All the bill does is create an agency to SPEND tax money on "awareness" programs for Seniors.
Can we stop with the "creates an agency" thing? Consumer protection
already falls under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission. All this bill does is give them a small amount of additional funding to target information dissemination at seniors and their caregivers. The main justifications of this take up the bulk of the bill and are in the "findings" section. Some of the key ones include:
(6) The Federal Bureau of Investigation notes that seniors in the United States are less likely to report fraud because they do not know to whom to report, they are ashamed to have been a victim of fraud, or they do not know that they have been a victim of fraud. In some cases, a senior who has been a victim of fraud may not report the crime because he or she is concerned that relatives may conclude that the senior no longer has the mental capacity to take care of his or her own financial affairs.
(7) According to a 2009 report by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, the annual financial loss by victims of senior financial abuse is estimated to be at least $2,600,000,000.
(14) A 2003 report by AARP found that, though the crime of telemarketing fraud is grossly underreported among seniors who have been victims of such fraud, seniors who are properly counseled by trained peer volunteers are less likely to fall victim to fraudulent practices.
(15) The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that the threat of fraud to seniors is growing and changing. This is largely due to the fact that many younger Baby Boomers have considerable computer skills and criminals have responded by targeting seniors through online scams like phishing and email spamming, in addition to traditional telephone calls and mass mailings.
It has no provisions for judging the effectiveness of said programs and no over sight on who is getting the money for said programs. It allows something like 4 agencies to pick who gets to spend money on "awareness" programs.
So if the bill appropriated money for a study of the impact of consumer education on fraud, you wouldn't be complaining about that? Anyway, internal oversight of FTC finances is conducted by the
relevant OIG and oversight of the competitive grants program to law enforcement agencies and non-profits would be something worked out administratively within the FTC.
And, no, it doesn't let agencies pick who spends the money, it requires the FTC to consult with the Attorney General, HHS, the Postmaster General, the Chief Postal Inspector for the United States Postal Inspection Service, and the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection before it decides how to best use the money for information dissemination.
Microsoft Word seems to think it's about 1400 words. Very well, I should have said three minutes. Sorry.
Another thing that you may have not noticed....why is it seniors are the only concern here? Why not everyone? Get back to me on that one.
The entire spirit of the bill is that seniors are especially vulnerable to fraud and thus would benefit from direct FTC dissemination activities that extend beyond the FTC's existing consumer protection work (which does apply to everyone).
By the way...if you really think this piece of shit legislation is worth anyone's time and money....please explain why? You seem to be quick to point out what it contains but you're a little slow on explaining what benefit it has for the target group it covers.
It really depends whether you want to dedicate resources to helping seniors defend themselves from fraud. There's no right answer here.
My concern here isn't to advocate for this bill; I just prefer when people have some idea what the hell they're talking about.
