We Can’t Wait Until We Can Afford It

It looks as if health care reform is going to cost $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. If that is not enough to scare the pants off you, think about all of the government programs that run hugely over budget. However, this cost does not mean we should not implement a public health care plan that ensures that everyone–that is, everyone, EVERYONE, not just most people–has an adequate health care plan. This is something we need to do, as much as we needed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. When something must be done, you start doing it.

How many families would get started if women waited until they could afford to raise children to get pregnant? Nobody, except the very rich, can afford to have children. Parents do not wait until they can afford children; they have children and stretch their means to raise them.

This is what the United States must do, now. We must implement a universal health care system and then go about finding the means to support it.

Let Some People Go!

There was discussion on the radio today about reducing Michigan’s prisoner population—and no, it wasn’t Neo-Cons pushing wholesale capital punishment. It was the director of the Department of Corrections talking about early release for low-risk prisoners. I hope this idea gets some legs; reducing our prison population is way overdue.

We could save $150,000,000 per year by reducing the prison population by 20%, without compromising public safety. The parole board automatically denies consideration for parole for many classes of prisoner. Our incarceration rate is too high and climbing. The parole board routinely denies parole despite solid evidence that most first-offenders who are convicted of CSC, Murder 2, VCSA, and many other crimes have very low recidivism rates. A conscientious parole board would sort out the good risks from the bad ones, not refuse to consider anyone who was convicted of certain crimes. “Life means life” is not sound public policy it’s a political mantra. For more information visit sites such as:
http://www.justicepolicy.org/
http://www.capps-mi.org/
https://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=35

If we cut our prison population from 50,000 to 40,000, the savings would be $300,000,000 at $30,000 per prisoner. Pour half of that savings into prisoner re-entry programs and we would still save $150,000,000–and greatly improve the social fabric in our state.

Think about it: In 1984 Michigan had 15,000 prisoners and the population was 9.2 million. Today we have 50,000 Michigan prisoners and the population is 10.2 million. Do you feel three times as safe as you did in 1984? I think we could reduce the prison population by two thirds without compromising public safety, but let’s start with a modest 20%.

Unfortunately, our parole board members are gutless bureaucrats who refuse to do the job they were hired for and our legislators are knee-jerk jerks who can’t see beyond the next election. They are afraid to tell the public anything it does not want to hear.

I don’t have much hope that Michigan will adopt any sane corrections policies in my lifetime; but if you are educated far above average, and are capable of understanding what our government cannot, you might want to give this some thought.

John B. Payne, Attorney
Dearborn, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(800) 220 7200
FAX (313) 562 3340
©2008 John B. Payne, Attorney
www.law-business.com

MLK’s Dream

The 2008 general election forged new ground in U.S. politics.  However, it did not fulfill Rev. Martin Luther King’s dream that his children would “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  Although the election of Barack Obama showed that at least in come cases we have moved beyond judging a person by his or her skin color, we have not arrived at the point at which we judge political candidates by the content of their character.

The scurrilous hatchet job based on religion Libby Dole, the incumbent U.S. Senator from North Carolina, attempted on Kay Hagan, her challenger, and the rumor-mongering about Obama’s connection to Islam are evidence of a concerted effort by the Christian Right and Center to impose a religious barrier against non-Christians being elected to public office.

Dole attacked Hagan as an atheist because she attended a fund-raiser sponsored by well-known liberals at the home of activists who advocate the separation of church and state.  Dole’s televison ad featured the image of Hagan and the voice of a woman — not her — saying “there is no God.”

“Elizabeth Dole is attacking my strong Christian faith,” Hagan said in a conference call with reporters.  She responded with her own ad portraying herself as a strong Christian who teaches Sunday School.

As appalling as Dole’s attack was, it is equally appalling that Hagan defended herself by clinging to the Cross, not by asserting that the qualifications for public office do not include belonging to the right religion, or any religion.  Hagan’s defense is as threatening to the separation of church and state as Dole’s original attack.  However necessary Hagan’s response may have been, based on the Bible-Belt mentality of her constituency, it is disappointing that she made no attempt to inform them that establishing a Christian theocracy is no more healthy or desirable than establishing an Islamic or Hindu theocracy, or adopting a governmental hostility to religion.

The Dole-Hagan affair was not the only disturbing development in the 2008 election cycle.  The so-called Saddleback Forum, really a religious vetting session inserted into the presidential campaign, made it apparent that both McCain and Obama were laying their religious convictions out for the electorate.  In this, they continued a trend set by the current President.
President Kennedy promised that his official actions would be based on his secular convictions, not his religious beliefs.  George W. Bush, however, solicited votes from the Christian right based on his claim to be Born-Again.  He made an implied commitment to run the country according to his interpretation of the Bible, rather than the U.S. Constitution.  That he was hugely successful in pulling votes by virtue of his “values,” despite the anti-family and belligerent biases of his policies, raises the question of whether government in the United States may one day be dominated by clerics, as in Iran.
The Saddleback Forum, in which the “presumptive candidates” for the two major parties presented themselves for examination by an Evangelist, is a terrifying turn away from secular government.  It is an acknowledgment by the candidates that the country is not merely Christian, but Evangelical.
Religious diversity has been one of this country’s strengths.  What happens to diversity when only Evangelicals can run for office with any likelihood of success?  It is not beyond the realm of possibility that qualification for public office may depend on approval by a Council of Clerics, as in Iran.  Approval by the religious establishment will never be an official qualification to run for office, but there may come a time when no candidate can mount a viable campaign without demonstrating his religious bona fides and the only way to do that is examination by religious authorities.
Thus, we have moved away from judging candidates by the color of their skin, but we have started judging them by the flavor and the fervor of their faith.  That falls far short of judging them by the content of their character.

John Payne, Attorney
Garrison LawHouse, PC
1800 Grindley Park Street, Suite 6
Dearborn, Michigan 48124
Come visit me at: http://www.law-business.com
313.563.4900/fax 313.562.3340

Pennsylvania Office:
9853 Old Perry Highway.
Wexford, PA 15090-9312
800.220.7200/fax 412.548.0022

© John B. Payne, 2008