You Won’t Believe What This Illegal Alien Mother of 7 Collected – For 20 YEARS

by Brian Hayes | Top Right News

“Emperor Obama” (by his own definition), in his speech tonight selling his lawless executive amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens, assured Americans that every illegal “comes here to work” and “not for a handout.”

Then there is reality: the vast majority of illegal aliens are on welfare, and will be for life. And far from contributing to our society and economy, illegals depress wages, and the average illegal alien takes in $19,000 more in public benefits each year than they contribute in income, sales taxes and social security contributions combined.

Illegal immigration is literally bankrupting this nation. And this woman is Exhibit A.

Illegal alien and mother of seven, Florida resident Marita Nelson, receives $240 in food stamps, monthly medications, $700 in Social Security and a housing allowance. And she has been receiving government assistance for over 20 YEARS – ever since she illegally entered the U.S. by swimming the Rio Grande — which up to 290,000 illegals have done since January.

And even though she initially had a job, Nelson hasn’t worked a day in 17 years – but still collects her checks.

She celebrates it…and is on a crusade to get other illegals to sign up for as many programs as possible – which as you can see in the disgraceful video clip below, the Obama Administration is paying “recruiters” to sign up as many people as possible!

One more reminder of how you cannot believe anything Emperor Obama says about immigration.

Exclusive — Report: Obama’s Executive Amnesty Will Give Illegal Aliens Public Benefits

Capture

Illegal aliens who get President Barack Obama’s likely forthcoming executive amnesty will have immediate access to welfare and other public benefits, according to a new report from the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) exclusively provided to Breitbart News ahead of its public release shows.

“Obama’s executive amnesty isn’t only unconstitutional but costly; from day one it opens up federal and state benefits to individuals who are still illegal aliens, regardless of the label the President puts on them,” FAIR executive director Julie Kirchner told Breitbart News.

“Deferred action and parole-in-place don’t fit neatly into statutory definitions that prohibit access to benefits, mostly because deferred action and parole-in-place have no statutory basis themselves,” FAIR communications director Bob Dane added. “Congress has never imagined a rouge president pulling rabbits out of a hat to justify a broad, transformational makeover of the country by way of amnesty. There will always be thousands of loopholes in the law and backdoor methods to achieve a desired agenda, but ultimately the intent of Congress is preeminent. It may be that the courts will have to review that.”

It’s likely that the administration will attempt to downplay access executive amnestied illegal aliens will have to public benefits in the wake of the president’s announcement since Republicans will seize on the issue to discredit the president’s efforts. It’s a wildly politically successful issue for Republicans, as even Massachusetts’ Republican Governor-elect Charlie Baker ran on making sure Americans are taken care of with public benefits rather than giving them to illegal immigrants—as Democrats want to do.

Both Republicans and Democrats who supported the “Gang of Eight” bill in 2013 argued it wouldn’t allow access to public benefits for amnestied illegal aliens. But a series of reports from the office of now incoming Senate Budget Committee chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and others detailed how it would in fact allow them to get benefits that normally go to Americans and legal immigrants. That seems to be the same thing that’s happening here, with the president’s forthcoming executive amnesty—assuming the president goes through with his stated plans.

The seven-page report from FAIR details how either of the two major mechanisms through which Obama would grant the executive amnesty to millions of illegal aliens would ultimately end up with those millions of illegal aliens taking U.S. taxpayer benefits away from struggling Americans almost immediately.

“While the President has been considering numerous options for his executive amnesty, there are two methods President Obama is expected to use in order to shield illegal aliens from deportation: parole and deferred action,” the report summary reads.

Obama could give the millions of illegal aliens “humanitarian parole,” something the FAIR report notes is included in statute as a power of the executive branch under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for “temporary” protections for people from outside the United States. But the Bill Clinton administration in 1998, via a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo, expanded the meaning of “humanitarian parole” to illegal aliens inside the U.S. That memo did not have any “statutory or regulatory basis,” FAIR wrote, but Obama has used it to grant “parole in place to illegal aliens and is expected to expand this practice.”

If that’s how Obama grants executive amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens he plans to, they’ll get near-immediate access to welfare and other public benefits.

“Aliens with parole generally receive work authorization and are eligible for most benefits under federal law,” FAIR wrote. “This is true regardless of whether they have humanitarian parole or parole in place because the eligibility rules for benefits programs make no distinction between the two. Indeed, the longer an alien’s parole, the more benefits he is eligible to receive.”

