Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Raids Welfare for Videogame Legislation
jcgam69 writes "Recent hearings revealed that the State of Illinois spent $1 million defending their unconstitutional video games legislation. The story gets even worse when you learn where the money came from. 'Some of the areas money was taken from included the public health department, the state's welfare agency and even the economic development department. A state representative who attended recent hearings on the issue said that Gov. Blagojevich's staff simply spread the legal bills around by sticking them to agencies which had funds left in their budgets--even if the agencies had nothing to do with the issue or the litigation.'"
Elwood: Illinois Nazis.
Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.
C'mon, with idiocy like that rampant, is anyone really shocked by this?
On the other hand, I can see exactly why this was done, and why it might be ok. It is the taxpayer's money, and it's expectd to be used. They spent it very poorly yes, but it's there to be spent. If the public is upset about it, they need to make that known, by tossing those dips out of office. If they don't do that, then no bitching from you. Either change it or stfu.
God forbid the sacred vote buying fund be tapped to protect censorship.
Never trust strangers, authorities, or people named Milorad Blagojevich.
This shouldn't come as a big surprise. I expect a lot of government offices/officials snake money from areas that still have some cash to pay for other interests. It's one of the biggest reasons agencies tend to spend all their money...if they have some left over, there's a chance someone will decide they don't really need that budget money and shift it to some other agency.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Which would make you want to commit violence more, playing a video game or not getting a welfare check? Their priorities are completely messed up.
stuff |
They are far too busy thinking of the children to think of the children.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
That bites. The funds should come from the legislative budget, even if they have no funds left. The Legislature would be hard-pressed to pass more bills that could result in massive legal bills if their pay check was directly at risk.
Either that or create a discretionary fund that is 100% disclosed to voters at voting time, included in clear wording direct in the ballot.
Think of the children! No, seriously, think of the children who need government assistance to eat.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
If the legislation was important enough to enact, then it's important enough to defend.
If you thought the legislation exceeded the scope of government, then you think paying to defend it is bad too. No wonder non-binding legislation is catching on, as it makes both sides happy, or... is that unhappy.
depressing. It shows you how your money, not the governments, yours, gets wasted every day by a bunch of un-accountable megalomaniacs. And its true of both parties.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Normally you try to spend all of your budget in a given year so that the "powers that be" don't cut next year's budget because you obviously didn't need all that money. This is the first I've heard where (apparently) they took already-allocated money back to pay for their stupidity. That sucks even more because you can't even count on the money you already have - you never know when the higher-ups will just change their mind and give it to someone else.
The games in question are almost always rated M for mature and most chains require ID to buy them anyway. So Illonois spent $1,000,000 trying to protect 17 year old children from exposed breasts. There is far more titilation (pun intended) to be had in a no-age-limit Maxim/Stuff/etc. magazine than in nearly all of these video games. Heck the kids could just go to the art museum for far more nudity, and read Genesis and Leviticus for rape/murder/genocide/incest.
Million here, million there, and before too long it starts to become real money.
Well put, sir.
If I could rearrange the keyboard, I'd put U and I together.
Million here, million there, and before too long it starts to become real money.
Exactly, but when you're trying to clean up a pile of dog shit you pick up the nice big hard pieces first instead of scraping the goop with a trowel. Let's start with the real waste and move on from there, shall we?Actually, the quote is "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money", and ironically it's from Everett Dirksen, late Republican (back when Republicans could be moderates) Senator from Illinois.
Blagojevich is the Democratic haircut who was elected after Republican George Ryan self-destructed. For those of you who don't live here, Ryan was convicted on multiple corruption charges and is currently out on bond, pending appeal. Blagojevich recently defeated Judy Baar Topinka, a reactionary Republican hack, for a second term.
Illinois is a strange state. Politics is definetley a contact/blood sport here.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I constantly hear stories about how politicians took money from place A and spent it on place B. I suspect this varies between states, but can someone explain to me how this works? As far as I know, there's no special bank account where money is deposited for each organization: the budget is set by law - so if the law says "$50 goes here and $100 goes here" I don't see how it is possible to take it from any one of those buckets without passing another law that overrides it. Can someone please explain this?
A million dollars could go a long way to help social welfare agencies as they are usually cash strapped as it is.
Once again I say, "it's only a million dollars." How much money will it cost to get the government to change its policies? Probably more than the million you'd gain by doing it. Why not go after the multiple BILLIONS in waste in other areas?
Seriously, check out the controversy section on his Wikipedia Article. The dude got tons of soft cash from companies as campaign contributions. Makes you wonder why he feels the need to rob the poor to pay for his failed ideas...
