California Dem proposes decriminalizing welfare fraud
A California Democrat has introduced a new bill that would decriminalize certain welfare fraud under $25,000. Los Angeles Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas proposed new legislation that would raise the threshold for prosecution of welfare fraud enacted due to administrative errors.
Senate Bill 560 also seeks to axe prosecutions for attempted welfare fraud amounting to less than $950. 'The bill would require a county human services agency to determine whether benefits were authorized as a result of an error in the Statewide Automated Welfare System (CalSAWS) and prohibit the agency from referring a case for criminal action if benefits were authorized in error,' the proposal reads.
' California 's safety net should lift families up, not trap them in poverty,' the lawmaker added in a statement to Fox News Digital . 'Right now, a missed deadline or paperwork mistake can lead to felony charges that tear families apart — even when there's no intent to deceive.'
However, around 8,000 welfare fraud cases are identified in Los Angeles County alone each year, according to the county's Department of Public Services. Of these around 200 are referred for prosecution, with a 95 percent conviction rate. Most of the convicted cases will have a court order to pay the county back.
DailyMail.com has contacted Smallwood-Cuevas for comment. Welfare fraud is among the areas being tackled by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. The Tesla boss previously revealed staggering data showing there are millions of dead Americans still eligible for social security payments.
Musk posted a chart on X showing that there are more than 20 million Americans listed over the age of 100, including 3.9 million in the 130-139 range, more than 3.5 million aged 140-149 and more than 1.3 million in the range 150-159. There was even an 'alive' citizen aged over 360, according to the records. In one shocking case, DOGE said they found someone with a birthday in 2154 who claimed $41,000 in benefits.
Musk shared the findings on his X account, claiming he was so stunned by the numbers it took him multiple times to grasp the information. 'Your tax dollars were going to pay fraudulent unemployment claims for fake people born in the future,' Musk said. 'This is so crazy that I had to read it several times before it sank in.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
'Incredibly petty': Sen. Rand Paul says he was 'uninvited' to White House picnic over breaks with Trump
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he was "uninvited" to an annual White House picnic typically attended by members of Congress and their families, framing the move to reporters on Wednesday as retribution for his opposition to key components of President Donald Trump's agenda. 'They're afraid of what I'm saying, so they think they're going to punish me, I can't go to the picnic, as if somehow that's going to make me more conciliatory,' Paul said. 'So it's silly, in a way, but it's also just really sad that this is what it's come to. But petty vindictiveness like this, it makes you — it makes you wonder about the quality of people you're dealing with.' Paul, who said he attended picnics hosted by Presidents Biden and Obama, told reporters he called the White House earlier today to secure tickets to the annual picnic but was told he was not invited to the event. He said he had family members flying to Washington D.C. to attend the event, including son, daughter-in-law and six-month old grandson, whom he noted owns a "Make America Great Again" hat. 'I just find this incredibly petty,' Paul told reporters."I have been, I think, nothing but polite to the President. I have been an intellectual opponent, a public policy opponent, and he's chosen now to uninvite me from the picnic and to say my grandson can't come to the picnic." The White House did not immediately respond to a series of questions, including whether Paul was ever invited to the event and if Trump was directly involved in the decision to "uninvite" him. As Trump pushes Republicans to pass a package of measures to fund much of his domestic agenda by Independence Day, Paul is among the Senate Republicans poised to make that milestone unreachable, joining fiscal hawks in the party to balk at legislation the Congressional Budget Office estimates said would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit. In addition to his belief that the funding package would "explode the debt," the three-term senator has criticized spending cuts in the bill as "wimpy and anemic," called planned Medicaid changes in the legislation "bad strategy" and proposed cutting billions in funding from the bill for Trump's border wall. 'In private, there's quite a few people in there who actually do think we could save some money and are open minded to it, and believe the administration should justify the numbers,' Paul told reporters after a two-hour meeting on the bill Wednesday. 