July 2, 2012
Widows and orphans win over prisons in Illinois budget
A great example of how prison spending can become a low priority once its opportunity costs become clear in a tight budget comes today from this state budget story out of Illinois, headlined "Illinois governor signs budget, vetoes prison funds." Here are the basics:
llinois Governor Pat Quinn said on Saturday he signed a $33.7 billion budget for fiscal 2013 after vetoing spending for prisons that he plans to close. Quinn said public pensions, which lawmakers have so far failed to reform, will eat up $5.2 billion of the fiscal 2013 budget, compared to $1.8 billion in fiscal 2008....
The Democratic governor said he also planned to work with lawmakers later this year to reallocate the vetoed prison funding to the Department of Children and Family Services, which lawmakers cut by $50 million. He said he was choosing vulnerable children over "outdated, half-full facilities."
Quinn said the new spending plan, which aims to save $82 million through the closure and consolidation of 57 state facilities, makes progress on fixing Illinois' ailing finances by cutting spending, paying bills and reforming Medicaid, the state and federally funded healthcare program for the poor.
I am not sure if anyone has ever tracked whether pension and health care expenditures reduce crime, but I am sure that wise investments in children (through education and other services for at-risk youths) can have a significant long-term public safety benefit. Thus, IF Illinois ends up spending the prison monies saved on effective programming for kids, Gov Quinn has made a "smart on crime" budget call here. (I have placed the if in the prior sentence in all caps, of course, because this is always a big if.)
July 2, 2012 at 04:32 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Widows and orphans win over prisons in Illinois budget:
"I am not sure if anyone has ever tracked whether pension and health care expenditures reduce crime, but I am sure that wise investments in children (through education and other services for at-risk youths) can have a significant long-term public safety benefit. Thus, IF Illinois ends up spending the prison monies saved on effective programming for kids, Gov Quinn has made a 'smart on crime' budget call here."
First of all, the idea that Quinn cares about anything but himself and his political allies is conclusively put to rest by the fact that Quinn is trying to force families who care for their disabled children to pay union dues. That Quinn would try to divert monies earmarked for the care of disabled children to union fatcats is disgusting, even for a Democrat, and that's saying something.
Second of all, Doug, Quinn's record on crime can hardly be callled smart. Quinn released a guy from prison who had severely beaten a poor woman half to death. There is a word for that sort of largesse to criminals--evil (and what is it about Democrats and violent criminals). At the end of the day, the state has an obligation to make the streets safe for its citizens who obey the law. This means locking up violent offenders for good long stretches. To the extent Quinn's veto doesn't add to the risk of violent offenders getting released before they should--well, fine, although a relatively small amount of money "for the children" probably isn't going to move the needle at all. But Quinn's record is weak. When Illinois was facing budget shortfalls, Quinn released criminals that he should not have (he conceded this). Let's hope that Quinn has learned his lesson.
Public safety is an important thing, and spending on prisons (as opposed to spending on bloated prison unions) is an investment in safety--let's get that right. I agree, and have said so repeatedly, that a prison bed is a scarce resource that should be used wisely. But violent criminals need to be locked up for long periods of time. And budget cuts should NEVER change that. Crime also has hidden costs. What has violent crime done to tax revenues? Public safety is the sine qua non that funds all those good things "for the children." This, I think, is something that Democrats fundamentally fail to understand.
Posted by: federalist | Jul 2, 2012 9:34:35 AM
Widows and orphans?
and kids whose "fathers" won't support them with love, time or money (if acknowledging paternity)
not to be cynical, but realistic...I know where the WIC money goes in my area.
Posted by: Adamakis | Jul 2, 2012 10:43:16 AM
Children who are spanked, hit, or pushed as a means of discipline may be at an increased risk of mental problems in adulthood — from mood and anxiety disorders to drug and alcohol abuse, new research suggests.
Posted by: George | Jul 3, 2012 1:57:39 AM
To echo. A. Not widows and orphans. Sluts and bastards.
The lawyer subsidizes the full time Roman Orgy, crack fueled lifestyle.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 3, 2012 7:59:52 AM
the right wing on full display here in the comments section - which explains why they can think that someone like mitt romney whose idea of hardship was having to live off of his trust fund while in graduate school has any idea how the middle class lives let alone the working poor. if those poor kids didn't want to be poor, they should have chosen their parents better - just like mitt did. but whatever you do blame the poor because its obviously their fault that vulture captialists like mitt romney have been systematically destroying the american economy to increase their profits.
