Written by: Jasmine Walker
Lately there has been an influx in backlash against Fox News and conservative host and commentator Glenn Beck. America has decided to take a stand and turn their backs or rather their television sets against Fox News. Is this something that America should support?
There have been numerous individual opinions from viewers made against the well-known news station. Viewers express how they find Fox News to be a biased, racist, untruthful, and untrustworthy media outlet. One of the main causes of the controversy seems to center around Fox News’s Glenn Beck.
Beck is known for his orthodox ideals and messages and often stated racial remarks. “A year ago, Glenn Beck called the President a racist who had a deep-seeded hatred for White people,” expressed Color of Change. The organization launched Turn Off Fox, a campaign dedicated to protesting against the Fox News station in hopes that people will turn off and no longer watch the station in their homes and community businesses.
“The goal of Turn Off Fox is to reduce the number of public TVs showing Fox News, while spreading the word about Fox’s poison (and how it works) to those who do not know,” expressed Color of Change. Even though they are against Beck, the underlying problem for them is with Fox News for providing the platform in which Beck is free to speak his mind.
Beck has previously lost his support of numerous advertisers and fans but with the assistance of Fox News, he is still able to pull off stints such as his “Restoring Honor” rally held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC on the same day and place as Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He often takes the controversial, insulting and humorous approach toward political and social issues.
There are countless websites and blog entries about the hate derived from Fox News and Beck. Is this an issue America should continue to exert energy and time toward or are people taking commentators too serious? There will always be some loud mouth public figure causing ruckus on the airwaves.
Since everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, people will continue to voice their opinions to the world. The real issue should be people who take matters into their own hands. Here is a crucial example expressed by Color of Change, “Last month, a heavily armed man got into a gun fight with police after he was pulled over on his way to kill people at the Tides Foundation— a non-profit that was little known until Glenn Beck repeatedly demonized it, claiming it to be the center of a great conspiracy.”
In situations like that who is to blame: Fox News, Glen Beck or the man who was allegedly on his way to kill people? It is time for people to think for themselves, self-education and research are the proper ways to obtain information rather than live by every word expressed by your favorite television host.
There will always be rude people like Glenn Beck, Don Imus, and Bill O’reilly. That does not mean you have to hang onto their every word and believe what they express to be true.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
State defers schools, welfare program payments
Written by: Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
State leaders on Monday used a recently passed law to delay payment of nearly $3 billion in funds to K-12 public education and a welfare program, a decision that officials acknowledged will exacerbate difficulties for school districts and counties that already have had to lay off workers.
The move transfers part of the state's money shortage crisis to counties, school districts and local officials, who will be left to decide how to bridge the gap to continue providing services to the public.
"Essentially, this is ... the state pushing its cash management to local districts," said Jack O'Connell, the state superintendent of public instruction, adding that in the past few years, "schools have not only taken a hit, they've taken a massive hit."
Districts feel pressure
What the decision means for schools, which will not receive scheduled payments from the state in September totaling $2.5 billion, will vary by district but many will have to borrow the money from the private market and pay it back with interest, O'Connell said.
Troy Flint, spokesman for the Oakland Unified School District, said, "This wasn't unexpected, given California's budget woes, but as with most decisions coming from Sacramento recently, it puts more pressure on local districts to compensate for shortcomings at the state level."
Jean Hurst, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties said the delay in receiving $400 million in welfare dollars for counties will probably also result in counties having to borrow cash to make up the difference.
She said she doubted services would be affected, but said, "this is just another component that makes it more complicated. ... (It's) additional bailing wire and duct tape to put the budget together."
Karen Mitchoff, spokesperson for the Contra Costa Employment and Human Services Department, said deferred payments from the state, "would be devastating to the delivery of services at the local level. Any deferment of payments to the county means that we have to scramble for money in order to pay our obligations."
The decision to defer the payments was made by the state controller, treasurer and director of the Department of Finance, who wrote a letter Monday to legislative leaders saying that the state would delay for up to three months $2.9 billion that is owed to school districts and to counties to administer the state's welfare-to-work program, CalWORKS.
Delay to keep cash
The governor signed a law earlier this year allowing for delays, called deferrals, in order to keep some cash in California's coffers during fiscal emergencies.
Besides Monday's decision to defer paying K-12 education and welfare, the state also is preparing to begin issuing IOUs - in one to three weeks - to vendors, taxpayers and others doing business with the state, as it did last year to deal with the budget crisis.
State lawmakers, who face solving a $19 billion deficit, have still not agreed on a budget, which is now 55 days late.
The state first used the deferral law in July to delay $3.2 billion in payments to education and welfare until September. It was planning to use the law again in October to delay payments.
Instead, on Monday, the financial leaders said they were invoking a provision to allow them to fast track to September the payment deferral that had been planned for October.
"The decision for deferral acceleration was not taken lightly, given that these programs are already facing multiple hardships of potential budget reductions, payment deferrals last July and reduced month payments because of the late budget," wrote Controller John Chiang, Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos.
However, they wrote, "the state has not enacted a timely budget that would provide valuable additional savings and receipts and allow for external borrowing." They also noted the financial duress counties and school districts are facing and wrote, "unfortunately, this accelerated deferral of state payments will further exacerbate that situation."
Paying state with IOUs
Concerns about the cash flow - and especially having enough money on hand to make scheduled payments on debt - have led to Chiang saying that IOUs could be issued in less than two weeks to people and businesses receiving tax refunds, college students seeking aid, low-income seniors and the blind and disabled, among others.
But on Monday, the state Senate unanimously approved a bill to allow people or businesses to use the IOUs, known officially as registered warrants, at full-face value for any debt owed to the state or a state agency.
The bill "addresses a genuine fiscal problem in the state and answers it with simple equity," said Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Solana Beach (San Diego County), who presented the bill on the Senate floor. Assemblyman Joel Anderson, R-Alpine (San Diego County), authored the bill.
While Chiang supports the measure, it is not clear whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign it, as his Department of Finance opposes it.
H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the finance department, said allowing California agencies to accept IOUs would diminish the cash-saving effect, because people would not be paying real money to the state.
