Category Archives: common core education

Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children

Posted on by

Some studies speak for themselves. This one is chilling. It demonstrates failure, lack of control and management as well as a continued monetary magnet that wont soon or ever go away.

 

A Look at Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food Programs

by: The Center for Immigration Studies

Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.

Among the findings:

  • In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
  • Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
  • A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
  • Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
  • Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
  • The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
  • We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
  • Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
  • High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.
  • An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.
  • If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.
  • Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.
  • For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.
  • Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.
  • The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.

Introduction

Concern that immigrants may become a burden on society has been a long-standing issue in the United States. As far back as colonial times there were restrictions on the arrival of people who might become a burden on the community. This report analyzes survey data collected by the Census Bureau from 2002 to 2009 to examine use of welfare programs by immigrant and native households, particularly those with children. The Current Population Survey (CPS) asks respondents about their use of welfare programs in the year prior to the survey,1 so we are examining self-reported welfare use rates from 2001 to 2009. The findings show that more than half of immigrant-headed households with children use at least one major welfare program, compared to about one-third of native-headed households. The primary reason immigrant households with children tend to have higher overall rates is their much higher use of food assistance programs and Medicaid; use of cash assistance and housing programs tends to be very similar to native households.

Why Study Immigrant Welfare Use?

Use of welfare programs by immigrants is important for two primary reasons. First, it is one measure of their impact on American society. If immigrants have high use rates it could be an indication that they are creating a net fiscal burden for the country. Welfare programs comprise a significant share of federal, and even state, expenditures. Total costs for the programs examined in this study were $517 billion in fiscal year 2008.2 Moreover, those who receive welfare tend to pay little or no income tax. If use of welfare programs is considered a problem and if immigrant use of those programs is thought to be high, then it is an indication that immigration or immigrant policy needs to be a adjusted. Immigration policy is concerned with the number of immigrants allowed into the country and the selection criteria used for admission. It is also concerned with the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration. Immigrant policy, on the other hand, is concerned with how we treat immigrants who are legally admitted to the country, such as welfare eligibility, citizenship requirements, and assimilation efforts.

The second reason to examine welfare use is that it can provide insight into how immigrants are doing in the United States. Accessing welfare programs can be seen as an indication that immigrants are having a difficult time in the United States. Or perhaps that some immigrants are assimilating into the welfare system. Thus, welfare use is both a good way of measuring immigration’s impact on American society and immigrants’ adaptation to life in the United States.

Read on if you dare by clicking here.

More Govt Fleecing in the Billions

Posted on by

Not only is Obamacare as a law but with implementation and application a failure, but money associated with it, has become a financial Armageddon. Those who have recently had any medical experience with insurance and coverage have determined the affordability is way beyond what was told and sold to us. Now, add a double whammy to the problem, more taxpayer dollars lost.

Remember how much the cost of the Obamcare website cost to launch?

The website Digital Trends reported on Thursday that, based on government documents displaying contracts awarded to CGI Federal Inc., the Canadian-based company which in 2011 won a $93 million contract to build the federal healthcare exchange, the cost of HealthCare.gov was about at $634 million. Remember when the White House said and it is still on their website?

Q: Will my premiums / costs go up because of health reform?

A: No.

According to the independent and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, people who get coverage through their employer today will likely see lower premiums.

Reform will lower premiums by reducing administrative costs, increasing competition between insurance companies and creating a larger pool of insured Americans.

And remember, the cost of doing nothing is high. In ten years, health care spending for each employee at an average big company will be $28,530. Then remember when the White House backtracked on the cost of Obamacare was going to go up? Check that here.

It just got much worse.

 

CMS’s internal controls (i.e., processes in place to prevent or detect any possible substantial errors) did not effectively ensure the accuracy of nearly $2.8 billion in aggregate financial assistance payments made to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act during the first 4 months that these payments were made.

 

Feds Can’t Verify $2.8 Billion in Obamacare Subsidies

Inspector General report is found here.

CMS does not know if subsidies went to ‘confirmed enrollees, in the correct amounts’

The federal government cannot verify nearly $3 billion in subsidies distributed through Obamacare, putting significant taxpayer funding “at risk,” according to a new audit report.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit Tuesday finding that the agency did not have an internal system to ensure that subsidies went to the right enrollees, or in the correct amounts.

“[The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] CMS’s internal controls did not effectively ensure the accuracy of nearly $2.8 billion in aggregate financial assistance payments made to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act during the first four months that these payments were made,” the OIG said.

“CMS’s system of internal controls could not ensure that CMS made correct financial assistance payments,” they said.

The OIG reviewed subsidies paid to insurance companies between January and April 2014. The audit found that CMS did not have a process to “prevent or detect any possible substantial errors” in subsidy payments.

The OIG said the agency did not have a system to “ensure that financial assistance payments were made on behalf of confirmed enrollees and in the correct amounts.”

