State Budgets Force Prison Releases

Michigan is the first state to initiate the preliminaries for reducing their prison populations due to budget deficits, however, there are several states that are seriously considering it. And with 46 (of 50) states reporting expected budget deficits, there could be more states to follow.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again... per capita we have the largest jail population in the world. 1 out of every 100 Americans is incarcerated. More than China, Venezuela, Iran, Sudan, North Korea, or any other "rogue nation" that we chastise about their human rights abuses. In a nation of 300,000,000 people [third behind only China and India] we have 3million Americans behind bars.

If you count the entire "correctional system" which includes not only jail and prison, but also parole and probation... According to this Pew Research Study (click here) the national average is that 1 out of every 31 ADULTS (doesn't include children) in the United States is currently at one of those four points of "the jail system."






If ever there was a time to de-criminalize drug usage, this is that time. I've already blogged about the war on drugs last June (click here), so I wont rehash the entire thing, but 1/3 of the US prison population are non-violent drug offenders. If it makes people feel better, you dont have to call drugs "legal", just say "de-criminalized." It'll be a moral victory. You didn't give in, you stood your ground. They're still "technically" illegal, (so you didnt cave?) you're just not going to waste time prosecuting some kid who likes pot.

Certain states are considering releasing criminals, why not those whose only crime is wanting to get high? Rapists, robbers, con artists, assault and battery perpetrators, pedophiles and murderers... let those guys stay in Club Fed indefinately, but, the 19 year old caught with a couple grams of crack... (dont even get me started on the racist 100 to 1: crack vs cocaine laws) let that kid out. Or give shorter sentences (or just fines?) for "harder" drugs. You can look at incarceration rates and see that they jumped when Nixon declared his "war on drugs" in 1969. (click here)

Not only that, legalizing marijuana (yes, I want you to completely cave on this one!) would lower crime and bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue. You can "decriminalize" (dont prosecute) other drugs, but marijuana needs to be legalized. I understand, you're the children and grand-children of paranoid propagandists who wanted to paint marijuana as just as bad as heroine and LSD, but get over it. Its not true. Everyone knows its not true. In fact, marijuana (which is nothing more than a MILD hallucinogen) isn't even as "strong" as alcohol.

The parallels are very striking. We had prohibition. Alcohol could no longer be sold legally. Demand was still there. People had to go through illegal UNREGULATED avenues to get it. There was a lot of money involved and thus, a lot of violence followed. Part of Al Capone's criminal activities was boot-legging. "Moonshine" anyone?

During the Great Depression, Franklyn Delanor Roosevelt lifted prohibition. Not only did it lift the spirits (pun intended) of drunks (its not like people ever stopped drinking) but it also brought in a LOT of tax revenue. We are currently in a deep recession as well, and marijuana has always been big business. Beer is worse than marijuana, get over it... stupid conservatives.

We could limit state expenses by decriminalizing drugs and increase state and federal income by legalizing AND THUS TAXING marijuana, while also decreasing violence. People dont need to go through a drug dealer when that person can just go to CVS.

Unemployment Benefits? Not So Fast

I dont understand people who use "we" to refer to themselves and their employer. As if to say, there is a family. I love my company, and my company loves me. We look out for each other. We're friends. I'm part of a group. Not just a job, but a community. A community of like-minded individuals, sharing the same goals and concerns.

Um... no.

Your employer does not care about you. You are a "commodity," that is it. You provide a service and you are compensated for it. The moment (and i mean, THE moment) that your services are no longer needed, you will immediately be relieved of your duties. There are a lot of Americans that are finding that out, as companies all over the nation downsize in order to meet their expected profit margins. I always wonder how many upper level executive pay rates were cut, before the decision was made to start laying off working and middle class workers.

The Washington Post (click here) recently reported on a growing number of corporations, who are now fighting the unemployment benefits of former employees. More than 25% of people who are filing for unemployment are having their benefits challenged by their former employers. Thats when the "we" goes away... and it becomes "me" versus "you." Do, companies even pay unemployment benefits? No. The government does... so, why would corporations want to prevent an unemployed person from getting what amounts to "temporary welfare"?

INSURANCE RATES

Surprise! Dont you feel the love? Some employers never challenge unemployment benefits, but others do... and the reason is... they dont want their unemployment insurance rates to increase. The amount a company pays out to this insurance is based on the number of former employees who are collecting unemployment.

I mean, yes, its true that the unemployment rate in this country has jumped more than FIFTY PERCENT within the last 16months, and more people are losing their homes, the economy is contracting, we're in a recession, the number of homeless are rising, but.. ya know... who wants to pay higher insurance? I mean... c'mon. Dont get mad at your former boss. Its business... not personal.

When certain companies do business with small corporations, sometimes, they'll ask the owner or CEO to sign a "personal guarantee." Why is that? Entrepreneurship 101: when you own a sole-proprietorship (run a business alone)... you take on all the responsibility of that business. You as the individual. And if you undertake a partnership, you and your partner take on that personal responsibility. Its the business you own. That is why some people will license their business as a "LLC" (you've seen it before) in order to try and have "limited liability" for them as individuals. But, when you INCOPORATE... legally, you're creating a new entity. Like a fictitious person, who is independent of the parts. So, some businesses want a "personal guarantee" because the individual who owns a corporation isn't legally obligating his PERSONAL ASSETS when a business goes bankrupt, whereas, if you run a sole-proprietorship, and you owe vendors, they can go after your personal belongings.