Aliens paroled for less than a year are eligible for benefits such as Obamacare and unemployment. In the text of Obamacare, the report notes, Congress specifically restricts access to anyone “lawfully present” in the United States. But, the report notes, “regulations implementing the law define ‘lawfully present’ to include aliens with parole for less than one year.”

“Not only are aliens with parole for less than one year eligible for Obamacare, they are immediately eligible,” FAIR wrote. “Despite the fact that Obamacare might appear to be a ‘federal public benefit,’ and thus restricted to ‘qualified aliens’ and the five-year bar, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not included it in the regulatory definition of either ‘federal public benefit’ or ‘federal means-tested public benefit.’”

As such, FAIR wrote, there is “no conflict” between Obamacare and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) that specifies who is a “qualified alien” who can receive “federal public benefits.”

“This means that aliens may enroll if they are ‘lawfully present,’ and they are not required to be ‘qualified aliens’ nor wait five years to participate pursuant to the PRWORA restrictions,” FAIR wrote.

As for unemployment benefits, aliens with parole for less than a year are also eligible for those despite the fact that states administer unemployment benefits. That’s because state unemployment benefits are “based upon the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which specifically says that aliens paroled into the U.S. for less than one year are eligible for unemployment benefits provided they otherwise meet the program’s other requirements.”

Such aliens who would get parole would also get immediate access to Social Security and Medicare benefits—meaning they could take Social Security or Medicare away from Americans—FAIR wrote, “so long as they meet other eligibility requirements.”

“By statute, Congress exempted retirement benefits under Social Security from the list of federal public benefits for which an alien must be a ‘qualified alien’ and wait five years for eligibility pursuant to PRWORA,” FAIR wrote. “Instead the Social Security Act only requires that aliens be ‘lawfully present.’ The regulation that defines ‘lawfully present’ for retirement benefits includes aliens paroled into the U.S. for less than one year.”

As for Medicare, the laws and regulations are similar to Social Security—meaning illegal aliens who would get parole status under an Obama amnesty would have almost immediate access to Medicare.

“Aliens with parole for less than a year are also eligible for Medicare,” FAIR wrote. “Medicare Part A (inpatient) benefits are available to aliens who are at least 65 years old and eligible for Social Security retirement (Title II) benefits if eligibility is based on authorized work history. As described above, aliens paroled into the U.S. for less than a year are eligible for retirement benefits under Social Security. Therefore, aliens with parole for less than one year who are eligible for Social Security based on authorized work history are eligible for Medicare Part A. In addition, individuals eligible for Medicare part A, including aliens with parole for less than a year, are also eligible for Medicare Part B (outpatient) and Part D (prescription drugs).”

Other public benefits such illegal aliens would have access to under Obama’s amnesty if he chooses the parole route are Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) benefits “in states that have opted to cover them” since Congress’ reauthorization of the relevant statute granted states “the option to offer health care benefits to ‘lawfully residing’ children (under the age of 21) and pregnant women through Medicaid and SCHIP.”

If Obama chooses to go the route of “deferred action,” another form of executive amnesty that has “no statutory basis,” the amnestied illegal aliens will have immediate access to Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security for the same reasons as they would under parole. They’d also, for the same reasons as parole, in some states be immediately eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP public benefits, according to the report.

The report authors note that Obama’s first major deferred action executive amnesty, the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that many Republicans say caused the border crisis, had language excluding recipients of that amnesty from Obamacare.

“Although aliens with deferred action are generally eligible for Obamacare, there is one notable exception,” FAIR wrote. “In 2012, after the creation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which dramatically expanded the number of individuals receiving deferred action, the Obama Administration decided to exclude DACA beneficiaries from eligibility for Obamacare (as well as state-based Medicaid and SCHIP programs) by issuing a new regulation.”

Even so, the FAIR report authors argue that such an exclusion would be impossible to duplicate in a wider executive amnesty given the regulations and laws on the books.

“The wording of the regulatory exception to Obamacare eligibility is significant,” FAIR wrote. “A new deferred action program, or even expansion of the DACA program, would likely not fall under the exclusion because it will not meet the requirement ‘as described in’ the Secretary of Homeland Security’s June 15, 2012 memorandum. Thus, the new grant of deferred action would make these illegal aliens eligible for all the benefits described above. Additionally, because DACA beneficiaries are barred from enrolling in Obamacare by regulation, not legislation, HHS could revoke the eligibility bar at any time.”