"It would partially cancel out the benefits of the reason for doing IOUs in the first place," said Palmer, who addressed the issue of fairness by saying, "It's unfair to taxpayers to have the state in a position where we issue IOUs in the first place, and we hope we don't get there."
Both the IOUs and the deferred payments to schools and counties could be avoided if the Legislature passes and the governor signs a budget in the near future. Lawmakers and the governor still appear to be far apart on a spending plan for the fiscal year that began July 1.
Chronicle staff writers Justin Ho and Marisa Lagos contributed to this report.
 |
| K-12 Content Courtsey Trane |
The move transfers part of the state's money shortage crisis to counties, school districts and local officials, who will be left to decide how to bridge the gap to continue providing services to the public.
"Essentially, this is ... the state pushing its cash management to local districts," said Jack O'Connell, the state superintendent of public instruction, adding that in the past few years, "schools have not only taken a hit, they've taken a massive hit."
Districts feel pressure
What the decision means for schools, which will not receive scheduled payments from the state in September totaling $2.5 billion, will vary by district but many will have to borrow the money from the private market and pay it back with interest, O'Connell said.
Troy Flint, spokesman for the Oakland Unified School District, said, "This wasn't unexpected, given California's budget woes, but as with most decisions coming from Sacramento recently, it puts more pressure on local districts to compensate for shortcomings at the state level."
Jean Hurst, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties said the delay in receiving $400 million in welfare dollars for counties will probably also result in counties having to borrow cash to make up the difference.
She said she doubted services would be affected, but said, "this is just another component that makes it more complicated. ... (It's) additional bailing wire and duct tape to put the budget together."
Karen Mitchoff, spokesperson for the Contra Costa Employment and Human Services Department, said deferred payments from the state, "would be devastating to the delivery of services at the local level. Any deferment of payments to the county means that we have to scramble for money in order to pay our obligations."
The decision to defer the payments was made by the state controller, treasurer and director of the Department of Finance, who wrote a letter Monday to legislative leaders saying that the state would delay for up to three months $2.9 billion that is owed to school districts and to counties to administer the state's welfare-to-work program, CalWORKS.
Delay to keep cash
The governor signed a law earlier this year allowing for delays, called deferrals, in order to keep some cash in California's coffers during fiscal emergencies.
Besides Monday's decision to defer paying K-12 education and welfare, the state also is preparing to begin issuing IOUs - in one to three weeks - to vendors, taxpayers and others doing business with the state, as it did last year to deal with the budget crisis.
State lawmakers, who face solving a $19 billion deficit, have still not agreed on a budget, which is now 55 days late.
The state first used the deferral law in July to delay $3.2 billion in payments to education and welfare until September. It was planning to use the law again in October to delay payments.
Instead, on Monday, the financial leaders said they were invoking a provision to allow them to fast track to September the payment deferral that had been planned for October.
"The decision for deferral acceleration was not taken lightly, given that these programs are already facing multiple hardships of potential budget reductions, payment deferrals last July and reduced month payments because of the late budget," wrote Controller John Chiang, Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos.
However, they wrote, "the state has not enacted a timely budget that would provide valuable additional savings and receipts and allow for external borrowing." They also noted the financial duress counties and school districts are facing and wrote, "unfortunately, this accelerated deferral of state payments will further exacerbate that situation."
Paying state with IOUs
Concerns about the cash flow - and especially having enough money on hand to make scheduled payments on debt - have led to Chiang saying that IOUs could be issued in less than two weeks to people and businesses receiving tax refunds, college students seeking aid, low-income seniors and the blind and disabled, among others.
But on Monday, the state Senate unanimously approved a bill to allow people or businesses to use the IOUs, known officially as registered warrants, at full-face value for any debt owed to the state or a state agency.
The bill "addresses a genuine fiscal problem in the state and answers it with simple equity," said Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Solana Beach (San Diego County), who presented the bill on the Senate floor. Assemblyman Joel Anderson, R-Alpine (San Diego County), authored the bill.
While Chiang supports the measure, it is not clear whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign it, as his Department of Finance opposes it.
H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the finance department, said allowing California agencies to accept IOUs would diminish the cash-saving effect, because people would not be paying real money to the state.
"It would partially cancel out the benefits of the reason for doing IOUs in the first place," said Palmer, who addressed the issue of fairness by saying, "It's unfair to taxpayers to have the state in a position where we issue IOUs in the first place, and we hope we don't get there."
Both the IOUs and the deferred payments to schools and counties could be avoided if the Legislature passes and the governor signs a budget in the near future. Lawmakers and the governor still appear to be far apart on a spending plan for the fiscal year that began July 1.
Chronicle staff writers Justin Ho and Marisa Lagos contributed to this report.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
White Supremacists Vies for Rialto School Board Membership
A local supremacist could soon be a member of the Rialto’s School Board. Dan Schruender, a self-proclaimed white supremacist and retired high school teacher, announced his candidacy on an Aryan Nations blog reported KTLA News.
Schruender took action behind his words when he filed the nomination papers to run for one of two open seats on the Rialto Unified School District Board. According to Schruender, he wants to overhaul a curriculum that has been “dumbed down” by the state, reported KTLA.
Schruender is currently a delegate of the California chapter of Aryan Nations as well as former president. “Schruender admits to having delivered racist fliers using epithets to describe blacks and Latinos to Rialto neighborhoods, as well as invitations to celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday,” reported KTLA.
He will be running against Joanne Gilbert and John Kazalunas, both seeking re-election.
If there are only two other candidates besides Schruender, his chances of winning are very high, especially when majority of residents do not take the time to vote. Do not let Schruender be in charge of your child’s future and education.
The 27,500-student Rialto School District is nearly 76 percent Hispanic and nearly 16 percent black, so what can Schruender really teach these young Hispanic and Black children, other than hatred?
This is a cause for serious concern; the Aryan Nation is slowly worming its way into the frontlines and filling the world with their ideals, all while prepping for domination. Do not let the shades be pulled over your eyes.
The Aryan Nation is no longer the in-your-face organization they once were, wearing white robes and hoods walking around carrying knuces, they have adapted to higher levels. Now they are educated, the CEO’s and Presidents of top companies and look like your next-door neighbor. For all you know, Schruender may very well be your neighbor.
