Thank you for attempting to defraud the system

[blas87]

WIC is strange as it is.

Its approved items are milk, infant formula, certain dry cereals, peanut butter, and I think some kind of dry beans.

But it's been many years since I worked at the grocery store, so that list may have gotten bigger.

[Panacea]

WIC is strange as it is.

Its approved items are milk, infant formula, certain dry cereals, peanut butter, and I think some kind of dry beans.

But it's been many years since I worked at the grocery store, so that list may have gotten bigger.

They've started adding some fresh fruits and vegetables, which is good because these things are actually better for the mothers than the carb laden old items. Cereal shouldn't be on the list at all, it's all carbs and little nutritional value.

[Kaylyn]

Cereal shouldn't be on the list at all, it's all carbs and little nutritional value.

Really? I was under the impression that the WIC-approved cereals were all whole-grain types like Cheerios or cornflakes, or things like unfrosted wheat squares. Granted, neither is very good for you when you dump a pound of sugar on them like I tend to do...

[boringscreenname]

Yes WIC gives vouchers for fresh fruits and vegetables now. I believe when we were receiving WIC we could get $6 worth of fresh fruits or vegetables per child, so the sweet potatoes may have actually been an approved item. The WIC offices in our city also give out vouchers to the farmer's market occasionally, and they give out free reusable bags, all great things in my opinion.

I agree cereal shouldn't be on the list, and neither should juice, as it basically has the same amount of sugar as pop, and it's certainly not an essential part of a child's nutrition.

[Andara Bledin]

Really? I was under the impression that the WIC-approved cereals were all whole-grain types like Cheerios or cornflakes, or things like unfrosted wheat squares.

Wheat is actually a common enough allergen for kids and leads to hyperactivity that can be misdiagnosed as ADHD. Wheat is often better than some of the alternatives, but not for everybody.

Other foods that can have similar allergy reactionsa re eggs, soya, and milk. With those last two and wheat, the morning cereal can be a double-whammy.

^-.-^

[Evandril]

My Wife and me 'lived' off of WIC for a period there (ie, my kids were getting fed no matter what...WIC let my Wife and me eat too ), and I totally support your actions. As far as letting the transaction go through, and then reporting it...if it was a one time deal for the store (unlikely), I see it only being a 'hand-slap' when it gets investigated...and that'd mean the SC would have gotten away with it. If it's happened more than once, it'll show up, and *hopefully* proper action will be taken, once it's looked into, no matter if this transaction was stopped.

Of course, this is assuming everyone does their job the way they are supposed to, which is a bit optimistic of me

In any case...THANK YOU for doing something about it, and hopefully putting the fear of god into the cashier and manager!

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

So by your logic, I should have let the store assist in letting the woman attempt to commit fraud?

Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. You may not care where your tax dollars go, I do.

Hang on, hang on.

Don't go ripping onto their flesh for voicing their opinion. They may have come across a little nicely than they could, but when you look at the reason behind it they made a good and valid point.

One that *I* would have made as well.

You did the right thing by acting. You may or may not have done the most effective thing, but in acting you stood up for what was right and attempted to prevent the defrauding of the system.

However, the government officials are sort of hit or miss as to whether or not you'll get one that gives a flying fuck about anything other than keeping their government job.

By stopping it then and there, you have created an "non-event" as far as the Government sees it. There is no record of the transaction, if they looked at the time and date you report, they'll show that the WIC paid for the things that were legal.

Al because you stopped the illegal things from getting paid for by WIC. So as far as the Government is concerned, this is a One word vs. Another's sort of situation simply because there is no crime in evidence.

That was the point being made. That if you had allowed the situation to go through, there *would be* a fraudulent transaction in record that once you pointed it out would leap off the page screaming "THEY FUCKED UP BIG TIME!" for them to look at. Now it's not a word v word situation but you being a whistleblower to an actual event.

It could have been better made but the point is a valid one. Were I to have been the one posting it I would have said something to the effect of "You did the right thing, but you could have done it better.