The problem is (as an Illinois native) elected officials in Illinois have a history of using their current elected position to campaign for the next one. A good example of this is the Secretary of State - the first thing the guy elected Secretary of State does is plaster "John Doe, Secretary of State" on EVERYTHING in the state. Tollway signs. DMV. Courthouses. Whatever. You can't go into a state building in Illinois without knowing who the secretary of state is.
And Blagojevich is a just plain corrupt governor. Sometimes I wonder if there really is a conspiracy between the two parties - the only reason Blagojevich got reelected, even though most people BELIEVE he's corrupt, is that the Republicans somehow managed to field a candidate that was SO BAD that corrupt Blagojevich was actually the better choice! I wish I had been paying more attention, as *I* could have gotten elected governor running against those two.
Anyway, this is just Blagojevich campaigning for Senate or President, using state dollars. You can see the campaign commercial already: 'When Blagojevich was governor of Illinois, he worked to protect vulnerable children from violent video games....'
paintball
I agree that the amount isn't really a big deal compared to other things the Chicago municipal government has done, and so trivial compared to national government waste that we can't even hear the plink that this particular drop in the bucket made, but...
At the municipal level, a million bucks is still significant in many local voter's eyes. As far as staying real goes, you could try to make your case in plenty of neighborhoods classed as working poor, and the sort of thing you've just said would sound to plenty of people there exactly like "Let them eat cake!". That effect can be real, very very real. Another tax on tea was pretty trivial compared to some other things the British government did once, and look what followed from that. I suspect if the current gridlock in government continues, we will see a return to the sort of rioting we had in the 60's, and the incidents that trigger it will be 'little' things like this, even if the underlying causes are much bigger.
Who is John Cabal?
Wow. Welfare causes all of those things
Nice false dillema you've got there.
It may be sort of true (in some cases) that some of what you describe is some of the more unfortunate aspects of social programs, but talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm fairly sure that most of the recipients of welfare aren't included in what you're describing.
Man, some of you people have such amazing knee-jerk reactions towards any sort of program to help people out it astounds me.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If any of that were true, how come the US, which has a much smaller social-welfare apparatus than most other developed countries, has more crime, poverty, teen pregnancies, &c.?
I must agree. Topinka was not the neocon-type we've been seeing at the national level -- she had her own problems. Either way, Blagojevech won the election as the lesser of two evils.
(IANAL)
Nice false dillema you've got there.
It's spelled 'dilemma', and I think you were looking for the word 'dichotomy'.
I'm fairly sure that most of the recipients of welfare aren't included in what you're describing.
How many do you know?
Man, some of you people have such amazing knee-jerk reactions...
As Homer Simpson said, "The ironing is delicious!"
http://xkcd.com/386/
I'm thinking the baby/bathwater metaphor is the wrong one. Perhaps the purse/sow's ear metaphor would be better...
Welfare and concentrated housing projects combined have done more harm to the poor than good. Ironic that we're only starting to see poverty decline in Chicago once they started tearing down the projects.
Paying people to sit on their behinds and make babies who become gang banging drug dealers is not a good solution. Forcing people to make something of themselves is sometimes the only way to convince them its possible.
IANAL or work in auditing, but the Governor could get his state into a lot of trouble spending money that was earmarked for that federal program, methinks. I'd hope that during their next federal audit (which happens every year here) they get to the bottom of it and punish just the people responsible, while not impacting the needy families with fines or cuts to the state's grant.
If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.
A huge portion of the tenants moved out to the far south suburbs (Dolton, South Holland, Harvey, etc). The truly depressing news is that both Dolton and South Holland reported record foreclosures this year and over 97% of them were ARMs. They boot them out of the public housing and predatory mortgage companies eat them up. I still don't support the perpetually government teat, but this seriously damaged these towns.
A dilemma is a problem offering two solutions, neither of which is acceptable. The two options are often described as the horns of a dilemma, neither of which is comfortable.
meanwhile
A dichotomy is a division into two non-overlapping or mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts. They are often contrasting and spoken of as "opposites". The term comes from dichotomos (divided): dich- ([in] two) temnein (to cut).
---
A false dilemma would be one where an option exists that is not uncomfortable.
---
I think dilemma applies (tho mispelled- but hey, this is slashdot.) No- I didn't know the definitions- I had to look them up. I sort of knew what dilemma meant but drew a complete blank on dichotomy.