Harvard Gives Student Full Ride After He Tells Them He’s Illegal Immigrant

Screen Shot 2014-09-25 at 12.40.23 PM

http://video.breitbart.com/?ndn.trackingGroup=90085&ndn.siteSection=breitbart_nws_loc_sty_vmppap&ndn.videoId=27059533&freewheel=90085&sitesection=breitbart_nws_loc_sty_vmppap&vid=27059533

http://launch.newsinc.com/?type=VideoPlayer/Single&widgetId=1&trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=breitbart_nws_loc_sty_vmppap&videoId=27059533

Didn’t have to worry about student loans or quarterly tuition payments

When Dario Guerrero, an illegal immigrant who found out about his status in high school, told Harvard that he was in the country illegally, the school encouraged him to apply–and gave him a full scholarship after he was accepted.

Writing in the Washington Post, Guerrero, who is currently a junior at the university, said after an MIT official recommended that he not apply to the school during a trip to visit college, he “left the office in a daze” because MIT had been his dream school. He started walking down Massachusetts Avenue” and, “without really planning it, I found myself in the middle of Harvard.” A Harvard admissions officer told him, “If you are admitted to Harvard College, we will meet your full financial need without regard to your legal status.”

He eventually got in, and “they gave me a full ride. This meant I wouldn’t have to worry about student loans or quarterly tuition payments; that I always had a place to stay away from home; that I could travel every semester, on Harvard’s dime, back to California; that my parents would never have to worry whether I’d finish school. Those are luxuries few people, documented or not, ever have.”

“I used to think that being undocumented was a disadvantage to me. I used to mourn the fact that I was different,” the current junior wrote. “But ultimately I realize that it was because of, not in spite of, my identity — as an undocumented Chicano — that I was been able to do what I did. Being something different in the socioeconomic fabric of the United States gave me the perspective I have.”

Guerrero revealed that he was a junior in high school when he realized he was an illegal immigrant. A community college where he was taking extra courses called him and informed him that “the Social Security number I had provided to receive college credit did not match my name, and if I couldn’t provide a valid number, I’d have to pay almost $2,000 for the classes I’d taken.” When he asked his parents why his Social Security number had been rejected, they told him in Spanish, “Son, we overstayed our visa when you were three. You don’t have a social security number.”

“So much of what had happened to me finally made sense. I’d never really needed a Social Security number before El Camino, and whenever I asked if I could visit family in Mexico, my parents told me I had to wait for my ‘papers’ to sort themselves out with the government,” he wrote. “The few times I asked if I could get a job, my father took me with him to sweep the floors on his construction sites.”

Guerrero says he tells other illegal immigrants that “the opportunity to one day join the 6.2 percent” of the high school students Harvard admits, “the 1 percent, or even just the 100 percent of legal residents who live without fear of deportation) is worth crossing the border for.”

REPORT: US SPENT $22 TRILLION ON FAILED ‘WAR ON POVERTY’

Screen Shot 2014-09-16 at 6.57.54 PM

That’s because welfare is meant to keep people dependent of gov’t

Robert Rector

Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.

Today, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty. Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.

>>> Full Report: The War on Poverty After 50 Years

Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.

One third of the U.S. population received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013.

The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)

>>> INFOGRAPHIC: 9 Facts About How the Poor in America Live

Over 100 million people, about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

Screen Shot 2014-09-16 at 6.59.45 PM
But today the Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 a few years after the War on Poverty started. Census data actually shows that poverty has gotten worse over the last 40 years.

How is this possible? How can the taxpayers spend $22 trillion on welfare while poverty gets worse?

The typical family that Census identifies as poor has air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer in its home.

The answer is it isn’t possible. Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state.

For most Americans, the word “poverty” means significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing. But only a small portion of the more than 40 million people labelled as poor by Census fit that description.

The media frequently associate the idea of poverty with being homeless. But less than two percent of the poor are homeless. Only one in ten live in mobile homes. The typical house or apartment of the poor is in good repair and uncrowded; it is actually larger than the average dwelling of non-poor French, Germans or English.