I do understand your point. You do not want to see your money going to pay for Filet Mignon for some twat too lazy to get a real job. I do...really. I'd be just as pissed off as you. The problem is that by doing it that way, you only stopped *that* transaction. Maybe if you are lucky you have stopped that manager from doing it again. But there are more managers and then there is the head manager of the facility. Did you stop them as well?

Letting this one slide to let the store hang itself would have a better chance at being more successful. It's like how the police will not arrest a person for trying to break into a bait car. They need to actually get in and drive away with it before the police remotely shut the car down and move in. Because that way they have proof on camera that someone had the intent to steal the car.

So please do not be too harsh. A valid point was made.

[blas87]

I agree, there was a valid point in the counter argument.

Odd enough, we had what seemed like constant meetings about WIC when I was a cashier (in the year and a half or however long I was), probably because of all the different items being added or whatever, and there was so much emphasis on NOT allowing non-WIC items and reporting fraud.

But I suppose, that was quite a few years back. Not that SCs didn't almost always get their own way, but things were a tad different.

[HYHYBT]

Were I to have been the one posting it I would have said something to the effect of "You did the right thing, but you could have done it better.

Yes, that would have been a much better way to put it.

[mikoyan29]

WIC should only be used on foods to help you survive. Not tons of frivolous stuff. Want nice stuff? Use your own money.

I don't think it's changed in the 20 years since I was a cashier and that is the point of it. I seem to recall that they were very strict on what could and couldn't be purchased on a WIC coupon. Cereal had to be corn flakes, rice krispies or other non-sugared cereals. Juice had to be either the juice from the dairy aisle or concentrate. You couldn't get any of the sugared juices from the main grocery aisles. I don't remember if there were any meat ones but I remember the egg and peanut butter ones too.

I actually like the program because it seems very hard to abuse but some people will find a way.

[KabeRinnaul]

As I recall (from a year or two ago), WIC allows...

Fruits and Vegetables with a CVV WIC ($6 or $10 normally).
Milk (generally any type, exclusively in gallon or half-gallon sizes, as specified).
Cheese (only certain varieties, all common, and only in half-pound or pound sizes - shredded, block, or slices that are not individually wrapped).
Juice (no added sugar, no blends - either jug or concentrate, 46-oz).
Bread (only 16-oz loaves, not the more common 20-oz, and only particular varieties - these were always ridiculously overpriced).
Cereal (nothing sugary, only things like oatmeal, Cheerios, or Corn Flakes).
Baby Food (jars or cereals, but no meats).
Formula (in certain situations, and always exactly what is listed).

[FArchivist]

I hope this is the right section for it and I'm going to Fratching on this one because I suspect it'll end up being just that - a fratching topic.

Mmm-hmmm.
Frankly, this story sounds a bit...iffy. Can we have some details on it? Store name and so on?

I mean, I'm checking the WIC Food Requirements here. The list that you give that she was buying was:

"pack of ribs, bbq sauce, soy sauce, sweet potatoes and some paper goods"

Per the document above: No potato except for yam and sweet potato So why would her getting sweet potato be a problem?

[lupo pazzesco]

Mmm-hmmm.
Frankly, this story sounds a bit...iffy. Can we have some details on it? Store name and so on?

I mean, I'm checking the WIC Food Requirements here. The list that you give that she was buying was:

"pack of ribs, bbq sauce, soy sauce, sweet potatoes and some paper goods"

Per the document above: No potato except for yam and sweet potato So why would her getting sweet potato be a problem?

Purposefully leaving out store name helps hide identity, which is something that is emphasized both here and on CS. You also seem to be zeroing in on one of the items, as opposed to the majority of the order. Ok, fine, the sweet potatoes, they MIGHT have been on the voucher, unless they were canned, I believe. FURTHER, the OP said the scammer was trying to use vouchers - which specifically state what they can be used for, those items and ONLY those items - for goods that were NOT included on said vouchers.

Why does the OP have to give more details? It was a sighting, and why is the store name required? Just curious. A quick google for WIC approved food lists yields state by state approvals. NONE of the lists show ribs, bbq sauce, soy sauce or paper products.

For example: New York

Rhode Island

Texas

Georgia

California

Just to name a few. Really, you just have to search for your home state and "wic approved food list" to see there are no meats, no paper products, and no condiments on any list.