In addition, CMS relied too heavily on data from health insurance companies and had no system for state-based exchanges to “submit enrollee eligibility data for financial assistance payments.”

The government does “not plan to perform a timely reconciliation” of the $2.8 billion in subsidies.

The audit was released as the country awaits a Supreme Court ruling that could make all federal subsidies invalid, since the majority of states did not set up their own health insurance exchange.

Eligible individuals enrolled in Obamacare can receive different types of subsidies, including advance premium tax credits (APTCs) and advance cost-sharing reductions (CSR), which can be used towards premiums or out-of-pocket health care costs.

According to the OIG, the government still does not have a complete system for approving subsidies distributed though Obamacare. CMS used an “interim process” to distribute subsidies for 2014, and is planning a “permanent process” to be finished by late 2015. The final system is supposed to approve enrollment and payment data “on an enrollee-by-enrollee basis.”

“Without effective internal controls for ensuring that advance CSR payments are reconciled in a timely manner, a significant amount of Federal funds are at risk,” the OIG said.

The report noted that multiple agencies within CMS oversee subsidy payments, including the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO), the Office of Financial Management (OFM), the Office of the Actuary (OACT), and the Office of Information Systems (OIS).

In response to the audit, CMS said they issued a regulation to change their accounting methods.“CMS takes the stewardship of tax dollars seriously and implemented a series of payment and process controls to assist in making manual financial assistance payments accurately to issuers,” they said.

 

NY Judge Rules Racism in Teacher Test

Posted on by

Teachers get a real pass from a New York judge. They have a website too that offers them huge assistance to pass certifications.  There is even a test framework and sample questions. So WHERE IS THE RACISM?

A federal judge in New York has struck down a test used by New York City to vet potential teachers, finding the test of knowledge illegally discriminated against racial minorities due to their lower scores.

At first glance, the city’s second Liberal Arts and Science Test (LAST-2) seems fairly innocuous. Unlike the unfair literacy tests of Jim Crow, LAST-2 (which was discontinued in 2012) was given to every teaching candidate in New York, and was simply a means to ensuring that ever teacher has a basic high school-level understanding of both the liberal arts and the sciences.

One sample question from the test asked prospective educators to identify the mathematical principle of a linear relationship when given four examples. Another asked them to read four passages from the Constitution and identify which illustrates the notion of checks and balances. In addition to factual recall, the test also checked basic academic skills, such as reading comprehension and the ability to read basic charts and graphs.

Nevertheless, this apparently neutral subject matter contained an insidious kernel of racism, because Hispanic and black applicants had a rate of passing that was respectively 54% and 75% the success rate of white candidates.

Once their higher failure rate was established, the burden shifted to New York to prove that LAST-2 measured skills that were essential for teachers and therefore was justified in having a racially unequal outcome. While it might seem obvious that possessing basic subject knowledge is a key skill for a teacher, District Judge Kimba Wood said the state hadn’t met that burden.

“Instead of beginning with ascertaining the job tasks of New York teachers, the two LAST examinations began with the premise that all New York teachers should be required to demonstrate an understanding of the liberal arts,” Wood wrote in her opinion, according to The New York Times.

Although LAST-2 hasn’t been used in New York in three years, the ruling will still have repercussions. Minorities who failed the exam (who number in the thousands) may be owed years of back pay totaling millions of dollars, and those who were relegated to substitute teaching jobs could be promoted to their own classrooms. In addition, while Wood’s ruling applies only to New York City, the test was used statewide, and it could serve as a precedent for further lawsuits.

The ruling could also pave the way for another ruling finding New York’s current teacher test, the Academic Literacy Skills Test (ALST), to be discriminatory as well. That test is even harder than LAST-2, with a strong focus on literacy skills such as writing and reading comprehension, and like LAST-2 shows a very large gap in scores between whites and minorities. A lawsuit, once again being heard by Wood, is already pending, with the plaintiffs arguing that there is no clear evidence strong literacy skills are essential for a teacher.

This teacher problem is not exclusive to New York, one cannot forget the scandal in Georgia. Over 3 dozen teachers were indicted in a cheating network.

Maybe parents need to re-think public education. The time is now.

U.S. Healthcare, a Manufactured Crisis

Posted on by

Is Our Healthcare Crisis Man-Made?

by: Juliette Fildes

The media would have us believe that the healthcare crisis is us something that mysteriously arose out of a number of factors, including periods of economic crisis and an ever-growing deficit, yet what if the crisis was actually manufactured?

Americans are forced to buy insurance that doesn’t really protect them against their greatest health risks at all. There are many factors that reveal that insurance companies are favored, as are the pharmaceutical and medical industries. In the past, charity hospitals existed to attend to medical emergencies but over the past few decades, federal law has ensured that Americans can no longer receive unfunded care.