They have modified by taking control on the inside rather than the hands on and in your face approach. Do not be suckered into one of their racial traps, and Schruender’s run for candidacy is just that, a trap.
Now is the time to take a stand and contest for what is right. Do not let Schruender into the school board. Vote to keep out the corruption. Take action by voting in the November 2 General Election. For more details contact the Rialto Unified School District’s Superintendent office at (909) 820-7700.
 |
| Dan Schruender's picture, from his blogger.com profile page. (August 6, 2010) |
Schruender took action behind his words when he filed the nomination papers to run for one of two open seats on the Rialto Unified School District Board. According to Schruender, he wants to overhaul a curriculum that has been “dumbed down” by the state, reported KTLA.
Schruender is currently a delegate of the California chapter of Aryan Nations as well as former president. “Schruender admits to having delivered racist fliers using epithets to describe blacks and Latinos to Rialto neighborhoods, as well as invitations to celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday,” reported KTLA.
He will be running against Joanne Gilbert and John Kazalunas, both seeking re-election.
If there are only two other candidates besides Schruender, his chances of winning are very high, especially when majority of residents do not take the time to vote. Do not let Schruender be in charge of your child’s future and education.
The 27,500-student Rialto School District is nearly 76 percent Hispanic and nearly 16 percent black, so what can Schruender really teach these young Hispanic and Black children, other than hatred?
This is a cause for serious concern; the Aryan Nation is slowly worming its way into the frontlines and filling the world with their ideals, all while prepping for domination. Do not let the shades be pulled over your eyes.
The Aryan Nation is no longer the in-your-face organization they once were, wearing white robes and hoods walking around carrying knuces, they have adapted to higher levels. Now they are educated, the CEO’s and Presidents of top companies and look like your next-door neighbor. For all you know, Schruender may very well be your neighbor.
They have modified by taking control on the inside rather than the hands on and in your face approach. Do not be suckered into one of their racial traps, and Schruender’s run for candidacy is just that, a trap.
Now is the time to take a stand and contest for what is right. Do not let Schruender into the school board. Vote to keep out the corruption. Take action by voting in the November 2 General Election. For more details contact the Rialto Unified School District’s Superintendent office at (909) 820-7700.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Health Clinics in Low-Income Communities may be the Next State Casualty
Written by: Shonda Hutton
Even a blind person can see that the California State Legislature and Governor are no closer to passing a budget then a newborn baby is to walking. The slow process may potentially cause hundreds of thousands of patients statewide from accessing the proper medical attention needed to remain healthy.
The Sacramento Bee reports, more than 1,000 health facilitates, that serve Medi-Cal recipients, will not receive payments for services rendered as early as next week.
“Our clinics and health centers are facing the prospect of not being able to meet payroll and pay their employees,” said Carmela Castellano-Garcia, president and CEO of the California Primary Care Association. “If the budget stalemate continues, there could be even more dire results including the closure of clinics.”
We cannot standby and allow lawmakers to risk lives due to the states financial crunch. It’s time for the People to take a stand. We can no longer sit back in silence scouring the land like lost sheep.
They work for us, we don’t work for them. The California Legislature needs to pass a timelier budget on a consistent basis and one that does not leave an opportunity for our people to suffer. As long as they continue to receive a paycheck, so should the health care providers who continue to serve low income families across the Golden State.
Register to TakeActionCA.org to learn how you can take a stand today.
 |
| Courtesy Wordpress Blog |
The Sacramento Bee reports, more than 1,000 health facilitates, that serve Medi-Cal recipients, will not receive payments for services rendered as early as next week.
“Our clinics and health centers are facing the prospect of not being able to meet payroll and pay their employees,” said Carmela Castellano-Garcia, president and CEO of the California Primary Care Association. “If the budget stalemate continues, there could be even more dire results including the closure of clinics.”
We cannot standby and allow lawmakers to risk lives due to the states financial crunch. It’s time for the People to take a stand. We can no longer sit back in silence scouring the land like lost sheep.
They work for us, we don’t work for them. The California Legislature needs to pass a timelier budget on a consistent basis and one that does not leave an opportunity for our people to suffer. As long as they continue to receive a paycheck, so should the health care providers who continue to serve low income families across the Golden State.
Register to TakeActionCA.org to learn how you can take a stand today.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Fresh Produce for All
 |
| Courtesy Lone Pine Nursery |
To live and eat healthy is not just a fade, it's a way of life. Dedicated to ensure low income communities around California, especially Los Angeles, receive access to high quality fresh produce The Women's Foundation of California and its grant partner work to create that change. Read more on their blog.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Justice Gone Wrong, the Scott Sisters Face Life in Prison
Written by: Jasmine Walker
Jamie suffers from severe kidney failure, hypertension and diabetes. Due to the poor care she receives at CMCF her condition continues to worsen. According to Free the Scott Sisters website, Jamie told her mother that she wants and needs a kidney transplant and is forced to purchase her own food because of the strict diet her illnesses require. With the lack of monetary resources, Jamie and Gladys’s commissary funds continue to dwindle.
Not only do we need to ensure that incarcerated people receive the proper healthcare needs, but that these women are given a second chance.
The Scott Sisters continue to uphold their innocence and faith that they will one day meet justice face to face. It is time to take a stand against the injustice in the penal system and for the Scott Sisters to be reunited with their families and live the rest of their lives at home, not behind bars, for a crime that they did not commit. Take Action Now.
Injustice has once again reared its ugly head, this time against the Scott Sisters, Jamie and Gladys, of Mississippi. On December 24, 1993, the sisters were arrested for an alleged armed robbery; both deny partaking in the event. They were accused of robbing two men at gunpoint for an estimated $11, no was one injured. Ironically, the sisters were given two life sentences each without a chance of parole for 20 years.
 |
| Scott Sisters: Courtesy Free Scott Sisters Blog |
For the past 16 years Jamie and Gladys have called the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility home. Both first time offenders, continue to appeal their case all submissions have been denied. These women have lost their lives over $11. Their five children grew up without them – the justice system has failed the Scott sisters desperately.
Not only do we need to ensure that incarcerated people receive the proper healthcare needs, but that these women are given a second chance.