'Even if you're supportive, and I am supportive of border security, but I'm just not supportive of a blank check.' Paul said this week he plans to vote "No" on the legislation and speculated today it may be among the reasons for the rescinded invitation. 'I'm arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in debt and getting worse, and they choose to react by uninviting my grandson to the picnic,' Paul said. 'I don't know, I just think it really makes me lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.' Trump has frequently lashed out at Paul in response to the sustained opposition, deriding the senator on Truth Social for his criticisms. "Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming. He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not," Trump wrote last week. Paul has emerged as a chief critic to Trump's fiscal policy, and has intensely criticized his decision to place tariffs on major U.S. trading partners, arguing they will push the country into a recession. The libertarian conservative was one of four Republican senators to back a Democratic resolution to block the implementation of Trump's Canadian tariffs, predicting at the time that the import penalties would "threaten us with a recession" and calling Trump's decision to place tariffs on major U.S. trading partners "a terrible, terrible idea." The effort has so far stalled in the House. Paul also joined Democrats in introducing a bipartisan resolution to undo the reciprocal tariffs Trump placed on dozens of countries, this time by terminating the national emergency he declared to implement the global penalties, arguing that Trump had exceeded his presidential authority. 'Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress—not the president. Our Founders were clear: tax policy should never rest in the hands of one person,' Paul said in a statement on the bipartisan effort. 'Abusing emergency powers to impose blanket tariffs not only drives up costs for American families but also tramples on the Constitution. It's time Congress reasserts its authority and restores the balance of power.' That effort failed to pass the Senate. Paul's differences with Trump even extend to the military parade taking place on Saturday, which the lawmaker likened to parades in countries led by dictators. "I wouldn't have done it," Paul said on Tuesday. "The images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that." But still, in the face of his criticisms of Trump, Paul appeared to view the rescinded invitation as a shock, noting that even Democratic lawmakers remain invited to the White House picnic. "I think I'm the first senator in the history of United States to be uninvited to the White House picnic,' Rand told reporters. "Literally, every Democrat is invited, every Republican is invited, and to say that my family is no longer welcome, kind of sad actually.'
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Elon Musk and the art of flattery
Flattery will get you everywhere, as the sycophants that surround Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping know. Which makes Elon Musk's defection rather interesting. Trump's policies meant that Musk simply could not flatter him any more just to satisfy his inexhaustible self-love, which, says the Greek essayist, biographer and diplomat Plutarch (d. c. ad 120), is what gives the kolax ('flatterer') his foothold: the person he wishes to flatter, his victim, will be only too happy for the kolax to endlessly proclaim his qualities and abilities. Naturally, the kolax does not pay attention to poor, obscure or unimportant persons – where is the gain in that? – but only to those with power, engaged in great affairs. Since friendship is cemented by a likeness of pursuits and habits, and since delight in the same things brings people together in the first place, the kolax adjusts and shapes himself, as though he were so much inert matter, to adapt to the character of his victim. Like a cuttlefish which changes its colour, texture and shape at will, the kolax identifies his victim's interests and, abandoning his own feelings, captures like a mirror the image of his victim. People (it is said, for example) used to copy Plato's stoop, Aristotle's lisp and Alexander the Great's twisted neck. Observe also the kolax taking a good seat at the theatre in order to give it up to his victim; or falling silent at a debate to allow his victim to speak and to agree with him; or proclaiming his victim not just wealthy and blessed but also supreme in intelligence, technical skill and every excellence. Watch the kolax disapprove of the actions of those whom his victim dislikes, while commending everything that pleases him. The kolax will show that his victim's tastes are excellent by imitating them, and that his prowess is unrivalled by letting himself be outdone. Like water that is poured into one receptacle after another, the kolax is constantly on the move, changing from shape to shape in tune with his victim. But at least Musk knows he will live to fight another day, unlike the terrified flatterers of the others in the list above.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).