I also believe corporate mentality seems to lead people to believe that the "moral" obligations are no longer theirs as well. The new entity... the corporation... is making these decisions. And even though it LOOKS like the person in the business is making decisions, he's merely following the orders of the "entity".

"Im not doing this... this isn't my decision... thats K-Mart's decision. Me personally, I think everyone who's down on their luck should get unemployment, but K-Mart demands that we do everything we can to look out for the best interest of K-Mart... and thats what we're trying to do. But, dont blame me... it isn't personal... its business. K-Mart made the decision... im just following it." (I dont know if K-Mart blocks unemployment, this is just an example)

People who thought it was "we" when they were working... now that they're laid off... when they go into those "unemployment courts"... i wonder what they think, when they see their "friends" on the other side of the courtroom, prepared to disparage them to whatever degree necessary, not because they have to pay the benefits themselves... but in order to keep their insurance low.

What a family... indeed...

The Bailout Plan They Didn't Want You to Know

Im tired of people calling the media "liberal." I've said this before, but, if you forced someone to define liberal, they'd be hard pressed to tell you what it means. Just more mindless "group think." All you have to do is repeat something over and over often enough, people will believe its true. But, just because Fox "Noise" says it, doesn't make it true. For example, if we had TRUE journalism in this nation, this story would have been... and would still be on the news every single day.

FDIC chairwoman Sheila Blair had a plan. A plan, you've probably never heard about. Last November, she came up with an idea to bail out HOMEOWNERS, not banks. By the way, did I mention that Sheila Blair is a republican with these "liberal" ideas of helping Americans? If she thinks the government has to get involved, from her perspective, and as FDIC chair, she has a good one... things must be dire indeed.

Her plan consists of two things.

First: Anyone in America whose mortgage is currently 2 months or more behind... they're monthly rate would be decreased to 31% of their monthly income. In general, the rule is... you should not pay anymore than 30-35% of your monthly income on your housing, so, thats where she gets the number. Whatever necessary to restructure the mortgage, they would do it so that your monthly payments go down to that range. Interest rates would be dropped to as low as 3% for 5 years, and mortgage terms could be extended out as far as 40 years.

Second: To encourage mortgage loan holding banks to cooperate, the government would take on 50% of the loss, if someone who was helped STILL defaulted. YES, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD TAKE ON 50% OF THE BANKS LOSS. There would also be a $1,000 pay-out to servicers who actually "re-work" the loans as well.

Hmmmmm... now, what you're wondering... is how many people could that potentially IMMEDIATELY help? More than a million homes went into foreclosure last year. You wanna know the biggest kicker?

SHEILA BLAIR'S PLAN WOULD COST ABOUT $25 BILLION, COMPARED TO THE $700 BILLION THE BANKS GOT.

Chairwoman Blair actually has seen this program in action. She undertook it at IndyMac (not to be confused with FreddieMac) when the government took them over. In that case, 70% of those who underwent the modification process saw affordable loans... with monthly mortgage prices decreasing about $350 on average. Now, thats a bailout! Yes, the bank loses some money, but they're not losing nearly as much as they would in the event of a foreclosure... not to mention the negative affects foreclosures have on neighborhoods (lower home values for neighbors).

It is now February, and credit is still stagnant. After all the (mystery) billions of dollars that were just dumped into the banking system... there has not been a major increase in loans. I say "mystery," because, part of this so-called bailout, was keeping mum on where the money was going. For example... did you know that all banks were not affected by the mortgage crisis. However, all banks were given money. The government thought this was a good way to protect confidence... conceal the identities of struggling banks. So, there were banks, that needed no money, that recieved billions upon billions of free money. Well, not really free... YOUR MONEY... and they're not spending it.

Well, they're spending some of it... the Associated Press reports that $1.6 billion dollars went to executive pay (click here). At least you know your tax dollars are going to a worthy cause.

Its easy to find the answer to why there's not a lot of lending. If I work minimum wage... and I borrowed 200 dollars from you, and I couldn't pay it back... but, your rich uncle felt sorry for us both, and gave you 500 dollars... what are the odds that you would be inclined to loan me money again? The banks have the money, but how have the facts on the ground changed, encouraging banks to now lend to people who were unable to pay before. "Once bitten, twice shy."

But, the Sheila Blair plan was rejected by the Bush administration. Helping out banks is one thing... but, helping out people... THATS CRAAAAAAAZY TALK!!! That goes against "conservative principle." They didn't want to do it for the banks... you think they're going to do it for regular citizens? We'll see if the (liberal?) Obama Administration will take up the issue, but SO FAR... they're just going with (more or less) the same type of plan that the Bush administration undertook.

Now, how many times did you hear about this proposed bailout on your well-established, highly regarded, well respected, independent, objective, NON-ratings focused news outlets? How could such a LIBERAL news media pass up such a story?