According to government surveys, the typical family that Census identifies as poor has air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer in his home. Forty percent have a wide screen HDTV and another 40 percent have internet access. Three quarters of the poor own a car and roughly a third have two or more cars. (These numbers are not the result of the current bad economy pushing middle class families into poverty; instead, they reflect a steady improvement in living conditions among the poor for many decades.)

The intake of protein, vitamins and minerals by poor children is virtually identical with upper middle class kids. According to surveys by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the overwhelming majority of poor people report they were not hungry even for a single day during the prior year.

We can be grateful that the living standards of all Americans, including the poor, have risen in the past half century, but the War on Poverty has not succeeded according to Johnson’s original goal. Johnson’s aim was not to prop up living standards by making more and more people dependent on an ever larger welfare state. Instead, Johnson sought to increase self-sufficiency, the ability of a family to support itself out of poverty without dependence on welfare aid. Johnson asserted that the War on Poverty would actually shrink the welfare rolls and transform the poor from “taxeaters” into “taxpayers.”

Judged by that standard, the War on Poverty has been a colossal flop. The welfare state has undermined self-sufficiency by discouraging work and penalizing marriage. When the War on Poverty began seven percent of children were born outside marriage. Today, 42 percent of children are. By eroding marriage, the welfare state has made many Americans less capable of self-support than they were when the War on Poverty began.

Bono Quote, free enterprise

President Obama plans to spend $13 trillion dollars on means-tested welfare over the next decade. Most of this spending will flow through traditional welfare programs that discourage the keys to self-sufficiency: work and marriage.

Rather than doubling down on the mistakes of the past, we should restructure the welfare state around Johnson’s original goal: increasing Americans capacity for self-support. Welfare should no longer be a one way hand out; able-bodied recipients of cash, food and housing should be required to work or prepare for work as condition of receiving aid. Welfare’s penalties against marriage should be reduced. By returning to the original vision of aiding the poor to aid themselves, we can begin, in Johnson’s words, to “replace their despair with opportunity.”

IRS Commissioner Admits ObamaCare Makes Following Law Difficult For Agency

Capture

By Joseph R. Carducci
September 11, 2014

The more you listen to liberals talk, the crazier the seem. Hence, today I bring you an example where the current IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, has indirectly admitted the agency has been put in a position where following the law, at least as far as ObamaCare consequences, is becoming increasingly more difficult.

IRS Commish Testifies on Capitol Hill

The Commissioner was on Capitol Hill for a House Ways and Means Committee hearing. Interestingly enough, the topic of this specific hearing was the disastrous and expensive ObamaCare rollout. He was asked a question about the number of ineligible people who have been receiving ObamaCare subsidies (and who will likely be forced to pay them back to the IRS). Koskinen said that his agency follows the law “wherever it can.”

Gee, that is good to know and very comforting. Of course, this response drew some laughs from those Congressmen attending the hearing. After all, they aren’t bound to keep the law themselves. But just because the IRS only ‘tries’ to follow the law, ‘wherever they can,’ don’t get too excited. This excuse is not likely to work when you or I complete our tax returns or have to go through an audit. Listen to the comment yourself:

Improper Subsidies

This is not really anything new. It was even reported in the New York Times back in June. They called attention to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were receiving subsidies improperly (not to mention a huge number of forthcoming cancellations). To make matters even worse, this is largely the fault of the poorly performing ObamaCare website. Yes, the same site that still doesn’t have its back-end functionality built.

Once the system is fixed, everyone who incorrectly received such subsidies will be required to pay them back. This is going to be where the IRS comes in, since they will likely be the ones to collect, in the form of taxes owed. According to the New York Times:

“Of the eight million people who signed up for private health plans through insurance exchanges under the new healthcare law, two million reported personal information that differed from data in government records, according to federal officials and Serco, the company hired to resolve such inconsistencies.

The government is asking consumers for additional documents to verify their income, citizenship, immigration status and Social Security numbers, as well as any health coverage that they may have from employers. People who do not provide the information risk losing their subsidized coverage and may have to repay subsidies next April.”

IRS Coming to Collect

That is hardly the type of situation our dear community organizer in chief promised us. But I suppose we should all be glad to hear the IRS follows the law on these subsidies as best they can. The IRS will come looking for their money, that you can believe. After all, this is the same agency that has been working together with the DOJ to cover their own arse on the targeting scandal.