The Scott Sisters continue to uphold their innocence and faith that they will one day meet justice face to face. It is time to take a stand against the injustice in the penal system and for the Scott Sisters to be reunited with their families and live the rest of their lives at home, not behind bars, for a crime that they did not commit. Take Action Now.
Friday, August 13, 2010
California's Jobless May Catch a Break
Sacramento Bee reports: More than 42,000 laid-off California homeowners are about to get a break. More information is available at the Keep Your Home website: www.keepyourhomecalifornia.com; or call (916) 373-2585. Click here to read more.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Legislation Reduces Crack Cocaine Inequality
Quarter-century-old law subjected tens of thousands of Blacks to long prison terms for crack cocaine convictions
By Chris Levister –
Addressing what both Democrats and Republicans agreed was a quarter-century old injustice in drug sentencing, Congress passed historic legislation that reduces the inequity between mandatory sentencing for crack and powder cocaine. The law many considered blatantly racist has subjected tens of thousands of Blacks to long prison terms for crack cocaine convictions while giving far more lenient treatment to those, mainly whites, caught with the powder form of the drug.
The Obama administration has called the sentencing disparity “fundamentally unfair”.
The law was enacted in 1986, when crack cocaine use was rampant and often associated with violent crime. Under its terms, a person convicted of possessing an amount of crack equal to the weight of two pennies resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. In order to receive a similar sentence, possessing chemically similar powder cocaine, one would have to be carrying the weight of 200 pennies or 100 times the amount of cocaine.
The new law narrows that ratio to about 18 to 1. It also eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum for first-time possession of crack. The changes represent the first time since the Nixon administration enacted the law that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence.
The changes will not apply retroactively.
“For Congress to take a step toward saying ‘we have made a mistake and this sentence is too severe’ . . . is really remarkable,’’ said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project. In studies of sentencing practices, the group has referred to crack cocaine mandates as a “poster child for the injustices of mandatory sentencing.’’
The old law imposed mandatory minimums on crack cocaine largely based on its method of preparation (prepared with – with ammonia or baking soda) , which is often sold in crystals.
“Whether you crunch it, munch it, snort it, shoot it or toot it, it’s still a controlled substance.” That’s Kim Carter Founder and Executive Director of Time for Change Foundation, the non-profit organization provides services to homeless women and children who desire to change the course of their lives and make a transition from homelessness and recidivism to self sufficiency.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the new measure will save the federal prison system about $42 million over the next five years. 80 percent of those convicted of crack cocaine offenses are Black. Carter says the sentencing inequity has been particularly devastating to the Black community.
The sentencing disparity “has disproportionately filled our prisons with young Black and Latino drug users.’’ Motivated by her own experiences as a former incarcerated woman Carter cited figures that Blacks serve almost as much time for drug possession offenses — 58.7 months — as whites do for violent offenses — 61.7 months.
“Besides the fact that African American men are incarcerated 14 to 15 times more than whites, since the war on drugs began in the 1980s we’ve seen nearly an 800 percent increase in the rate of incarceration for African American women,” said Carter.
“Not only are parents removed from their children and families for long periods of time, upon release they face a vicious cycle of secondary punishment denial of jobs, public housing and other basic social services and benefits. The impact on the Black family has been devastating.”
Texas representative Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee was the only lawmaker to speak out against the bill during the House debate.
“Why are we coddling some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in America?” Smith argued passage could increase drug violence to the same levels as the 1980s, when crack cocaine was rife.
Carter says while the new legislation is monumental the measure does not go far enough.
“Because it still treats crack and powder cocaine differently. There can be no real justice until there is equity in cocaine sentencing.”
By Chris Levister –
Addressing what both Democrats and Republicans agreed was a quarter-century old injustice in drug sentencing, Congress passed historic legislation that reduces the inequity between mandatory sentencing for crack and powder cocaine. The law many considered blatantly racist has subjected tens of thousands of Blacks to long prison terms for crack cocaine convictions while giving far more lenient treatment to those, mainly whites, caught with the powder form of the drug.
 |
| Courtesy Chris Levister |
The law was enacted in 1986, when crack cocaine use was rampant and often associated with violent crime. Under its terms, a person convicted of possessing an amount of crack equal to the weight of two pennies resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. In order to receive a similar sentence, possessing chemically similar powder cocaine, one would have to be carrying the weight of 200 pennies or 100 times the amount of cocaine.
The new law narrows that ratio to about 18 to 1. It also eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum for first-time possession of crack. The changes represent the first time since the Nixon administration enacted the law that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence.
The changes will not apply retroactively.
“For Congress to take a step toward saying ‘we have made a mistake and this sentence is too severe’ . . . is really remarkable,’’ said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project. In studies of sentencing practices, the group has referred to crack cocaine mandates as a “poster child for the injustices of mandatory sentencing.’’
The old law imposed mandatory minimums on crack cocaine largely based on its method of preparation (prepared with – with ammonia or baking soda) , which is often sold in crystals.
“Whether you crunch it, munch it, snort it, shoot it or toot it, it’s still a controlled substance.” That’s Kim Carter Founder and Executive Director of Time for Change Foundation, the non-profit organization provides services to homeless women and children who desire to change the course of their lives and make a transition from homelessness and recidivism to self sufficiency.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the new measure will save the federal prison system about $42 million over the next five years. 80 percent of those convicted of crack cocaine offenses are Black. Carter says the sentencing inequity has been particularly devastating to the Black community.
The sentencing disparity “has disproportionately filled our prisons with young Black and Latino drug users.’’ Motivated by her own experiences as a former incarcerated woman Carter cited figures that Blacks serve almost as much time for drug possession offenses — 58.7 months — as whites do for violent offenses — 61.7 months.
“Besides the fact that African American men are incarcerated 14 to 15 times more than whites, since the war on drugs began in the 1980s we’ve seen nearly an 800 percent increase in the rate of incarceration for African American women,” said Carter.
“Not only are parents removed from their children and families for long periods of time, upon release they face a vicious cycle of secondary punishment denial of jobs, public housing and other basic social services and benefits. The impact on the Black family has been devastating.”
Texas representative Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee was the only lawmaker to speak out against the bill during the House debate.
