ILLINOIS MARRIAGE SCAM Of all the scams, including Mandatory Auto Insurance, perpetrated against the people, of Illinois, there is little doubt that Mandatory Marriage was the worst, and most ill-conceived, of all. In a desperate effort, to reduce welfare rolls, withOUT creating any quality jobs, the state, and the Department of Public Aid, would come up with a plan which, if successful, should have cut about $500 million, in benefits expenditures, per year. The plan was incredibly simple. Public Aid would announce a new requirement, for eligibility, for agency programs. All single persons would be required to marry, in order to remain eligible for public aid benefits. The theory, behind this, was simple enough: Everytime a couple was married off, housing costs dropped, as two households decreased in size, to one household. It was also rationalized that, with people sharing meals, LINK benefits could be decreased, since couples would be sharing food. On the surface, it numbers sounded great, as far as the state was concerned, atleast. Ofcourse, even Mandatory Insurance, on automobiles, had sounded great, until the mandate caused auto insurance rates to reach record high levels, as insurance rates skyrocketted, under the law. Under Mandatory Marriage, singles would attend an intake session, where those, already in relationships, would be given the chance to marry their mates. To prevent people from marrying, just to keep benefits, then divorcing, right after benefits were secured, Illinois added a provision, to Mandatory Marriage, to prevent these "pretend" marriages. In order for a couple to remain eligible for benefits, after marriage, the couple must REMAIN married, for no less than five years. As for the rest of us, we would be called in, alphabetically, for our "nuptuals". Fortunately, for me, I was not called, very soon, since my name was way down the alphabet, and as a result, I had time to speak with others, who had gone through the marriage process, already. After interviewing over a dozen, of these people, and hearing the same story, over and over again, I hads a fair idea of what the process would be like, when I was called. And my sources were right, too. When the notice came, it was short and not-at-all sweet. It simply stated that I was to appear, at the public aid office, on a certain date, and at a certain time. If I didn't show up, my benefits would be cancelled, immediately. What public aid did not know was that, after I began interviewing people, who had been through the process, I had made several federal, state, and local, contacts, questioning the status of my federal benefits, should I be forced to marry, in order to retain my public aid benefits. I would write, even to Social Security, about the state program, since it had taken me so long to achieve my federal benefits, and I did not want to risk losing them. As far as the notice went, I realized WHY I had bbeen warned, about my arrival time. I noticed that the notice, clearly, spelled out "No one admitted, after 7 am". To me, this meant "Be there before 7 am". Sure enough, although I arrived, at about 6:30 am, there were, already, over two dozen people, already waiting for entry. Public Aid had said, in the letter, to meet at a rear door, which, normally, was reserved, for state workers. After I locked my bike up, I joined the others, in waiting, until 6:45 am. At 6:45 am, the door was opened, and we were allowed to enter the building. Once we were inside the building, we were directed to a conference room, by some woman, in an expensive suit, and escorted by a burly, and heavily muscled, security guard. Like any of us was even awake enough to put up a fight. The best news, that morning, was that coffee, tea water, and bags, as welll as diet soda, were left out, for us. Too bbad the only eats were donuts. I knew, from over a decade, of experience, how my sensitive belly would react to so much sugar. The last thing I wanted, from this situation, was to be accussed of deliberately making myself sick. Without going into much of details, I will say that some of the men, in attendance, were way aggressive, in trying to land some of the women, in the room. Some of the women accepted the advances, while others declined. It is just a guess but I think that the state had people watching us, on video monitors, since, after the "couples" had allied themselves, they were the first people called out of the conference room. Maybe half an hour later, the state worker came back into the room, and began calling us, alphabetically. To my dread, I would realize that, if the situation went forward, in this way, my odds were far too favorable of being stuck with a woman who was, totally NOT my type, at all. (To avoid offending any readers, I will not define what my "type" of woman is). This, however, changed when we, in the conference room, began hearing primarily womens voices saying "No F-Ing way", very loudly, indeed. Each time, after such a shout was heard, the female worker would return to the conference room, and call another man forward. It was while this was going on that I noticed that a "young" woman was going after a drink, while atleast two males kept after her, about something. I suppose that it was because they considered her slim, and attractive, that they were determined not to let her alone. I just have no idea why she came and joined me. After all, I was not taking part in the "courtship ritual". When the woman joined me, and asked what was going on, I could only tell her what my sources had told me. That is that, when couples were taken out of the conference room, the couples were taken to a table, where they would be given a choice. They could, either, sign one form, agreeing to marry, while releasing half of their benefits, which they would, no longer need, or they could sign a different form. One which stated that they refused to marry, and that they agreed to release the state from any further burden of providing them any benefits. My new friends name was Lisa, and she was hoping she wasn't to be assigned to one of the men, who had been