Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sisters make $540,000 babysitting their own kids from welfare
breakingworldnewstoday.com ^ | January 16, 2013 | Ryan Lee Hall

Posted on 03/04/2013 1:32:32 PM PST by grundle

If you want to know why the U.S. Government is going broke look no further.

A four-month investigation of the $340 million taxpayer-funded "Wisconsin Shares" program of childcare welfare found that the program is riddled with abuses and loopholes.

In one case, the investigation carried out by the news media found that four sisters with 17 children between them racked in $540,000 in taxpayer dollars since 2006, just by staying home and babysitting each other’s children. The most impressive of this all is that it is perfectly legal.

"It's a loophole," said Laurice Lincoln, administrative coordinator for child care in Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services. "We are not worried about that? Yes, it can be a problem. But if allowed, it is permitted. There is really not much we can do." There's more.

The Wisconsin Shares program also allows parents to work in child care centers where their children attend. In one case, the newspaper found an employer and a team of parents accused of defrauding taxpayers more than $360,000.

Part of the problem is that the care of children in Wisconsin Shares subsidy program has wide parameters of what the state considers "work". For example, the research found that mothers who "claimed to work for a man ironing shirts, drying fruit and selling works of art made during art class," all received checks funded by taxpayers.

The program is so lax that it even pays for parents to sleep. As a report said, "counties have no way of verifying if parents are truly sleeping while their children are in kindergarten."

An estimated 34,000 families in Wisconsin today take advantage of the $340 million program funded by the taxpayers of Wisconsin.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: childcare; welfare; welfarefraud

1 posted on 03/04/2013 1:32:36 PM PST by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

I think Wisc needs to hire way more union government workers to ignore this....../s


2 posted on 03/04/2013 1:35:28 PM PST by wesagain (The God #Elohim# of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One True GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

the investigation carried out by the news media found that four sisters with 17 children between them racked in $540,000 in taxpayer dollars since 2006, just by staying home and babysitting each other’s children. The most impressive of this all is that it is perfectly legal.

TAX FREE


3 posted on 03/04/2013 1:44:14 PM PST by blackdog (There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grundle

I once knew someone who bought a house which she carved up into 4 apartments. She lived in one and got section 8 money for renting to her mother and two sisters and their children.


4 posted on 03/04/2013 1:44:26 PM PST by posterchild (Remember that thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

professional moochers


5 posted on 03/04/2013 1:47:14 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

I work with a lib who talks about this kind of thing all the time as though it is no big deal (and is always discussing stuff like this on the phone with her friends). The sad part is it is very common. Worse, at least in some local cases, these things are coordinated in churches by churches. The number of registered day cares in just one part of this town is staggering. Everyone watching everyone else’s kids and swapping days to collect money from the government.

Welfare fraud (they don’t see it that way) is becoming big business. The coworker is just an admin assistant but I know between her and her union husband they make over $100K per year but I’ve seen her at the store use Lone Star cards. (Texas version of Food Stamps). Apparently those who make a lot of money buy them from those who are on them.

This really is just the tip of the iceberg on this too. And it is happening everywhere.


6 posted on 03/04/2013 1:48:30 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

540K divided by 6 yrs. equals exactly 90K per year, divided among the four sisters, which makes it $22,500 per sister, per year, which translates to over $400/weekly for babysitting their own (and their sister’s) children, since
this scam was seen as “a family affair”, apparently.
So approximately $1700,weekly was flowing among and between
this collective “entitlement family”.
There are any number of ways these agencies can rationalize
these payoffs, but looked at realistically,it comes down to funneling money directly
to scam artists( which scam artists are instantly minted by
being made aware of this opportunity which awaits them),
finding another backdoor wrinkle in welfare payments, and also eliminating employment for legitimate babysitters/nannies/daycare center workers.It benefits no one except the Obama voters in this particular constituency,
and that’s what it’s designed to do. It ALSO keeps all the recipients from finding gainful employment, getting off the dependency, all in the name of the noble goal of “keeping mothers and their children together”.
No one is supposed to know about these programs except the recipients. Speak out against it, and you’re a cold-hearted racist who is seen as crashing through the barriers of class warfare, spoiling for a fight. Just what they want.