“Why are we coddling some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in America?” Smith argued passage could increase drug violence to the same levels as the 1980s, when crack cocaine was rife.
Carter says while the new legislation is monumental the measure does not go far enough.
“Because it still treats crack and powder cocaine differently. There can be no real justice until there is equity in cocaine sentencing.”
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
House Passes $26 Billion in State Aid
By Carl Hulse
WASHINGTON — The House interrupted its summer recess on Tuesday to approve $26 billion in aid to school districts and states to prevent large-scale layoffs of teachers and public employees and to engage in another partisan fight over policy priorities.
After the vote of 247 to 161 in favor of the legislation, President Obama quickly signed the measure at the White House, underscoring the importance Democrats place on the bill that they view as compelling evidence of their commitment to protecting American jobs.
“We can’t stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children or keep our communities safe,” Mr. Obama said earlier in the day, exhorting the House to send him the measure. “That doesn’t make sense.”
The Senate broke an impasse over the $26 billion measure last week and sent it to the House, which was called back into session by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to approve the bill.
Its backers said the measure would allow tens of thousands of public school teachers, government employees and emergency workers to keep working and help distressed states provide health care to the poor.
“I don’t understand how anyone, Democrat or Republican, can be against keeping teachers in the classroom, keeping cops on the beat and keeping firefighters protecting our homes,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader.
Just two Republicans crossed party lines to support the measure; three Democrats opposed it.
Leading Republicans harshly rejected the bill, saying it was just the latest case of overspending by Democrats. They characterized the legislation as another in a string of bailouts that would not create new jobs. They also said Congress was coming to the rescue of states that had mishandled their own finances.
“We are broke,” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said about the federal government. “We do not have the money to bail out the states. It’s time for them to get their arms around their problems and not look to Washington to bail them out.”
As they convened to take up the state aid bill, House members also by voice vote approved $600 million in new spending for border enforcement that had been approved by the Senate last week. But because of a jurisdictional issue, the measure must be approved one more time by the Senate before it can be sent to the White House.
Senate leaders were exploring whether they could act before the end of the week and get the measure to the president’s desk.
On the aid package, Democrats noted that the $26 billion cost of the measure would not be added to the deficit, but would be offset by revising a corporate tax provision that affects companies that do businesses overseas as well as by making future cuts in food-stamp spending.
Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, had been pressing for months to allocate the money, which he said was needed because state and local budgets had still not recovered from the recession.
“We do the country no favors if we allow the weakness of the economy to strip qualified teachers from our schools, which in turn would result in exploding class sizes and a decline in educational opportunities for children,” Mr. Obey said.
In its haste to pass the measure last week, the Senate failed to fill in the title of the measure, leading to Republican ridicule.
“In its mad rush, the Senate passed the ‘blank’ act of ‘blank,’ ” said Representative David Dreier of California, the senior Republican on the Rules Committee. “God only knows what other mistakes have been made here.”
Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said of the decision to call back the House: “This is a national emergency. Apparently Congress has not spent enough money.”
Republicans also said that Congress would not have needed to consider the measure if Democrats had not failed to take up regular spending bills, forcing Congress to work on problems in a piecemeal basis. And they called it a favor for members of teachers’ unions who are allied with Democrats.
“It will make the teachers unions happy,” said Representative John Kline, Republican of Minnesota, “but it won’t make teaching in schools better.”
Illustrating the political implications of the vote, Americans for Limited Government, a conservative group, quickly issued statements attacking Democrats considered vulnerable in November for their votes on the measure. But education and health groups joined the National Governors Association in applauding the House vote.
Democrats say they believe the outcome weighs in their favor politically, and the fact that all but three Democrats voted for it showed the confidence that lawmakers had in the measure. Democrats said it would allow them to court teachers and emergency workers while emphasizing the contrast with Congressional Republicans who opposed the package.
“There could not be a better example of the differences in priorities between Republicans and Democrats than this legislation,” said Tim Kaine, the head of the Democratic National Committee.
WASHINGTON — The House interrupted its summer recess on Tuesday to approve $26 billion in aid to school districts and states to prevent large-scale layoffs of teachers and public employees and to engage in another partisan fight over policy priorities.
After the vote of 247 to 161 in favor of the legislation, President Obama quickly signed the measure at the White House, underscoring the importance Democrats place on the bill that they view as compelling evidence of their commitment to protecting American jobs.
“We can’t stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children or keep our communities safe,” Mr. Obama said earlier in the day, exhorting the House to send him the measure. “That doesn’t make sense.”
The Senate broke an impasse over the $26 billion measure last week and sent it to the House, which was called back into session by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to approve the bill.
Its backers said the measure would allow tens of thousands of public school teachers, government employees and emergency workers to keep working and help distressed states provide health care to the poor.
“I don’t understand how anyone, Democrat or Republican, can be against keeping teachers in the classroom, keeping cops on the beat and keeping firefighters protecting our homes,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader.
Just two Republicans crossed party lines to support the measure; three Democrats opposed it.
Leading Republicans harshly rejected the bill, saying it was just the latest case of overspending by Democrats. They characterized the legislation as another in a string of bailouts that would not create new jobs. They also said Congress was coming to the rescue of states that had mishandled their own finances.
“We are broke,” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said about the federal government. “We do not have the money to bail out the states. It’s time for them to get their arms around their problems and not look to Washington to bail them out.”
As they convened to take up the state aid bill, House members also by voice vote approved $600 million in new spending for border enforcement that had been approved by the Senate last week. But because of a jurisdictional issue, the measure must be approved one more time by the Senate before it can be sent to the White House.
Senate leaders were exploring whether they could act before the end of the week and get the measure to the president’s desk.
On the aid package, Democrats noted that the $26 billion cost of the measure would not be added to the deficit, but would be offset by revising a corporate tax provision that affects companies that do businesses overseas as well as by making future cuts in food-stamp spending.
Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, had been pressing for months to allocate the money, which he said was needed because state and local budgets had still not recovered from the recession.
“We do the country no favors if we allow the weakness of the economy to strip qualified teachers from our schools, which in turn would result in exploding class sizes and a decline in educational opportunities for children,” Mr. Obey said.
