAP, non-emergency Medicaid, SSI, TANF, and much of the federal housing assistance. States do have the option to allocate taxpayer money in other ways, as California demonstrates, spending about $22 billion a year in this regard.
There’s a political consequence to consider, too: the census counts all residents for congressional representation, not just citizens. This means that illegal aliens factor into population totals along with everyone else in the country.
When the federal government distributes funds on a massive scale, accountability can become muddled. A federal agency disburses money to a state, which then sends it to a provider. The provider bills another program, and a nonprofit handles a different aspect of the arrangement. Somewhere along that chain, the “pigs” find their share.
Then, everyone feigns surprise.
Perhaps the states should assume more responsibility for their own impoverished residents. Maybe Washington should reconsider its tendency to view every human issue as requiring a federal funding solution.
The alternative appears to be a system of industrial-scale socialism paired with equally large-scale fraud.
Yet, something even more significant tends to be robbed: trust. Each dollar pilfered from Medicaid breeds greater suspicion among taxpayers. Each fraudulent food benefit claim weakens the argument for assistance for families truly in need of food. Every corrupt nonprofit feeds the notion that “compassion” has turned into a business.
This may constitute the most damaging theft of all.
The Democratic Socialists of America certainly don’t have a monopoly on the term “kindness.” No political party does. Americans who work hard, pay taxes, and strive to assist their neighbors are wholly justified in demanding their contributions reach those they were meant to help.
They also have every right to be outraged by those who exploit the system.