What do YOU think? Happy to learn the IRS tries their best to follow the law? Even happier to know this excuse will get YOU nowhere in an audit or any type of IRS procedure?

THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM IS PRIMED FOR A CRISIS WORSE THAN 2008

Capture

Trillions in US household wealth has evaporated

by PHOENIX CAPITAL RESEARCH | INVESTMENTWATCH | AUGUST 4, 2014

Over the last 30 years, the US has built up record debts on a personal, state, and national level. Consumers thought they were financially stable so long as they could cover the interest payments on their credit cards, states created program after program few if any of which they could afford, and the Federal Government issued $30-50 trillion in debt and liabilities (counting Social Security and Medicare).

This all came to a screeching halt when the housing bubble (arguably the biggest debt bubble in history) imploded in 2007. Since that time, stocks have staged one of their worst years on record (2008), one in five us mortgages has fallen underwater (meaning the mortgage loan is worth more than the home itself), and some trillions in US household wealth has evaporated.

These issues seem to be distinct, but in reality they all stem from a debt problem. And as you know, there is only one legitimate way to deal with a debt problem:

Pay it off.

However, instead of doing this, the Feds (the Federal Reserve, Treasury Dept, etc.) have been producing EVEN MORE DEBT. Here’s a brief recap of their moves thus far:

The Federal Reserve cuts interest rates from 5.25-0.25% (Sept ’07-today)
The Bear Stearns deal/ Fed buys $30 billion in junk mortgages (March ’08)
The Fed opens various lending windows to investment banks (March ’08)
The SEC proposes banning short-selling on financial stocks (July ’08)
The Treasury buys Fannie/Freddie for $400 billion (Sept ’08)
The Fed takes over AIG for $85 billion (Sept ’08)
The Fed doles out $25 billion for the auto makers (Sept ’08)
The Feds’ $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) (Oct ’08)
The Fed buys commercial paper (non-bank debt) from non-financials (Oct ’08)
The Fed offers $540 billion to backstop money market funds (Oct ’08)
The Feds backstops up to $280 billion of Citigroup’s liabilities (Oct ’08).
Another $40 billion to AIG (Nov ’08)
The Fed backstops up $140 billion of Bank of America’s liabilities (Jan ’09)
Obama’s $787 Billion Stimulus (Jan ’09)
The Fed’s $300 billion Quantitative Easing Program (Mar ’09)
The Fed buying $1.25 trillion in agency mortgage backed securities (Mar ’09-’10)
The Fed buying $200 billion in agency debt (Mar ’09-’10)
QE lite buys $200-300 billion of Treasuries and mortgage debt (Aug ’10)
QE 2 buys $600 billion in Treasuries (Nov ’10)
Operation Twist reshuffles $400 billion of the Fed’s portfolio (Oct ’11)
QE 3 buys $40 billion of Mortgage Backed Securities monthly (Sept ‘12)
QE 4 buys $45 billion worth of Treasuries monthly (Dec ’12
And that’s a BRIEF recap (I’m sure I left something out).

In a nutshell, The Feds have tried to combat a debt problem by ISSUING MORE DEBT. They’re pumping trillions of dollars into the financial system, trying to prop Wall Street and the stock market. They’ve managed to kick off a rally in stocks…

But they HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES PLAGUING THE FINANCIAL MARKET.

Stocks are headed for another Crash, possibly as bad as the one we saw in October-November 2008. As you know, that Crash wiped out $11 trillion in household wealth in a matter of weeks. There’s no telling the damage this Second Round will cause.

The Feds have thrown everything they’ve got (including the kitchen sink) at the financial crisis… and things are fundamentally no better than they were before: most major banks are insolvent, one in five US mortgages is underwater, and the stock market is being largely propped up by in-house trading from a few key players (Goldman Sachs, UBS, etc).

Regarding stock investing, it’s important to take a big picture of stocks as an asset class. The common consensus is that stocks return an average of 6% a year (at least going back to 1900).

However, a study by the London Business School recently revealed that when you remove dividends, stocks’ gains drop to a mere 1.7% a year (even lower than the return from long-term Treasury bonds over the same period).

Put another way, dividends account for 70% of the average US stock returns since 1900. When you remove dividends, stocks actually offer LESS reward and MORE risk than bonds. If you’d invested $1 in stocks in 1900, you’d have made $582 with reinvested dividends adjusted for inflation vs. a mere $6 from price appreciation.