In its haste to pass the measure last week, the Senate failed to fill in the title of the measure, leading to Republican ridicule.
“In its mad rush, the Senate passed the ‘blank’ act of ‘blank,’ ” said Representative David Dreier of California, the senior Republican on the Rules Committee. “God only knows what other mistakes have been made here.”
Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said of the decision to call back the House: “This is a national emergency. Apparently Congress has not spent enough money.”
Republicans also said that Congress would not have needed to consider the measure if Democrats had not failed to take up regular spending bills, forcing Congress to work on problems in a piecemeal basis. And they called it a favor for members of teachers’ unions who are allied with Democrats.
“It will make the teachers unions happy,” said Representative John Kline, Republican of Minnesota, “but it won’t make teaching in schools better.”
Illustrating the political implications of the vote, Americans for Limited Government, a conservative group, quickly issued statements attacking Democrats considered vulnerable in November for their votes on the measure. But education and health groups joined the National Governors Association in applauding the House vote.
Democrats say they believe the outcome weighs in their favor politically, and the fact that all but three Democrats voted for it showed the confidence that lawmakers had in the measure. Democrats said it would allow them to court teachers and emergency workers while emphasizing the contrast with Congressional Republicans who opposed the package.
“There could not be a better example of the differences in priorities between Republicans and Democrats than this legislation,” said Tim Kaine, the head of the Democratic National Committee.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Voices from Brooklyn: Racial Profiling's Part of Everyday Life Here
Written by: Naima Ramos-Chapman
As progressives unite this summer to fight racial profiling of immigrants in Arizona, a New York Times investigation in July offered a stark reminder of how routine profiling has become in some black neighborhoods around the country. The Times reviewed data on stops over four years in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Brownsville, a predominantly African American community that's dense with public housing. Reporters found police made nearly 52,000 stops in an eight-block radius over just four years. Just 1 percent of the stops yielded arrests and cops found only 26 guns.
ColorLines spent an afternoon last week in Brownsville. We visited the Brownsville Recreation Center to speak with the young men NYPD's stops have targeted. According to the NYT, cops use expansive authority for investigating trespassing in public housing as a pretext for many stops, often with the explicit goal of boosting stats showing enforcement actions. The Brownsville rec center we visited serves the nearby housing projects, and the young men who come there say stop-and-frisks are now a routine part of their lives. Watch them speak for themselves in the video [by clicking here], then grab the embed code and pass it along.
New York Gov. David Paterson signed legislation this summer prohibiting the NYPD from keeping names and other information on the people cops stop but don't arrest or cite. He allowed the stops themselves to continue, however. Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers has introduced the End to Racial Profiling Act. The bill's not likely to see congressional action soon.
The stop-and-frisk debate is not a new one. Dr. Harry Levine, a Queens College researcher who recently published a study on racial disparities in California's marijuana-possession arrests, says police departments began using the tactic in the 1990s and it has increased over the years. The NYPD's stop-and-frisk campaign has garnered lots of attention thanks to criminal justice watchdogs like the NYCLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. But the city is not alone.
Los Angeles, for example, is another city grappling with a deteriorating relationship between the police and people of color. In a report commissioned by the ACLU of Southern California, called "Racial Profiling & The LAPD: A Study of Racially Disparate Outcomes in the Los Angeles Police Department", blacks were three times as likely to be stopped as whites. As the report explains: These disparities are not justified by crime rates in different neighborhoods where people of color live. In regressions controlling for both violent and property crime rates in the area where the stops occurred, the stop rates were significantly higher for people of color than for whites. Nor do the disparities arise because more police are assigned to black or Latino neighborhoods. In fact, there was a greater racial disparity in stop rates in predominantly white neighborhoods than predominantly non-white neighborhoods.
"Stop-and-frisk comes out of a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, which allowed police to do stops and frisks when they had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or was about to be committed," explains Steven Zeidman, a CUNY School of Law professor and director of the Criminal Defense Clinic. "But now we allow police to stop people on virtually no information whatsoever." "Hunches" and "whims," says Zeidman, should not be enough to employ a stop-and-frisk.
Most academics agree that "Terry" stops, as they are sometimes dubbed, are used in police departments across country. Still, Jeffery Fagan, sociology professor and researcher at Columbia University, stresses that few "use this tactic as extensively as does New York" or with so little respect for the "reasonable suspicion" standard.
Guidelines put in place in 2001 compel the NYPD to report quarterly data to the City Council on who it stops and for what reasons. Those rule sprang from public outrage over police brutality after the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo, thouh NYPD has often drug its feet in complying. The data reveals that, since Diallo's death, the number of stop-and-frisks has in fact gone through the roof--last year a record high of nearly 600,000 people were stopped.
"It's too easy to say, 'Well, that's where crime is,' " says Fagan of the stops being clumped in black neighborhoods like Brownsville. "Once you consider that the stop and frisks are being conducted on so little actual basis of any criminality, you realize it can happen anywhere."
ColorLines spent an afternoon last week in Brownsville. We visited the Brownsville Recreation Center to speak with the young men NYPD's stops have targeted. According to the NYT, cops use expansive authority for investigating trespassing in public housing as a pretext for many stops, often with the explicit goal of boosting stats showing enforcement actions. The Brownsville rec center we visited serves the nearby housing projects, and the young men who come there say stop-and-frisks are now a routine part of their lives. Watch them speak for themselves in the video [by clicking here], then grab the embed code and pass it along.
New York Gov. David Paterson signed legislation this summer prohibiting the NYPD from keeping names and other information on the people cops stop but don't arrest or cite. He allowed the stops themselves to continue, however. Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers has introduced the End to Racial Profiling Act. The bill's not likely to see congressional action soon.
The stop-and-frisk debate is not a new one. Dr. Harry Levine, a Queens College researcher who recently published a study on racial disparities in California's marijuana-possession arrests, says police departments began using the tactic in the 1990s and it has increased over the years. The NYPD's stop-and-frisk campaign has garnered lots of attention thanks to criminal justice watchdogs like the NYCLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. But the city is not alone.