7 posted on 03/04/2013 1:52:52 PM PST by supremedoctrine (What thou lovest well, remains, the rest is dross....---Ezra Pound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine

Amish?


8 posted on 03/04/2013 1:54:44 PM PST by DIRTYSECRET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine

To play devil’s advocate a little.

Would it have been less objectionable if the same amount of money for childcare for these women had gone to unrelated care providers?

IOW, should a relative be excluded from the state benefits simply because of the family relationship? If so, why?


9 posted on 03/04/2013 1:59:31 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

These scams will go away as an increasing number of whites do the same thing; that was what spurred the welfare reform in 1996. The government was willing to turn a blind eye as long as 5% of the population did it; we’re probably around 25% now. Hispanics and whites are increasingly taking seats on the gravy train, and the original parasites (of all colors) are still there. There are just less & less people to operate the train itself...


10 posted on 03/04/2013 2:02:10 PM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: grundle

If honest, hardworking people that struggle to make ends meet are actually informed about things like this, doesn’t it stand to reason that they would revolt? Most of them aren’t informed; if they even watch any news it’s local MSM evening news, and if they get on the internet it’s usually only email and FB with their friends.


11 posted on 03/04/2013 2:05:47 PM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Would it have less objectionable?

Not at all, as long as the women were going to work to earn their living, but if their work consists of watching their relative's kids, then we have the classic circle; i.e.:

Pay me $400 / week to watch my next door neighbor's kids from 9 to 5. Pay my next door neighbor $400 / week to watch my kids. Now we each collect $400 per week to sit and watch each other's kids. Or we can stay home and watch our own without getting paid. Can you say scam?

12 posted on 03/04/2013 2:07:11 PM PST by par4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: grundle

It must be great to live in a state that has so much wealth they can provide this.


13 posted on 03/04/2013 2:09:12 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Part of me feels okay with the children being supervised by relatives rather than by people they don’t know.

Besides, the nearly $540,000 claim gets a bit more real and puny if that money is divided by 7 years and then by 4 women:

$540,000 / 7= $77,142.85 / 4= $19,285.71

Sloppy and sensationalized reporting.

That’s $19,285.71 per gal.

$19,285.71 to take care of 5-17 children at a time doesn’t seem like a lot and the cost for sending all these kids to daycare would cost way more.


14 posted on 03/04/2013 2:10:09 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Am I the first to notice this headline is written terribly? “Sisters make $540,000 babysitting their own kids from welfare” should be “Sisters make $540,000 from welfare babysitting their own kids.” Same number of words.


15 posted on 03/04/2013 2:16:17 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
The only remarkable thing about this is that they're sisters. The big question is what other goodies are the taxpayers giving them? I pretty much guarantee that 4 women with 17 kids between them are raking in a whole bunch more than $540k in "other benefits" over 6 years.

The scandal is that working America has gone well over a million bucks into the hole for these folks, a sum that will never be repaid in even a small amount. And the future doesn't look rosy for the kids, either.

16 posted on 03/04/2013 2:24:49 PM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine

And this report is just scratching the surface. How much other money in assistance are these ladies receiving?


17 posted on 03/04/2013 2:26:08 PM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
“Would it have been less objectionable if the same amount of money for childcare for these women had gone to un
related care providers?”

Actually, we probably were paying these moms to watch TV together or make more babies while their kids roamed the neighborhood.

18 posted on 03/04/2013 2:53:33 PM PST by July4 (Remember the price paid for your freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

“Amish?”
Undoubtedly, they are, Milwaukee County being a well-known Midwestern Amish enclave.
You should see what they get for barn-raisings, which of course they NEVER GET AROUND TO DOING!


19 posted on 03/04/2013 3:09:20 PM PST by supremedoctrine (What thou lovest well, remains, the rest is dross....---Ezra Pound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“$19,285.71 to take care of 5-17 children at a time doesn’t seem like a lot and the cost for sending all these kids to daycare would cost way more.”

You beat me to the math errors, but why should anyone be forced to pay for another’s child?

Specific Constitution citations, please.