and george, the fact that millions of adults engage in spanking to obtain sexual pleasure - and the fact that if you spanked a non-consenting adult you would be convicted of sexual battery - should provide all of the evidence needed to say that speanking kids is a bad idea. the thought that it is proper to discipline kids by sexually assaulting them is sick and extermely icky. some might even say that parents who spank children should be convicted of sexual battery against a child, be placed on the sex offender registery, and be declared an icky perv :)
Posted by: Erika | Jul 3, 2012 9:27:12 AM
The vile feminist lawyer wants to destroy the patriarchal family, and replace it with big government to take over child rearing along standards set by lesbian feminist lawyers. It is these deviants that the ickiest of all. The black family is gone. The consequences of government dependency is on full display in that population. The feminist is coming after the white family, now, from all sides. It is calling child criticism child emotional abuse. OK. Ignore bad behavior to not reward it with attention. The vile feminist lawyer has labeled that child emotional neglect. In several states, all citizens above age 18 will become mandated reporters, not just professionals, as today. That means all your neighbors and family members will become snitches for the feminist machine crushing the family.
Before the white family is destroyed, the white male has to defend it with violence. They should hunt, find torture, and behead all feminist enemies of the family. Send their heads to the legislature where the male running dogs of these internal enemies do their bidding. To deter. There should be a reward placed on the head of all child welfare agencies. They have more power than the police. No search warrants to enter the home. No arrest warrants to take people away, to never be seen again, including screaming children begging for their mothers. These powers are exercised to generate government jobs, and are in bad faith. They are like the Mafia visiting local shops to extort protection money. Violence against them has full moral, intellectual, and policy justification.
The vile feminist is also really defining Southern child rearing as abusive. And who practices that? Blacks, even in the North. The feminist lawyer is the baddest, most lethal racist in our history, about 100 times as effective as the KKK at killing black males through their excessive murder rate. The black male gets no protection from the police, the courts, the prisons. The full hunt is on for the black male.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 3, 2012 10:19:55 AM
"the right wing on full display here in the comments section"
Of course, there is no doubt that studied unseriousness is as well:
"the thought that it is proper to discipline kids by sexually assaulting them is sick and extermely icky. some might even say that parents who spank children should be convicted of sexual battery against a child, be placed on the sex offender registery, and be declared an icky perv :)"
Erika, you are a certifiable creepy person. I think you enjoy talking about deviant fetishes.
Posted by: federalist | Jul 3, 2012 10:44:48 AM
I do not pick on Erika. She has placed herself on the sick list, when asked to debate Bill Otis. It would be bullying to even hold her accountable for her statements.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 3, 2012 12:44:00 PM
really, when your opponents are someone who displays near orgasmic glee whenever a state straps down a person and filling them with poisonous chemicals to kill them and someone who advocates the wholesale slaugher of female attorneys you pretty much have won by default.
I appreciate insults coming from the likes of you.
and if you think I am so crazy about saying that the spanking of children is sexual assault, please explain why some states have amended their sexual battery of children laws to exclude spanking by parents - because the states know that the punishment of children by spanking meets every element of the crime of sexual battery of a child. Studies have also shown that the long term effects of spanking on a child are similar to other forms of sexual abuse (of course, many children are unfortunately victims of both spanking and other forms of sexual abuse). Anyone who advocates the use of spanking of children is advocating for committing an act which many state legislatures has admitted is legally (except for specific statutory exemptions) sexual battery of a child. Think about that.
I am against any form of abuse by a child - apparently to the right wing that makes one "sick" or "creepy." But again, who really cares what people who have repeatedly demonstrated their hatred of women think?
Posted by: Erika | Jul 3, 2012 5:21:51 PM
any form of abuse of a child - ugh!
Posted by: Erika | Jul 3, 2012 5:24:21 PM
The feminist lawyer considers ordinary sexual intercourse to be rape. Feminism is not even a real philosophy. It is a masking ideology, as was the KKK 100 years ago, for the enrichment and empowerment of the lawyer hierarchy. Once it stops fooling the public, the hierarchy moves on to anther masking ideology.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 3, 2012 5:52:10 PM
"Studies have also shown that the long term effects of spanking on a child are similar to other forms of sexual abuse (of course, many children are unfortunately victims of both spanking and other forms of sexual abuse). Anyone who advocates the use of spanking of children is advocating for committing an act which many state legislatures has admitted is legally (except for specific statutory exemptions) sexual battery of a child. Think about that."
This is not a reply to Erika. I do not want to upset her. It is a factual correction. The studies mentioned came from biased sources and had serious ascertainment errors. States are banning any form of verbal criticism, as child emotional abuse, and ignoring of bad behavior to not encourage it as child emotional neglect. They government does not want children raised by their parents, but by state institutions. This scheme attacks black, Southern style upbringing most of all, and there is a great racial disparity in the rates of removal of children from their homes.
The abuse laws and their explosive expansion in scope and punitiveness are tactics in the all out war on the American family by the feminist lawyer, which is a stalking horse for the lawyer hierarchy that has totally infiltrated the three branches of government.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 3, 2012 6:07:08 PM