Los Angeles, for example, is another city grappling with a deteriorating relationship between the police and people of color. In a report commissioned by the ACLU of Southern California, called "Racial Profiling & The LAPD: A Study of Racially Disparate Outcomes in the Los Angeles Police Department", blacks were three times as likely to be stopped as whites. As the report explains: These disparities are not justified by crime rates in different neighborhoods where people of color live. In regressions controlling for both violent and property crime rates in the area where the stops occurred, the stop rates were significantly higher for people of color than for whites. Nor do the disparities arise because more police are assigned to black or Latino neighborhoods. In fact, there was a greater racial disparity in stop rates in predominantly white neighborhoods than predominantly non-white neighborhoods.
"Stop-and-frisk comes out of a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, which allowed police to do stops and frisks when they had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or was about to be committed," explains Steven Zeidman, a CUNY School of Law professor and director of the Criminal Defense Clinic. "But now we allow police to stop people on virtually no information whatsoever." "Hunches" and "whims," says Zeidman, should not be enough to employ a stop-and-frisk.
Most academics agree that "Terry" stops, as they are sometimes dubbed, are used in police departments across country. Still, Jeffery Fagan, sociology professor and researcher at Columbia University, stresses that few "use this tactic as extensively as does New York" or with so little respect for the "reasonable suspicion" standard.
Guidelines put in place in 2001 compel the NYPD to report quarterly data to the City Council on who it stops and for what reasons. Those rule sprang from public outrage over police brutality after the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo, thouh NYPD has often drug its feet in complying. The data reveals that, since Diallo's death, the number of stop-and-frisks has in fact gone through the roof--last year a record high of nearly 600,000 people were stopped.
"It's too easy to say, 'Well, that's where crime is,' " says Fagan of the stops being clumped in black neighborhoods like Brownsville. "Once you consider that the stop and frisks are being conducted on so little actual basis of any criminality, you realize it can happen anywhere."
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
A New Way of Life Reentry Project/Voices of Hope
Written by: Jackie Hundza
 |
California has the highest proportion of prisoners serving life sentences of any state. One of every five prisoners in California is serving a life-term sentence. Of these 37, 584 people, 89% have the possibility of parole. But for the last twenty years the annual parole rate for lifer prisoners is less than 1%. California’s Three Strikes law has created even more life-term prisoners – for any third strike, the person convicted automatically receives a twenty five-to-life sentence, no matter what the underlying offense. Overwhelmingly, lifer prisoners are disproportionately Black or Latino – 35% of California’s life-term prisoners are Black, though the Black population of the state is less than 7%. White people comprise only 23% of lifer prisoners, though White people make up 76% of California’s population.
By law, life-term prisoners have the right to parole review after serving their minimum term, but statistically, 0% of prisoners are found suitable for parole at their first hearing. For the last twenty years, less than 1% of lifer prisoners have been released on parole. The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) is appointed by the Governor and composed mainly of retired law enforcement personnel and victim’s rights advocates, with no representation of prisoner’s families or communities. Even if a prisoner is granted a recommendation of parole by the BPH, the Governor has the right to deny that recommendation.
Flozelle Woodmore was part of the 1% fortunate enough to be released. She was one of the 37,584 people locked up for life. Flozelle served a life sentence for killing her abusive boyfriend. She was in prison from the age of eighteen until she was thirty-nine. During that time, she went through ten parole hearings, was found suitable six times, and was finally released in August of 2007. Flozelle discovered A New Way of Life Reentry Project, a grassroots, nonprofit organization founded in 1998 as a sober living home. On her path to reentry, Flozelle began facilitating a project for lifers families and friends in order to address these injustices.
By educating families and friends who have loved ones that are serving indeterminate sentences, A New Way of Life Reentry Project/Voices of Hope works to strengthen their loved ones chances of parole. Current projects in support of lifers’ families and friends include support letter campaigns and communicating with the Board of Parole Hearing commissioners, by speaking at the Executive Board Meetings. We are also looking to train families and friends of those with loved ones who are serving indeterminate sentences on how to write a writ of habeas corpus to further strengthen their chances of parole.
The next meeting will be on August 21, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at 10950 S. Central Ave. Los Angeles, CA. 90059. For more information call (323) 563-3575.
Monday, August 2, 2010
At the Crossroads
Written by: Craig Gilmore
In recent years, you hear a lot more about America’s crazy and destructive prison policies everywhere — on TV, radio talk shows, newspapers and online. Everyone knows that the USA locks up our residents at ten or more times the rate of other industrialized countries. Californians know that the incredible growth of our state’s prison system over the past 30 years has bankrupted the state, and by drawing funds away from public education, has dropped our schools from the best in the country to among the worst.
Well, everyone except, it appears, those in Sacramento responsible for running this state.
California is at a crossroads. One road leads towards building tens of thousands more prison cells and increasing the numbers of residents who are immiserated by prisons. The other road leads us towards reducing the numbers of people in prison and restoring funds stripped from public education, public health & mental health, Healthy Families and other crucial programs.
Fast Approaching
Two lawsuits brought by people locked in California prisons have forced the hands of the governor, the legislators and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Federal courts have ruled in Plata v. Schwarzenegger and Coleman v. Schwarzenegger that California’s prisons are so crowded that medical and mental health care that meets the Constitutional minimal requirements is not possible, so the Court has ordered California to reduce crowding in the prison system.
The order to reduce crowding is on hold while California appeals the decision to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Court decision is upheld, California will have two years to implement the plan.
Here’s where our out-of-touch Sacramento leadership comes in. You might think that the reasonable way to reduce crowding is to reduce the numbers of people in prison through sentencing reforms, parole reforms or increased credits. That, after all, is what other states have done successfully.
But no, not that simple. The Schwarzenegger plan is to build tens of thousands more prison and jail cells and to reduce crowding through expansion. The Legislature has passed AB900 that authorized the construction of up to 53,000 new prison and jail cells at a cost of over $7 billion.
Will it Work?
Thirty years ago, California held 22,500 people crammed into 12 prisons. In order to avoid the sort of Federal Court involvement we see today, then-Gov. Jerry Brown decided to expand the prison system to prevent illegally crowded conditions. Over the next 25 years, California built 23 new prisons and expanded capacity in the original 11. The prison population has grown from 22,500 to over 170,000. At the end of July, 2010 there were 156,420 locked in California prisons and almost 9,000 more who have been shipped to rented prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma.