pressing her, for her attention. Lisa's concern, and mine, as well, was that we would be assigned to spouses, which neither of us wanted. Personally, I did not mind Lisa's presense, at all, but Lisa judged me, just as she had judged the other men, present, and decided she didn't want any of us. When Lisa was called in, ahead of me, I was sure that she would be "mated" off to one of the men who either had gone, or were going, after they met her. I was just surprised that the state had not made any attempt to sound-proof the area in between the conference room and the other area. This lack of sound-proofing was made evident when even some men were heard to shout "No F-Ing way!". When my name was called, with no womans name being called, I figured that it was just that the womans name had not bbeen callled, as yet. I was prepared for the worst. That is, until I saw Lisa, and she asked the staff to give us a minute. Lisa made a point of telling me that I was not her first, or even top twenty, in regards to a potential spouse, but she wasn't sure how long she could count on the half-wit men to decline her (just because her body parts were not large enough). When I asked if the five year rumor were true, Lisa confirmed that she had, already, signed the document, and that she was waiting for her ideal man to come along. This is when I made her a quick, verbal, deal. If she agreed to marry me, WE could work out our own agreement, after we were finished with all the red tape. I could tell that Lisa was considering HOW to turn me down, when the worker came in and said "Times UP. We need his signature". Lisa just nodded, when I looked at her, yet something odd happened, when I got to the table. While others, including Lisa, who had approached the table, had been required to sign off, not only on LINK benefits, but, also, on disability benefits reductions, it seems that my inquiries paid off. A staff member gestured, to the forms control people, that I was not to sign the bbenefits sign-off agreement. In fact, the only agreement that I was required to sign was the one agreeing to the five year clause. As for Lisa, she found that, by agreeing to marry me, her own "voluntary abandonment, of all federal benefits", was removed from the file, and shredded. When Lisa and I went before the minister, to take our vow's, the minister omitted the parts such as "voluntary consent", and so on. He just gave us the "cliff notes" version, of the wedding ceremony. Since we had no ring, the minister skipped this part, as welll. As for the kiss, Lisa and I put in just enough to make it legal. After that, we signed off on, and received a copy of, our contract, with the state. When told to sign, though, I skimmed the pages, and found that I was agreeing to accept a house, and a car, which I had not even seen, yet. When I questioned this, though, I was told that these items would come, later. For right now, I just needed to sign, so that the paper-work could be processed. Although the contract stated that the state was supposed to provide us a two bedroom unit, to share our marriage in, Even Lisa was wondering when, two weeks after our "marriage", we were, still, living in our current places. This is why I began sending out inquiries, again. After all, Lisa and I had done what we had been told to do, so WHY wasn't the state doing the same? Two months into our "marriage", and the only news that we had was that other couples, who had signed away benefits, were being put out of their current places, since they had signed away benefits, thinking that the state would provide. So far, all that Illinois had provided was the message "We are working on it". Well, that was fine, for the state, but what about the peoplle who were facing eviction, due to lack of income? Although I kept applying pressure, to my federal, and state, sources, it would not be until three months after our wedding that Lisa and I would be assigned to our "house". (IF one could call it that). The "house" we were assigned to would have looked better if it sat in a disaster area. The "house" could, barely, been seen, through the weed-infested "front yard". About all that was visible was the endless amounts, of trash, which had been dumped there. Although the state representative wanted us to just sign off, on receipt, of the property, I would only allow Lisa and I to conditionally sign the papers. I put it in writing, on the form, that we would NOT move in until the home was made live-able. The next day, a state truck was seen literally DUMPING things, such as trash bags, and other, lawn care, supplies, on the property, just prior to our arrival. It seems that the state had decided that Lisa and I had nothing better to do than clean up the property. As for the "equipment" we were supplied with, things, like the weed whacker would not even turn on, while the mower, when I did turn it over, the noise was only topped by the smoke, and some flame, from the motor. Thankfully, some of the neighbors saw us trying to clean up the place, and loaned us some tools. It would take a week for Lisa and I to clear the property, to the front door of the house. Once we had, though, a state supervisor had the nerve to come by, with a work-sheet, claiming that the state crew had done a dynamite job, of clearing the land. His smile disappearred when I refused to sign off on the sheet, alllowing the state crew to be paid. When he said we were REQUIRED to sign off, so the workers could bbe paid, I challenged him, asking "Paid for what? WE did all the work, here". When the supervisor said "Have it your own way, but dont expect anymore help, from state workers, after this". Lisa and I both laughed at this. I think that what surprised Lisa, next, was how I actually helped her clean the house, to make it more live-able. She expected to spend two weeks cleaning the place up, so she was surprised when, less than a week later, we had the house ready for occupancy. Then came the next surprise, of the marriage contract. Sure, I will grant that the contract did not state exactly what kind of cars we would receive, for our