So as much as the CNBC crowd would like to believe that the way to make money in stocks is buying low and selling high, the reality is that the vast majority of gains from stocks stem from dividends.

The remaining gains have come largely from inflation.

Bill King, Chief Market Strategist M. Ramsey King Securities recently published the following chart comparing REAL GDP (light blue), GDP when you account for inflation (dark blue), and the Dow Jones’ performance (black) over the last 30 years. What follows is a clear picture that since the mid-70s MOST of the perceived stock gains have come from inflation.
Capture

Which brings us to today. According to official data, the S&P 500 is currently trading at a CAPE ratio of 25 and yields 2.3%. In plain terms, stocks are expensive (historic average for CAPE is 15) and paying little.

In other words, there is little incentive, other than future inflation expectations, for owning stocks right now.

By most historic metrics, the market is showing signs of a significant top. Here are just a few key metrics:

1) Investor sentiment is back to super bullish autumn 2007 levels.

2) Insider selling to buying ratios are back to autumn 2007 levels (insiders are selling the farm).

3) Money market fund assets are at 2007 levels (indicating that investors have gone “all in” with stocks).

4) Mutual fund cash levels are at a historic low.

5) Margin debt (money borrowed to buy stocks) is at a new record high.

This final point is key. Mutual funds are the “big boys” of the investment world. If they have become fully invested in the market, this means there are few buyers left to push stocks higher. This is evident in the fact that every time mutual fund cash levels dropped, stocks collapsed soon after.

In plain terms, the odds are high that a Top is forming in stocks. With that in mind,

if your portfolio is heavily invested in stocks, now is a time to be taking some profits. If you can, consider moving a sizable chunk into cash.

The market is extremely tired and the systemic risks underlying the Financial Crisis are in no way resolved. With investor complacency (as measured by the VIX) at record lows, the Fed withdrawing several of its more significant market props, and low participation coming from the larger institutions, this market is ripe for a serious correction.

Be prepared.

This concludes this article. If you’re looking for the means of protecting your portfolio from the coming collapse, you can pick up a FREE investment report titled Protect Your Portfolio athttp://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/special-reports.html.

This report outlines a number of strategies you can implement to prepare yourself and your loved ones from the coming market carnage.

Best Regards

Phoenix Capital Research

GAO Launched an Obamacare Sting Operation—and Almost All Fake Insurance Applications Were Approved

Screen Shot 2014-02-03 at 11.20.18 AM
The report suggests the health care law’s eligibility verification system isn’t working.

By Sophie Novack
Follow on TwitterJuly 23, 2014

An undercover operation found that the majority of fake Obamacare applications submitted were approved by the health law’s enrollment system.

Fake applicants were able to get subsidized insurance coverage in 11 of 18 attempts, according to a report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The agency conducted the sting operation to test the strength of the Affordable Care Act’s eligibility-verification system.

The findings will be discussed at a House Ways and Means hearing Wednesday. They were revealed in an advance copy of the testimony from Seto Bagdoyan, head of GAO’s Forensic Audits and Investigative Service, provided to the Associated Press.

The undercover investigators created fake identities by inventing Social Security numbers, income, and citizenship, and by counterfeiting documents.

Eleven of 12 fake online or telephone applications were approved, according to Bagdoyan. Five of six phone applications were successful, with the exception of one caller who declined to give a Social Security number. Six online applications were initially blocked by the verification system, but the investigators were able to find a workaround by going through the call center.

“The total amount of these credits for the 11 approved applications is about $2,500 monthly or about $30,000 annually,” Bagdoyan said, according to a report from NBC. “We also obtained cost-sharing reduction subsidies, according to marketplace representatives, in at least nine of the 11 cases.”

The investigators did not have the same luck with in-person assistors: They were unable to get help in five of six cases, and the last was told by the assistor that the income reported was too high for subsidized coverage.

The accuracy of the health law’s eligibility verification system has been an ongoing concern among lawmakers and officials, and Republicans have repeatedly pointed to it as evidence that the law leaves the government vulnerable to fraud.

The GAO investigation was requested by several Republican senators and representatives before the insurance exchanges launched in the fall, according to The Washington Post.

The administration, meanwhile, maintains that it is working to improve the process.

“We are examining this report carefully and will work with GAO to identify additional strategies to strengthen our verification processes,” said administration spokesman Aaron Albright.