Healthcare should be about protecting the consumer, but as long as the medical industry is permitted to charge whatever price they deem fit for a procedure, there is little chance that Americans will pay the significantly lower prices paid by patients in other countries.

We must fight for the establishment of affordable alternatives to current hospitals and clinics; without a free market, it will be difficult for the situation to change for the better. Read about how the man-made health care crisis came about and discover how we can put an end to it.    

Understanding U.S. Healthcare Costs

Infographic provided by Calculators.org

Further Reading

 

Illegals Protected Class at California University System

Posted on by

READ WRITE THINK AND DREAM

‘Undocumented Student Services’ at UC San Diego hosts workshops mandated by the school’s Vice Chancellor to plan strategies to get government financial assistance for housing, tuition, legal counseling with particular assistance for Latinos and Koreans. Remember that former Department of Homeland Security,Janet Napolitano is now the president of the University of California system.  She set aside $5 million dollars for such programs.

Not to be out done, CalState Los Angeles, CalState Fullerton and Long Beach all have the same programs. Suggestion: stop all federal dollars to the university system.

CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITIES ROLL OUT THE RED CARPET FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Dreamers’ need a space ‘where they can feel safe’

Illegal immigrants in California are already eligible for state financial aid for college. Some public schools are now spending taxpayer money to help these students get money from other sources, even as legal students fight for sparse resources.

 

California State University-Los Angeles received a $1.6 million endowment late last month to fund the Dreamers Resource Center, which the school bills as a space that provides “academic guidance, referral assistance and other support” for so-called dreamers, or students whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally.

It’s just the latest Cal State campus to christen a center dedicated to students without documentation: Fullerton was the first a year ago and Long Beach came two months ago.

The Northridge campus has one “in the works,” and legislation pending in the Legislature would help create more centers across the Cal State system and in community colleges, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The CSU-LA gift will help the school underwrite staff costs and maintain a dedicated space for the center, which was created in October. It helps undocumented students with things like scholarship deadlines and applying for federal work authorization, the school said.

Erika Glazer, the philanthropist whose $1.6 million donation followed her earlier pledges of $700,000 for illegal immigrants, said in CSU-LA’s release that she hopes the center “will be obsolete in a few years and the funds can go toward other programs” at the school.

CSU-LA “has a long history in facilitating the academic success of special student populations” such as low-income students, Nancy Wada-McKee, assistant vice president for student affairs, told The College Fix in an email. She said the school also serves more than 700 veterans through their own resource center.

Technically, the Dreamers center is open to all students, Wada-McKee said, although it focuses on helping undocumented students.

Favoring one group over everyone else?

Under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and California law, Dreamers who meet certain criteria are eligible for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

The 2011 California Dream Act also granted access to financial aid to so-called AB 540 students who attend a college or university in California.

In fall 2014, about 850 CSU-LA students met the requirements for in-state tuition under AB 540, the Times said.

The Long Beach Press Telegram reported a year ago that around 6,400 undocumented students were enrolled at Cal State’s 23 campuses.

CSU-Long Beach’s own “Dream Success Center,” not quite three months old, has already run into opposition from some students who think it’s a waste of valuable resource for a school that’s stretched thin.

The Fix previously reported on lobbying against the center by CSU-LB College Republicans Chairman Nestor Moto, Jr., who said the money that went into creating it could have been used to shrink overcrowded classes or offer more counselors for all students.

“We have 10 advising centers and that is who the money should have been allocated to,” not one special student population, Moto told The Fix in March.

The Daily 49er reported that the renovation for Long Beach’s center cost $16 million, and ongoing costs – including a full-time coordinator for the 650 undocumented students – run to $80,000 a year.

Just ‘leveling the playing field’

Besides the CSU-LA pledge from philanthropist Glazer, University of California President Janet Napolitano has set aside $5 million in non-state funds for undocumented students and resource centers.

UC said last week that Napolitano’s efforts – paying “trained advisers” to help students get “mentoring and emotional support” as well as “find internship and work-study jobs” – are simply “leveling the playing field” for illegal immigrants.

Jose Guevara, a CSU-LA center adviser and political science major who previously received a Glazer scholarship, told the Times that it was “important that [Dreamers] have a space where they can feel safe.”

Glazer is not the only multimillionaire philanthropist putting undocumented students ahead of other college students.

Former Washington Post owner Donald Graham and hedge fund manager Bill Ackman each donated $15 million to Graham’s scholarship fund for illegal-immigrant children, TheDream.us, the organization said Wednesday.

The new money – up to $25,000 each for 1,200 students at TheDream.us partner colleges – comes on top of $10 million each the duo previously donated. They want to spur other philanthropists to donate $30 million for another 5,000 scholarships, the organization said.

TheDream.us teamed up with the City University of New York last year to give scholarships to undocumented students who have already filed for temporary legal status.