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.
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.
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.
The problem is, similar legislation had been thrown out in other states as being unconstitutional. So spending money on a bill you already know is going to get shot down by the courts is just stupid. Using budgets from other departments to pay for it is absurd.
From TFA:
They knew their law wouldn't hold up in court. They spent tax payers money to defend a position they couldn't defend. They did some creative accounting to pay for it. You don't find that a little irresponsible?
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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
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
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.
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 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.
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