Last August, we learned that Nadya Suleman (AKA "Octomom") applied for food assistance and other forms of welfare for her and her 14 children after struggling to make ends meet. She went off welfare within a couple months after receiving a string of paying gigs -- mostly pornography and paid Internet debates -- but not before receiving death threats and having her vehicle vandalized.
Fast forward to last week... TMZ reported that someone filed a complaint with the L.A. County Department of Welfare Fraud Prevention and Investigation, accusing Suleman of earning too much money to qualify for assistance and now the WFP&I is investigating Suleman for possible welfare fraud.
According to TMZ, Suleman and her 14 children are eligible for different types of welfare assistance in California if they make less that $119,000 in a calendar year. Suleman is being accused of making over $200,000 last year, which is where the welfare fraud allegation comes in.
Here is where I get confused -- and this confusion applies to anyone applying for and qualifying for welfare assistance. She applied for welfare in July or August because the family wasn't making enough money to support itself. She then began earning more money and went off welfare later that year.
Why are they looking at her annual income against her as opposed to her monthly income? My understanding is that welfare recipients have to provide evidence of gross monthly income when applying for benefits. That's how it's done here in Iowa -- though there might be some forms of assistance where they look at annual income instead of monthly. Maybe I'm missing something and welcome any input.
If convicted of welfare fraud, Suleman faces three or more years in prison. Who will care for her kids then?
Fast forward to last week... TMZ reported that someone filed a complaint with the L.A. County Department of Welfare Fraud Prevention and Investigation, accusing Suleman of earning too much money to qualify for assistance and now the WFP&I is investigating Suleman for possible welfare fraud.
According to TMZ, Suleman and her 14 children are eligible for different types of welfare assistance in California if they make less that $119,000 in a calendar year. Suleman is being accused of making over $200,000 last year, which is where the welfare fraud allegation comes in.
Here is where I get confused -- and this confusion applies to anyone applying for and qualifying for welfare assistance. She applied for welfare in July or August because the family wasn't making enough money to support itself. She then began earning more money and went off welfare later that year.
Why are they looking at her annual income against her as opposed to her monthly income? My understanding is that welfare recipients have to provide evidence of gross monthly income when applying for benefits. That's how it's done here in Iowa -- though there might be some forms of assistance where they look at annual income instead of monthly. Maybe I'm missing something and welcome any input.
If convicted of welfare fraud, Suleman faces three or more years in prison. Who will care for her kids then?