What those in Sacramento seem not to have understood is that 30 years of prison expansion in California has not reduced crowding. What it has done is put more and more and more Californians behind bars.
The last 30 years have shown us that the CDCR, the Legislature and governors Democrat and Republican justify prison expansion by pointing to crowded and unsafe conditions, then immediately overfill the new cells.
The Cost of Failed Policy
Californians have paid a terrible price for 30 years of prison expansion. The worst of the costs have been paid by those who did the time, their children, and other family and loved ones. Individually the financial and emotional costs are usually a huge burden. Collectively they constitute a major force in the renewal of racism in employment, housing, education and other fields.
Even those who imagine their loved ones will never get caught up in the criminal justice system are paying. Thirty years ago, California spent 2 percent of our state spending on prisons. Now we spend over 10 percent. What has that shift in spending meant? It has meant the drop of California’s public schools from the best in the country to 48th or 49th. It has meant the cost of a University of California education increasing from a few hundred dollars a year in fees to many thousands of dollars a year. It has meant massive cuts to programs that help feed our children, provide health care to our seniors, protect us from environmental hazards and in general provide a social safety net that especially in hard economic times like these, more and more Californians need.
What Can We Do?
California has broken ground on only a few dozen of the new cells the CDCR and governor want to build. We can stop them from their folly and save our state from stealing billions more from education funding to waste on destroying more lives by locking up more people.
We need to be vocal in expressing the need for California to change direction. Our legislators need to hear it. So do our county boards of supervisors and city councils. So do our district attorneys and county sheriffs. So does anyone running for any of those offices, and our local, regional and statewide media, our religious institutions, our labor unions, our classmates, and carpoolers.
For more information, contact Californians United for a Responsible Budget through our webpage: www.curbprisonspending.org .
In recent years, you hear a lot more about America’s crazy and destructive prison policies everywhere — on TV, radio talk shows, newspapers and online. Everyone knows that the USA locks up our residents at ten or more times the rate of other industrialized countries. Californians know that the incredible growth of our state’s prison system over the past 30 years has bankrupted the state, and by drawing funds away from public education, has dropped our schools from the best in the country to among the worst.
Well, everyone except, it appears, those in Sacramento responsible for running this state.
California is at a crossroads. One road leads towards building tens of thousands more prison cells and increasing the numbers of residents who are immiserated by prisons. The other road leads us towards reducing the numbers of people in prison and restoring funds stripped from public education, public health & mental health, Healthy Families and other crucial programs.
Two lawsuits brought by people locked in California prisons have forced the hands of the governor, the legislators and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Federal courts have ruled in Plata v. Schwarzenegger and Coleman v. Schwarzenegger that California’s prisons are so crowded that medical and mental health care that meets the Constitutional minimal requirements is not possible, so the Court has ordered California to reduce crowding in the prison system.
The order to reduce crowding is on hold while California appeals the decision to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Court decision is upheld, California will have two years to implement the plan.
Here’s where our out-of-touch Sacramento leadership comes in. You might think that the reasonable way to reduce crowding is to reduce the numbers of people in prison through sentencing reforms, parole reforms or increased credits. That, after all, is what other states have done successfully.
But no, not that simple. The Schwarzenegger plan is to build tens of thousands more prison and jail cells and to reduce crowding through expansion. The Legislature has passed AB900 that authorized the construction of up to 53,000 new prison and jail cells at a cost of over $7 billion.
Will it Work?
Thirty years ago, California held 22,500 people crammed into 12 prisons. In order to avoid the sort of Federal Court involvement we see today, then-Gov. Jerry Brown decided to expand the prison system to prevent illegally crowded conditions. Over the next 25 years, California built 23 new prisons and expanded capacity in the original 11. The prison population has grown from 22,500 to over 170,000. At the end of July, 2010 there were 156,420 locked in California prisons and almost 9,000 more who have been shipped to rented prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma.
What those in Sacramento seem not to have understood is that 30 years of prison expansion in California has not reduced crowding. What it has done is put more and more and more Californians behind bars.
The newest of California’s prisons is North Kern Valley State Prison, also known as Delano II, that opened in 2005. Look at this chart to see what effect the opening of a 5,160 bed prison had on crowding in the state’s other 32 prisons.
The CDCR’s population, which had remained fairly stable from 2000-2005 as the construction and opening of Delano II was delayed by a statewide grassroots campaign, increased by over 7,000 the year after a 5,160 bed prison was opened. Clearly, opening Delano II did not alleviate crowding in the CDCR.
The last 30 years have shown us that the CDCR, the Legislature and governors Democrat and Republican justify prison expansion by pointing to crowded and unsafe conditions, then immediately overfill the new cells.
The Cost of Failed Policy
Californians have paid a terrible price for 30 years of prison expansion. The worst of the costs have been paid by those who did the time, their children, and other family and loved ones. Individually the financial and emotional costs are usually a huge burden. Collectively they constitute a major force in the renewal of racism in employment, housing, education and other fields.
Even those who imagine their loved ones will never get caught up in the criminal justice system are paying. Thirty years ago, California spent 2 percent of our state spending on prisons. Now we spend over 10 percent. What has that shift in spending meant? It has meant the drop of California’s public schools from the best in the country to 48th or 49th. It has meant the cost of a University of California education increasing from a few hundred dollars a year in fees to many thousands of dollars a year. It has meant massive cuts to programs that help feed our children, provide health care to our seniors, protect us from environmental hazards and in general provide a social safety net that especially in hard economic times like these, more and more Californians need.
What Can We Do?
California has broken ground on only a few dozen of the new cells the CDCR and governor want to build. We can stop them from their folly and save our state from stealing billions more from education funding to waste on destroying more lives by locking up more people.We need to be vocal in expressing the need for California to change direction. Our legislators need to hear it. So do our county boards of supervisors and city councils. So do our district attorneys and county sheriffs. So does anyone running for any of those offices, and our local, regional and statewide media, our religious institutions, our labor unions, our classmates, and carpoolers.
For more information, contact Californians United for a Responsible Budget through our webpage: www.curbprisonspending.org .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)