use, but, boy, were the ones we received, in a "class" by themselves.. And not in a good way, either. The "cars" were of 1960's vintage, with HUGE bodies, and HUGE, gas-guzzling, V-8 engines. When the "cars" were dropped off, I received the "honor" of driving them to the garage. The sedan I was given wasn't so bad, even though a modern mini-van could, easily, have fit inside its wheel-base. As for the station wagon Lisa was assigned, if we could have mounted a sail, it would have made an excellent yacht. As a car, though, I agreed with Lisa. The thing was like a dinosaur. Lisa was as adamant as I was. No way were we driving these things. Lisa said she would stick to city uses, while I stayed with my bicycle. When I got access to the states records, abbout our "property", I showed a surprised Lisa that the state had billed the feds for a brand new house, and two, bbrand new, cars. Then came the alleged "job training", which Lisa was supposed to receive, as part of the marriage contract. Although the contract said that Lisa was supposed to go into job traning "immediately", the state forgot to define "immediately". As a result, Lisa went bback to her own life, and her own friends. She only came home to eat, sleep, and shower. I didn't mind though, since this was part of our personal deal. As long as she could hang on, we would live our seperate lives, while still living together. After eight months, of waiting, though, Lisa decided to ask WHEN the training would start. When her staffer said that Lisa had signed off, on the training, eight months ago, Lisa was amazed at how her signature had been distorted. When I returned to putting out requests for information, from my sources, Lisa found herself on a waiting list, for the "next" training session. When we asked for more details, the state said that Lisa would enter, at the next opening, which would be in about six months. When the six months was up, Lisa found hersef called in, for whhat she hoped would bbe full-time training, in preparation for a job. What she got, though, was a different story. From what Lisa described, to me, the "class" was a group of people, who sat around, during "class", waiting for work to do. As for the original schedule, of eight hours per day, fivfe days per week, this was rapidly scaled back, to four hours per day. Shortly after this, the schedule was cut back, again. This time from five days per week, to three. When the state cut back class sessions, to two hours per day, three days per week, Lisa asked "Whats the point?", saying she spent as much time getting to, and from "class", as she spent IN class. The states response: "If you dont like our class schedule, you CAN drop out". I cautioned Lisa against this, atleast until the class schedule was cut back to one hour per day, two days per week. At that point, I realized that Lisa was using more energy, just trying to get to class, than she used, in class. The state, ofcourse, insisted that the class was cancelled, due to lack of interest, by students. Abbout the only "good" thing to come out of the "marriage" program, was to find out which couples were least compatable. It was not, however, until the Illinois Attorney General was preparing to investigate the program that public aid allowed some of the worst, and most quarrelsome, couples to participate in a "mate-swap". When people were alllowed to dump primary mates, for other mates, this seemed to ease the program, a bbit. The problem was that public aid had promised savings of nearly a billion dollars, by forcing people to marry. What the state forgot was that many people were on aid due to illness/injury, which required continuing attention. This meant that hundreds of millions, in medicaid savings, alone, never came to bbe. Whether the people were single, or married, they still needed medications, and doctors visits. People still needed physical therapy. Public Aid had promised Illinois a savings, of over $10 billion, once the programs initial costs were covered. This savings never materialized, since the program never came into its own. Hundreds of complaints were filed, against the state, for housing, alone. The state had received funds, for 25,000 starter homes, yet program participants were found to be living on properties, which should have been demolished. The state had, also, received a grant, for a fleet, of brand new cars, trucks, and vans, to be distributed to program participants. The state had forgotten to even file the paperwork, on vehicles which were never delivered. Add to all of this medical expenses, when "couples" blew up, at one another, as well as legal fee's, for allowing couples to seperate for those who had not bbeen sentenced to prison, for assault), And all of the normal expenses, of running a household, and the state ran up a debbt of somewhere near $500 billion, in trying to reduce its costs. Ofcourse, public aid insisted that this was, entirely, the fault, of the clients, who refused to give the program a chance to work, but, in the end, the state ended up adding half a trillion to the states debbt, in trying to reduce costs. Mandatory Marriage was deemed a complete faillure, no matter how one looked at it. Ofcourse, this wasn't the last "card" Illinois had up its "sleeve", to cut costs. Another program was, already, under consideration. The basic concept would bbe to reduce Illinois un-employment, by filing buses, with the un-employed, then driving the buses as far from Illinois as possible, and drop off the un-employed, far enough away that it would cost the people a fortune to return to the state. Ofcourse, there was, also, the idea, of opening new poverty prisons, and letting the poor "live" inside such places, until they worked off debts. These, and other idea's, were under consideration, at the highest levels, in a states desperate attempt to reduce poverty withOUT creating manufacturing jobs. In this, Illinois, was following the lead, of other states, in that, instead of trying to create jobbs, the states had decided to reduce populations. By any means necessary. Which one would work was anyones guess.