---
Did you draw a false dilemma? Depends on if you are anti-welfare or not. Some people welfare helps- but I agree that the rule of unintended consequences does apply to welfare. Welfare destroys the lives of a lot of people who would have made it without a ready crutch to destroy them. It's not welfare per se- it's welfare run by a big organization that can't tell the difference between a hard working mom that got laid off and needs a hand to get back up again and a drug using teenager with three babies from three different fathers that never intends to work. Or for that matter, a group of hippy commune types (california welfare during the 70's was a huge factor in the hippy movement being successful).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Right. Because living on welfare is this fantastic lifestyle that everyone envies. You are right that "Paying people to sit on their behinds and make babies who become gang banging drug dealers is not a good solution". Fortunately, that is not what welfare is. Yeah, some people abuse the system. In some case not having welfare might be beneficial. But the benefits (like, if you actually care about people other than yourself) are still there for a lot of people who need help.
Yes, isn't it ironic? About ironic as noticing that if you shoot homeless people that the number of homeless people goes down. If you kick the people out, they are going to move to places where they can get assistance. You are just shifting the problem instead of dealing with it.
It just amazes me to see what heartless assholes we have all become. Chritians only care about abortions and gay marriage. Heaven forbid you actually think about the least among us. That you work to help the poor rather than ignore them. No, it is much easier to hate people with different viewpoints than actually work to make the world a better place.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Anything that keeps welfare money out of the hands of those who refuse to get themselves jobs and require someone to hold their hand through life is a good thing.
John
Woah... Slow down there, skippy.
I'm all in favor of helping the poor. I donate heavily to charities that fight poverty and volunteered at shelters, etc. What I am not in favor of is handouts. Making people dependent on the state doesn't help them at all. Welfare is not a glamorous lifestyle, but it's comfortable enough that people don't strive for anything more for fear of risking what little they have.
You can see the same thing in families -- people who pay for their own college educations do much better than those for whom mommy and daddy pay for everything. I paid every dime of my tuition myself, and am a better person for it.
It's all a matter of doing for yourself or depending on others to do for you. The more you rely on other people, the more dependent on other people you become. Job training and chemical dependency programs do way more than welfare ever will.
Welfare provides a proverbial island in the middle of a lake. Sure, it's possible to swim to shore, but it's damn hard -- and even harder when you have kids. By taking away that island, you force people to swim to shore on their own. Welfare just airlifts supplies to that island so the people can stay there longer.
I find this incredibly interesting the class warfare going on in Illinois. Video games are an item that falls into the discretionary spending category. You have extra money and you get the new game for your kid. The people who buy these games, at least for the most part, have the money to cover the necessities in life and then some. So in order to protect these reasonably well off people you are going to take money away from the downtrodden and underprivileged? "We need to protect all of these suburban kids from what they see in their video games. But where do we get the money for the fight? Oh, those poor kids don't need to eat this month..." God bless the yuppies
Yes, a million bucks isn't necessarily a lot in terms of a government expenditure, but why is that? Perhaps because so many projects are "porked" out, overpriced, and generally using incomprehensible amounts of money that a million simply doesn't seem big bucks in comparison?
There are a lot of good things that could have been done with a million bucks. More if it wasn't nibbled down in bits and bites before it got to its destination. Just because we're used to larger wasteful expenditure on the behalf of government doesn't mean that we shouldn't be pissed off when they're wasting a "measly million" on something so stupid as defending unconstitutional legislation.
It just amazes me to see what heartless assholes we have all become. Chritians only care about abortions and gay marriage. Heaven forbid you actually think about the least among us. That you work to help the poor rather than ignore them.
There's this commandment about stealing though. Thou shalt not steal. Stealing is taking from a person against his will. Getting the government to steal (tax) for you breaks this commandment.
It appears I misunderstood the poster I was responding to. My mistake.
Personal responsibility: something more rare on slashdot than good spelling.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Also, crime rates have gone down over the last 10-20 years, while welfare spending has increased... not causation, I know, but it throws a wrench in a lot of anti welfare arguments.
Close.
A false dilemma is where you set up two bullshit arguments and expect someone to choose between the two as if they're the only options. (ie. "either we skim money from the welfare budget for court costs" or "we pay for people to make babies and become drug dealers", which is what the OP inferred). The dilemma isn't real (no matter how badly I originally spelled the word
linky goodness
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It was intentional that the quote wasn't exact, the lawsuit didn't cost Illinois a billion. But I did want the link between the original and this incident, like whenever people bring up the old Gates chestnut just with different punchlines.
Clarifying if you thought I just blew the quote.
Cthulhu wasn't on my ballot so I held my nose and voted for Blago.