I don't find the story fishy. I find it true to life, I've seen people in stores try to use WIC to buy Starbucks drinks, to buy frozen pizzas, Halloween candy, etc, etc. I can't remember at which stores, but does that really matter? Just wondering why you find it fishy, or is it just over the sweet potatoes?

[FArchivist]

You also seem to be zeroing in on one of the items, as opposed to the majority of the order.

That's correct, I am. I'm wondering why the response wasn't a polite "The sweet potatoes can be bought with a voucher, but the other items can't." Since the OP seems to remember the incident specifics so well, one would have thought it would be mentioned.

Why does the OP have to give more details? It was a sighting, and why is the store name required? Just curious. A quick google for WIC approved food lists yields state by state approvals. NONE of the lists show ribs, bbq sauce, soy sauce or paper products.

1) Nor did I say the lists did.
2) Because what this sounds like to me? Is like a story you used to hear on bad_service or customers_suck on Livejournal. Specifically, the ones where the OP is behind some wailing kid in the store and the mom is being snippy with the cashier. Then the OP does some mystical hand-jive and a snappy comeback that leaves the "moo" crying in her "tittermilk", the store applauding her, and the employees practically throwing a ticker-tape parade for the OP. At the least, exaggerated, at the most, shenanigans. It doesn't add up.

Just to name a few. Really, you just have to search for your home state and "wic approved food list" to see there are no meats, no paper products, and no condiments on any list.

I don't recall saying there were.

I don't find the story fishy. I find it true to life, I've seen people in stores try to use WIC to buy Starbucks drinks, to buy frozen pizzas, Halloween candy, etc, etc. I can't remember at which stores, but does that really matter? Just wondering why you find it fishy, or is it just over the sweet potatoes?

1st: I will get this out of the way - I in no way have any issues with people who use WIC. My sister spent her child rearing years raising kids on WIC and food stamps. I know the reason for WIC and how it's used.

That's the standard disclaimer you see people use on fabrications. It's a variation on the "I have black friends and I'm not really racist, but..." or "All my black friends agree with me that this other black person was a..."

2nd: Cue manager who then tells the cashier, " Go ahead and approve it"

In GA, this will get you a fine of a minimum of $10K, possible jail time, and possibly get your store shut down. States have undercover people ranging everywhere to see if fraud is occurring, much like the alcohol and cigarette stings. I've never seen any manager who was willing to risk a felony in this way. At all. And the ones who do? Are caught.

And to do it in front of others? Publicly? I might have believed the manager taking the WIC recipient over to a desk or something and putting it through privately. But a felony with witnesses? Skeptical doesn't begin to cover it.

3rd: I had it. I told the manager "I'm sorry, but that's fraud and if you allow that, I will report you and the store for welfare fraud." Manager's eyes go wide at that point.

Totally predictable; there's the Hero Moment, where the OP lays the Righteous Smackdown on the offending party. Right on cue. So far, this story is according to script.

4th: I will be calling the Social Services office on Monday and reporting this to them. I pay my taxes, and I will be damned if someone is going to try to use them for fraudulent purposes.

Again, the Righteous Indignation, right on cue, complete with a "Mah Tax Dollahs!" codicil.

Then it's posted here where, right on cue, people provide plaudits to the Hero for once again smacking down the Evil Forces with comments that basically can be boiled down to "You're the man now, dawg!"

I've read this story a thousand times elsewhere, with only slight variations in the actors and the circumstances. The most common variant is the Childfree Hardcore type, where the OP has his/her Hero moment against the Evil Moo who can't parent and her Flock of Crotchdroppings. The second most common variant is this, the Evil Fraudster, followed by the Bad Service Upcommance.

Perhaps if it wasn't quite so a-b-c-d in how it follows the usual self-aggrandizing pattern, I wouldn't be so suspicious.

[HYHYBT]

Unless I have completely misunderstood how the system works, that sweet potatoes are WIC approved does not automatically mean the customer in question had a voucher that covered them. Are they not each for a specific item? I distinctly remember from CS that they were very specific.