;-)


20 posted on 03/04/2013 3:17:00 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Most of me doesn’t feel OK with it.
Which part of you does?
This is a strategy, intentional NO DOUBT, to funnel not
inconsiderable amounts of money DIRECTLY to INDIVIDUALS
rather than to middlemen like daycare workers, NONE of which
would likely be the same people who are getting the payments.
Doing it that way is the old fashioned way.
This way it is direct welfare, with little oversight or monitoring that might accrue to a daycare center that might
be subject to certain regulations.
Add to that that this is, as I put it, exploitable as “a family affair” and it is a classic welfare-state scam, one invited (and invented) by the (State?) Government.
This is a 3rd rail, being in Wisconsin, that even Gov. Walker dare not touch.


21 posted on 03/04/2013 3:22:30 PM PST by supremedoctrine (What thou lovest well, remains, the rest is dross....---Ezra Pound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: par4

I’m a 55 year old ‘blue collar’ worker who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. Had two kids and wanted more but stopped due to that’s all I could afford.

If someone wants kids, it’s their parental responsibility to raise and provide for them, not the government.


22 posted on 03/04/2013 3:26:00 PM PST by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine

Even a ill 8 year old can work to help support the family. I see no scab in this picture.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/14805


23 posted on 03/04/2013 3:33:58 PM PST by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Many landlords will only take Section 8 renters because it’s a guaranteed check.


24 posted on 03/04/2013 3:41:36 PM PST by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

This is criminal. Put the perps in prison. Seize whatever assets they have. Place their kids in foster homes. I know this won’t happen, but one can dream.


25 posted on 03/04/2013 3:48:07 PM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

No one should be compelled to pay for another but we are.

I was making the point that $20K per year isn’t much for 4-5 people.

Sure they probably get WIC, S8 etc, but, the cost for daycare far exceeds $20K and if these gals are single I don’t see how they would juggle a job or two jobs and manage the various hours of scheduling which would be different for each child.

The real problem with this program is they are federally subsidized and undermine the intent of Welfare Reform. Which was to make the social safety net temporary, not a lifestyle.

The state is the one in error here and they have trained the girls to live one way instead of encouraging them to live another.

I don’t have a problem with anyone’s grief here but realistically what would be the solution. There are kids involved.


26 posted on 03/04/2013 4:01:52 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
I don’t have a problem with anyone’s grief here but realistically what would be the solution. There are kids involved.

Are you one of the sisters?

27 posted on 03/04/2013 4:38:20 PM PST by AmusedBystander (The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“I don’t have a problem with anyone’s grief here but realistically what would be the solution. There are kids involved.”

At the risk of igniting a firestorm of personalized criticisms, the kids are far less important than the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

Better lots of dead children, which would be replaced quickle by well trained ‘workers’ than loss of the Republic by bankruptcy from supporting endless bastard farming by the Feral Gub’ment.

As Webster said:
“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

No child, or group of children is worth the Constitution.

We made illegitimate children more important than the Constitution and proved what Webster said long ago.

Anarchy squats in the White Mosque as I type.


28 posted on 03/04/2013 4:54:13 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AmusedBystander

No..those are my children....


29 posted on 03/04/2013 5:10:01 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

I honestly thought I’d hear the correct answer to this problem but, here goes:

The proper source for charity should be the church. Whatever your faith is.

They would see to it that each families unique needs would be met and it would come with an understanding that the time self determination and self sufficiency looms shortly in their future.

That would put many on the right road quickly.


30 posted on 03/04/2013 5:13:58 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

Now that I’ve thought about my answer a bit further I wonder if we wouldn’t be met at each stop sign/light and exiting a grocery store with even greater numbers of the mother class as they hold a sign with their desperate pleas of “Alms for the poor”......with a pack of dirty faced children playing with a dog....


31 posted on 03/04/2013 5:23:06 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“Now that I’ve thought about my answer a bit further I wonder if we wouldn’t be met at each stop sign/light and exiting a grocery store with even greater numbers of the mother class as they hold a sign with their desperate pleas of “Alms for the poor”......with a pack of dirty faced children playing with a dog....”

Given that those mothers would be urban black Obama voters, is it not probable the children would be killing the dog and cooking it?

The Immaculated Won sez “Dog is good. Mmmmn, mmmmn mmmmmn!


32 posted on 03/04/2013 5:45:14 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: grundle; All

DEFUND socialist collectives, foreign and domestic. Thread BUMP!


33 posted on 03/04/2013 6:23:58 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson