It gets better; the number of fraudulent tax returns filed by prisoners—and the money doled out by the government—goes up every year because the IRS can’t seem to find an effective way to crack down on the scheme! From 2004 to 2010 the number of inmates that swindled the government increased from 18,000 to over 91,000 and the refunds claimed skyrocketed from $68 million to $757 million. The IRS pats itself on the back for blocking $722 million in tax refunds to inmates during 2010, but it still handed out more than $35 million.

While this may seem unfathomable to many, it’s all documented in a scathing federal audit released recently by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Here is an understatement, as per the agency watchdog: “Refund fraud committed by prisoners remains a significant problem for tax administration.” Here is another one, included in the report; “controls used to ensure the IRS identifies fraudulent refunds on tax returns prepared by prisoners are not fully effective.”  

No kidding! Now that we got those enlightening assessments out of the way, let’s look at some of the reasons why this is happening. Parts of the report—including entire pages—were redacted to comply with “federal confidentiality laws,” but the bottom line seems to be finger pointing between the IRS and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the State Departments of Corrections.

The IRS defends its incompetency by claiming that it does not have the authority to contact jail officials about prisoner-filed fraudulent tax returns because the information is confidential. When the IRS identifies records that don’t match those provided by the Social Security Administration its hands are tied. That’s because it doesn’t have the authority to resolve the discrepancies since it would violate an IRS code that specifically states tax returns and all associated information shall be confidential.

Furthermore, the IRS asserts that prisons don’t always provide it with accurate information or complete records and that not all facilities report inmates. This makes it impossible to adequately control the corruption because the agency must rely on information provided by prisons to identify inmate-filed tax returns. Nonetheless, the inspector general says, the IRS can do a better job of ensuring the files are accurate and complete by taking further steps to improve the validation and verification processes.

This is not the first time that the IRS gets slammed for doling out money to incarcerated criminals who are not entitled to it. For more than a decade, government investigators have exposed an epidemic of prison inmates illegally receiving tens of millions of dollars in tax refunds. Just a few years ago a federal audit revealed that more than a quarter of a million inmates filed tax returns with the IRS and nearly 50,000 claimed more than $130 million in refunds without bothering to report wage information  

The downside is that U.S. taxpayers financed the project thanks to the generosity of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has made its primary mission under Obama to bring environmental justice to poor and underserved communities nationwide. Though this isn’t officially part of that multi-million-dollar initiative it helps fulfill similar goals, albeit south of the border.

It’s the first center of its kind on the Mexican border region and it will ignite “urban greenscaping in Tijuana,” according to an EPA announcement that also reveals Uncle Sam doled out $93,000 to launch Mexico’s green transformation. The cash actually went to a group called Tijuana Calidad de Vida (Tijuana Quality of Life) so that it can develop landscape grade compost from landscape cuttings supplied by the municipality. Part of the money will be used to “raise community awareness on the benefits of composting and a path to zero waste.”

It’s all part of a bi-national program—largely funded by U.S. taxpayers, of course— to protect the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. This includes a focus on cleaning the air, providing safe drinking water, reducing the risk of exposure to hazardous waste and ensuring emergency preparedness along the southern border.

How will Tijuana’s $93,000 composting center benefit Americans? It will help protect the environment on both sides of the border by reducing waste within the shared San Diego/Tijuana watershed that would have gone to landfills, according to an EPA regional director. It will also help build “municipal expertise on compost practices” to divert reusable, organic material from landfills.

Mexican officials celebrating the new urban composting center south of the border this month call it a “demonstrative project” that will benefit Tijuana’s parks and gardens with organic materials. An invitation to the public announcing the center’s big inauguration last week boasts that it’s all in the name of “una Tijuana Sustentable!” or a sustainable Tijuana. It should include; “gracias tio Sam” or thank you Uncle Sam.

Several attempts have failed over the years but a state newspaper reports that Democrats, emboldened that they control both chambers of the legislature, will push a bill through this year. Democrats hold a 37-28 majority in the House and a 20-15 majority in the Senate “What we’re looking at is a simpler, more equitable approach to tuition,” according to the state senator from Denver who is leading the effort to give illegal aliens discounted tuition.

On at least four occasions in the last few years the Colorado legislature has rejected measures to grant illegal immigrants cheaper tuition at all 30 of the state’s public institutions of higher learning. The perk is traditionally reserved for legal residents who graduate from state high schools, though a handful of states—including Texas, California, Utah, Washington and New York—extend the benefit to illegal immigrants.

Because the legislation has repeatedly failed to pass in Colorado, one of the state’s public universities— Metropolitan State College of Denver—took matters into its own hands and created a special category of tuition for illegal immigrants last summer. It allows illegal immigrants who graduated from state high schools to pay cheaper tuition at the school, which has an enrollment of about 24,000 and offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in a variety of fields.

Judicial Watch called on the school to immediately rescind the measure, which violates both federal law and Colorado law and constitutes a power beyond the board of trustees. Under federal law illegal immigrants are ineligible for state or local public benefits, including post-secondary education benefits unless a state enacts a measure affirmatively granting the perk. “In approving this new category of tuition, the College recognized that these students would otherwise be required to pay full non-resident tuition because of their inability to demonstrate lawful presence in the United States,” JW writes in a letter to the school’s Board of Trustees.

At least three states—Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona—have solved the contentious issue by creating policies banning discounted tuition for illegal aliens at public colleges. One Colorado Republican opposed to the discount tuition law points out the irony in having taxpayers subsidize undocumented aliens’ college education since they can’t legally get a job in the U.S. It gives false hope, the lawmaker said.

Why is Indian graffiti worth preserving when local governments across the nation spend tens of millions of dollars to remove it annually? Because, evidently, this is politically correct graffiti that has a “social significance,” according to a National Park Service official quoted in a San Francisco newspaper. The agency cares for the island and financed the project at the infamous federal penitentiary in San Francisco.

The same official clarified that the National Park Service doesn’t approve of graffiti because “it’s a federal offense,” but this defacement has a history and sends a message. That’s because it involves Indians or Native Americans as the leftist movement likes to say. After the prison closed Indians took over the island and demanded the government convert it into an Indian cultural center or school devoted to native studies. The National Park Service dedicates a portion of its website to the movement.

During their Alcatraz occupation the Indians plastered a large sign—in red letters four and five-feet high—on the island’s huge water tank, which is about the size of a 10-story building. It reads: “PEACE AND FREEDOM WELCOME HOME OF THE FREE INDIAN LAND.” Rehabilitating it cost American taxpayers $1.5 million because the Park Service had to trace the outlines of the original signs and consult with the American Indian Movement and the Indian Treaty Council. It took nearly one year to complete the job.

The feds claim they approved the restoration because the sign honors “an important part of the island’s history.” The graffiti “opens your eyes to the Indian story of the island,” the Park Service official said. It’s not necessarily a positive one, according to the Park Service’s own version. There was “open use of drugs, fighting over authority, and general disarray of leadership,” as well as beatings and assaults. Some Indian occupiers stripped copper wiring and tubing from buildings and a fire destroyed several historic buildings.

Americans deserve to know and Judicial Watch has launched an investigation into the ordeal which, ironically, was exposed by a national newswire service well known for its pro-Obama reporting. Here is the story that’s earned worldwide attention because of the shameful allegations of a major government cover-up for political purposes.  

It involves New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, a Cuban-American who advocates aggressively on behalf of illegal immigrants. A former congressman, Menendez has voted against hiring new border agents, security fences along the Mexican border and enhancing sentences for illegal aliens convicted of violent crimes. A few months ago a conservative website published a piece in which two prostitutes offered alarming details about Menendez paying them for sex in the Dominican Republic, which he visits frequently.

On the heels of that disgraceful revelation comes the story, this time in the famously liberal and Obama-loving mainstream media, of how the White House apparently protected Menendez from yet another public relations crisis. How? By delaying the removal of an illegal immigrant from Peru with an expired visa (like the 9/11 hijackers) and a criminal record for sexual assault.

The 18-year-old illegal alien, Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta, worked in the senator’s office even though he had an expired visa and a rap sheet for sexually assaulting an 8-year-old boy repeatedly, according to the news report that exposed the story. Sanchez Zavaleta had the audacity to apply for President Obama’s special childhood amnesty, but he got busted for failing to disclose his criminal record and not updating his sex offender registration.

According to government documents obtained by the news agency, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in Newark had arranged to arrest Sanchez Zavaleta on October 24, less than two weeks before the November election. Menendez faced an unexpected challenge from his opponent, state Senator Joe Kyrillos, and the administration didn’t want to risk losing the seat to Republicans. Menendez ended up winning reelection on November 6 with 58% of the vote.

Here is what happened after the feds earmarked the Menendez staffer, according to the news report: “Noting that Sanchez was a volunteer in Menendez’s Senate office, ICE officials in New Jersey advised that the arrest “had the possibility of garnering significant congressional and media interest” and were “advised to postpone the arrest” until officials in Washington gave approval. The documents describe a conference call between officials Washington and New Jersey to “determine a way forward, given the potential sensitivities surrounding the case.”

Homeland Security documents cited in the news report show that the illegal immigrant’s arrest “was delayed by six weeks.” Not surprisingly, everyone involved denies any wrongdoing and through his staff Senator Menendez claims he only heard about the case in the media. Judicial Watch plans to get to the bottom of this matter by seeking all records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and taking legal action if necessary to obtain them.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide the issue later this year, but the question is why must American taxpayers fund this legal battle in the first place? It involves a provision that requires private health organizations, mostly overseas, to have explicit policies that oppose prostitution and sex trafficking before getting AIDS funding from Uncle Sam.

Each year, the U.S. government spends billions of dollars to help people in this country and around the world who are living with AIDS. In 2003 Congress passed legislation requiring groups seeking federal money to publicly announce that they oppose prostitution and sex trafficking because they are serious factors in the spread of the deadly virus. It’s not uncommon for the government to attach conditions like this before doling out federal funds.

But a handful of organizations that get U.S. money and work in South America, Africa and Asia challenged the law in court, claiming that the anti-prostitution mandate violates their constitutional right to free speech. It also compromises their institutional integrity, interferes with prevention outreach to sex workers and takes a toll on their international credibility, they claim in court documents.

In 2005 a federal judge ruled in their favor and a federal appellate court subsequently affirmed the decision, asserting that the mandate unfairly requires the groups to espouse the government’s viewpoint. “Compelling speech as a condition of receiving a government benefit cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” the appeals court says in its decision. “Here, silence, or neutrality, is not an option for Plaintiffs. In order to avoid losing Leadership Act funding, they must declare their opposition to prostitution.”

The U.S. appealed and last week the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Arguing against Supreme Court review, the AIDS groups said that many international agencies actually support lesser penalties for prostitution as part of their broader strategy to combat the disease. In urging the high court to consider the case government attorneys note that Congress passed the anti-prostitution measure because prostitution and sex trafficking contribute to the spread of AIDS. Arguments will likely be held sometime in spring with a decision expected by summer.

Here is the official word from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the nation’s multi-billion-dollar initiative to combat the disease; on its official government website it says that the Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath (APLO) has been shown to have a negative impact on prevention efforts because it undermines the most effective approaches to working with sex workers, who are “among the most marginalized people in any society.” It’s essential that organizations work with them “non-judgmentally,” according to PEPFAR.

In the last few years various government-sanctioned assessments have exposed the ills of global warming, but this is the grand poobah of federal reports. It’s published every four years by a group of scientists from a federal advisory panel (National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee) that operates under the president’s National Science and Technology Council.

So it hardly comes as a surprise that its latest National Climate Assessment is essentially one big argument for the president’s various green initiatives, including the aggressive regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that global warming alarmists say are ruining mother earth. The report, made public in the last few days, is so long it includes a warning that it’s a “very large file.” To avoid technical issues, different chapters as well as the introduction and executive summary can be viewed separately.

An address to the American people warns that climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved into the present. Things have worsened, with evidence of a changing climate “strengthened considerably” since that last National Climate Assessment report in 2009. Many more impacts of human-caused climate change have now been observed, the intro says, further warning that “climate change presents a major challenge for society.”

This includes the increasing threat to infrastructure, water supplies, crops and shorelines. In fact, environmental changes—mostly caused by humans—are causing drastic conditions such as disastrous flooding and dangerous rises in sea levels in some parts and ravaging droughts in others. This is having a huge impact on Americans’ health and livelihoods, especially in communities that already face economic challenges, the report says.

In the last few years a variety of government-funded studies have warned that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and threaten national security. In fact, under the Obama Administration, a consortium of scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”

The $500 million initiative to racially diversify medical research was launched last year after a government-sanctioned study uncovered a “disturbing and disheartening” lack of racial diversity in the field.  Especially troubling are Uncle Sam’s discriminatory funding practices when it comes to distributing federal research grants, the study found.

Touted as one of the few government probes to focus solely on the racial and ethnic composition of federal research funding applicants, the study determined that blacks who apply for grants are less likely than whites and Hispanics to receive the awards. Of additional concern is the low number of “non-white applicants” who apply for the public grants in the first place, the study found.

Through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation’s medical research agency, the government doles out north of $31 billion annually to hundreds of thousands of researchers at thousands of universities and institutions around the globe. During a six-year period analyzed in the study, black researchers who applied for NIH grants were 10% less likely than whites to get the awards.

Researchers from the government-funded team of esteemed academics that conducted the minority probe think this is why; “the quality of educational and mentoring experiences may differ for applicants who self-identify as black or African-American.” In short, the NIH has admitted that it is guilty of not equally benefitting “all racial and ethnic groups.”

To right the wrong the NIH created a $500 million plan to support minority students with scholarships, research experiences and even graduate loan repayment. The agency is also creating a new committee that makes “diversity a core consideration of NIH governance” and ensures fairness in the peer review system that erases “unconscious bias related to disparities in research awards.” The plan also implements “implicit bias and diversity awareness training.”

This week the NIH announced that to lead the costly diversification effort it’s created a “new senior scientific position” of Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity. The agency plans to recruit a nationally-renowned scientist who will promote inclusiveness and equity throughout the biomedical research community, according to NIH Director Francis Collins. “Workforce diversity and inclusion is vital to the success of NIH to achieve scientific outcomes that advance the nation’s health,” Collins said.

The decision, issued this week by the famously liberal 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, rambles on for 27 pages and is almost comical. “This undoubtedly appears to be a difficult question at first glance,” it reads. “Kidnapping is a serious crime, and our instincts may be that it would meet the moral turpitude definition. Even for serious offenses, we must look to the specific elements of the statute of conviction and compare them to the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude.”

The case involves a Mexican man named Javier Castrijon-Garcia who entered the United States illegally in 1989 and incidentally has three American-born anchor babies. He has twice been convicted for driving with a suspended license (yes, California gives illegal aliens driver’s licenses) and in 1992 pleaded guilty to attempted kidnapping. He received a suspended sentence of 300 days in jail and 36 months of probation.

Years after the kidnapping case, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finally earmarked Castrijon-Garcia for removal. He appealed but an immigration judge found that he was deportable because the kidnapping conviction is a categorical crime of moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s final authority on immigration matters, agreed noting that it had previously listed kidnapping as an example of a crime of moral turpitude and that California’s penal code also defined it as involving moral turpitude.

But the 9^th circuit, the most overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, disagrees writing in its decision that precedent dictates that “non-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affects a protected class of victim.” The type of “simple kidnapping” that this illegal immigrant committed doesn’t necessarily involve such evil intent and harm therefore it doesn’t constitute moral turpitude, according to the San Francisco-based court.

The ruling orders the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Justice Department, to “conduct a modified categorical analysis” of the illegal immigrant’s crime. Keep in mind that the BIA has already determined that kidnapping is a serious enough crime that merits deportation, so the court is essentially ordering it to make an exception or change the criminal code.

Over the years the 9^th Circuit Court has been kind to illegal immigrants with criminal records. In separate 2010 rulings it spared an illegal alien from Mexico and a gangbanger from El Salvador—both convicted of serious crimes—from deportation.

A few years earlier the 9^th Circuit reversed a lower court ruling calling for the deportation of a Mexican immigrant convicted of having sex with a minor. In that ruling, the 9^th Circuit claimed that while the crime violated state law and was unwise and socially unacceptable, it wasn’t base, vile or depraved enough to warrant deportation.

 The measure had strong bipartisan support in both the Illinois House and Senate, easily passed and will likely get signed by the governor, who has expressed support for the law. It is expected to give about a quarter of a million illegal aliens the chance to apply for a valid state driver’s license simply by providing a photo identification from their native country and some sort of proof that they’ve lived in Illinois for a year.

 Here is language straight from the bill that just passed in the Land of Lincoln: “Allows the Secretary of State to issue temporary visitor’s driver’s licenses to applicants who have resided in this State for more than a year, are ineligible to obtain a social security number, and who are unable to present documentation issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services authorizing the person’s presence in this country.” It also allows a consular identification document—like a fraud-prone one issued by Mexico—to be used for the acquisition of the license.

Washington State and New Mexico have also enacted similar laws so that illegal immigrants could get driving privileges. Each time this sort of bill gets introduced, it’s promoted as a way to improve public safety because driving tests and proof of insurance are required of candidates. Another popular argument is that it allows the government to create an official database of who’s on the roads.

 It will cost Illinois taxpayers $800,000 for the first year of the illegal alien driver’s license program, according to a regional news report that cites state officials. The state will cover the cost mostly by delaying filling employee vacancies, said a spokesman from the secretary of state’s office. After the initial year, the program will cost around $250,000 annually, according to the official.

While a few Republican lawmakers in Illinois expressed concerns about the new license bill, including the potential for fraud and abuse, the party’s leader in the state House offered strong support in the local newspaper. That’s because Illinois should be a place welcoming to immigrants, said House Republican leader Tom Cross. “We should work with them, not fight with them,” he said.