Republicans can still be moderates in Illinois. In fact to be elected statewide in Illinois as a Republican you have to be a moderate, which Topinka is.
I think the heart of the debate about violence in video games comes when you contrast TFA with this.
Really, is there anything left to discuss about the issue?
Less than a tenth of a percent of welfare money goes to people who don't need it(most of these people are committing something called fraud, which is something they would do in some other way were welfare not available). Actually, I'd say more people need it than get it. Interesting how the United States has the lowest welfare, and also the highest crime, poverty, teen pregnancy, etc. rates. Also interesting how those rates have decreased just as welfare increased. The welfare system isn't perfect but it's a damn sight better than no welfare system.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Wow. WOW. Did you REALLY just say that less that 0.1% of welfare money is wasted? I mean, seriously dude, REALLY? You just said that? Do you have _anything_ to back that up, or is it just your desire to sate your own feelings of guilt with other people's money?
Welfare is notoriously inefficient, and, in fact, I'd argue that no one who receives it needs it. They can compete in the free marketplace like the rest of us, and if they've made such piss poor decisions in their lives that they can't pull in enough money to survive in the greatest, most diverse and vibrant economy on the planet, well, then, maybe they should suck it up and die, and make some space for people who are productive and contribute to society.
Your final comment makes it obvious that you've never actually read anything on this topic, and are merely saying whatever you think sounds good. Crime, teen pregnancy, etc... have _increased_ as government social programs have increased, not the other way around. Which shouldn't be surprising. When you teach people that their actions have no negative consequences, and rely on their innate need to better themselves and achieve intellectual advancement, well, you get the scenario we have today, where we incentivize negative behavior because people like you feel that it's the right thing to do.
How about this. You want to give people that YOU think deserve and need it some of YOUR money, feel free. I will do the same. I won't force you to give money to people I give to, and vice versa. But there's no reason why I should be forced to subsidize the existence of people that would improve the world by dying.
So rather than agreeing with me, you chose to support terrorists.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Consider yourself lucky you don't have our countrys bizarre welfare system. We have an entire department with crudtons of staff and offices, paying something like $120 a week to people who have no job. And then harassing them mercilessly until they get a job (and if you forget to actually try, they tell you to piss off and stop paying you).
Then again, this is funded by 12.5% sales tax on all purchases, a tiered taxation system at rates ranging from 21%-42% (and you're totally screwed if you have two jobs, that's like an instant 50% tax rate on that!) of your income, ridiculously high (approximately 30% or something I think) tax on petrol, and something like 80% tax on alcohol and cigarettes (I pulled those numbers from my arse, since they aren't disclosed. But it IS high). And to top it all off, that's just the national taxes! Regional governments add even more, charging for water, garbage collection, the privilege of owning land, the public transport (which is also not free to use either, and not even available to half the areas paying for it), and just recently our central government passed law allowing regional governments to levy their OWN taxes on petrol.
Counter to that, we have free, decent public education, free healthcare, the welfare system will pay out superannuation, partially-government funded retirement savings schemes, interest free student loans, and so on.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
This is retarded... How many billions of dollars does the American government spend on their military and state dinners and bombing middle eastern nations and weapons to blow up said middle eastern nations and all that other bollocks? But when it comes to defending their own stupid laws oh no the money has to come out of the poor peoples pockets.
And to all those saying that people on welfare need to get a job, have you ever been on welfare? In my country our welfare pays a bit more and I still wouldn't be able to feed myself if I were on welfare. You can be damn sure they are trying to get a job but who is going to hire someone who is so poor they can't even dress properly? No one defends the poor because they can't offer you anything in return.
Just my 2cents
That'd be why nobody cares about government corruption or stupidity as news anymore. We're so used to it that we just don't think much of it. Most of the voting population thinks that is just how government is and that there is nothing we can do about it. No doubt why fewer and fewer people vote.
If only people could be motivated to revolt before our government, and civilization, collapses. The scary thing to me is that the American population has no will to survive. We'd rather watch a spectacle and whine about what is fair or not instead of making any effort to address any real problems. I hear more about stem cells, immigration, and the war in Iraq than about any issue that really matters. Even with the stuff we hear about it's all smoke and mirrors and nothing substantial. There is no intelligent plan even being considered to deal with stem cell research, immigration, or the war - all we get is sensationalism. We'd rather bicker over non-issues and make a show over who is being the least politically correct than to come together as a nation.
I think democracies are doomed to implode without strong leaders, good education, and a common vision of self. I don't think we currently have any of those in the United States or are likely to get them anytime soon.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I do consider myself lucky that I don't have your welfare system. I'm not sure where you're from, but it sounds like some sad socialist European nation. And the benefits you describe aren't so great. Think of how much the cost of those services would fall if the state weren't paying, but individual consumers were. When you remove the need to pay for something, you increase the demand, and without an equal increase in supply, the price will go up. Also, with consumers footing the bill, opportunity cost calculations are made, and people say things like "Hrm... do I _really_ need to go to the doctor for this cold, or should I save the money and use it somewhere else". Plus, it's just a matter of liberty. No one can impose upon me an obligation I don't want.
I don't think I can agree completely that the state shouldn't at least partially fund healthcare and education (actually I lie somewhat on our "free" healthcare - the government will ONLY cover emergency care, and only at hospitals. Show up at a private A&E clinic, foot the bill and they MIGHT pay for it via an SOE (state owned enterprise, not Sony Online Entertainment) which is largely self funding. They never cover visiting a doctor unless you are referred to hospital)
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Actually, that doesn't happen now, in America. For most Americans, the insurance company pays for the doctor, or at least most of the cost, so people don't feel the price when they go in for something they might not need to. For other Americans who don't have insurance, going to the doctor might be a luxury they can't afford when they do need to. And for the bottom of the income ladder, the price of medical care means absolutely nothing, because they can go to the emergency room whenever and the bill gets added to the never-ending debt that they'll never even be able to attempt to pay off, so it doesn't matter. The American health care system doesn't work. Socialized medicine has worked in every other industrialized country in the world. Maybe we could try that, or someone can come up with a different system, but we can't keep the status quo.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Do any real state health departments cover city parks? I'd think that even a well-funded health department would have its hands full between hospitals, restaurants, and grocery stores...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Only if they lower college prices. I'll bet a year's worth of welfare payments for one adult wouldn't even cover a year's worth of DeVry Institute courses.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
I think it's mostly a knee-jerk reaction towards programs where you're required to pay. The fact that welfare helps people in need doesn't matter to people like this guy; he doesn't care whether it has a positive or a negative effect at all. All he cares about is that he has to pay (or, more likely, that he might have to pay once he moves out of mom's basement and gets a job), and he's ascribing all sorts of evil to welfare in order to bolster his position, since even he is not stupid enough to think that he needs a better reason to be opposed to it than "it costs me money, whaa-whaa".
But still, you're right: people like that astound me, too.
butter the donkey
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
0 offtopic before I posted, so blow me.
My Babylon
Jesus also said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Sorry to break this to you, but that doesn't mean Jesus just appointed you Caesar and wrote you a blank check from everyone's account. He was talking to Caesar's victims (the taxpayers) at the time. He never told Caesar to go ahead and take whatever he wanted.
Taking money from people against their will is stealing. Wanting to take it is greed. Trying to get "the rich" to "pay their fair share" is envy and covetousness.
He didn't believe that taxes were stealing...
All taxes aren't stealing. A gas tax to pay for roads charges people who use the roads for their construction and maintenance.
A tax to take cash from person A to give to person B is stealing.
I read somewhere about a theory that any complex system evolves parasites (a very simple example I like to think about are the piddling small fees on ATM use which I often incur in my personal banking). It's unnavoidable, but manageable so long as the parasites don't overrun their host system. One could apply this argument to your less than a tenth of a percent. Think of it as friction. Every system loses some energy to heat, but it's worth it if you get useful work done.
In fact to be elected statewide in Illinois as a Republican you have to be a moderate, which Topinka is.
She's not a "moderate", she's a hopelessly corrupt political hack.
The former governor who's in prison now? She was in charge of the money during his tenure. As in, she was directly involved in the massive crimes and theft of the Ryan administration. Well, either that or so damn incompetent that she didn't notice what was going on right under her nose.
So, seriously, people like that aren't reactionaries, moderates, or anything of the sort.
They are thieves who have nothing but contempt for the people of this state. Were she anything else, she would have put a bullet in her own fucking head before ever having the audacity to run after her demonstrated complete lack of any worthwhile characteristics.
So, Blago is no prize, but the reason he beat that piece of trash is solely due to her total corruption and repeated crimes.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with political leanings. Only corruption.
which revealed that "the governor raided funds throughout state government to pay for the litigation. Some of the areas money was taken from included the public health department, the state's welfare agency and even the economic development department." Interesting. They raid from all the areas that need money to help people in order to help people. Affects on People: No Health Care - Stressed over the bills. No Welfare - Stressed and afraid of the bills. No Economic Development - No jobs. Overall effect = violence and troubled youths And they say games are a menace to society.