Quick test of your constitutional knowledge: where does legislation originate according to the United States Constitution?

(Here’s a hint: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.”)

Sure, not all earmarks are created equal, but what is all this fuss about Congresspeople having the authority to direct federal spending?

Why do we want to invest in one person, the President of the United States, either the legal (line item veto scam) or political power to decide which earmarks are and are not worthy?

Personally I can think of only one quicker way to an authoritarian government, and that way is the process the cheney/bush administration was following. Look up the stories: secret legal opinions asserting executive power to do whatever the prez wanted to do either foreign or domestically (such opinions discarded only when it became apparent the Rethuglicans were not going to remain in power).

Giving the President sway over the specifics of the earmarking process conveys a political tool with access to trillions of dollars. If earmarks are going to be abused, I’d just as soon see that abuse spread among competing interests. I don’t want any single person having that kind of economic power in our nation.

On the other hand, it appears to me the vast majority of earmarks do serve a valid public purpose.

Keep the power of legislation where the Constitution and common sense say it belongs … with the Congress.

Thanks to this story from the Huffington Post ….

Thank you Tell us Vision.

It’s also OK to defend those priorities.  

It is also important to call out divisive and hate generating media advocacy when it rears its ugly head.

Greenvtster makes a good point when he says the Democrats need to prevent the media, or conservatives – but I repeat myself – from defining their agenda as a single issue.

The Times Argus’ toxic and divisive poll is a reminder to our legislative leaders that the responsibility to enact priorities carries with it the responsibility to publicly advocate for those priorities. “Leading,” it is why we elect them.

The Democrats need to advocate for the policies and priorities needed to help Vermonters protect themselves from an economy that Republican and conservative policies have thoroughly dismantled and run into the fiscal ditch. The economic recovery and sustainability plans, particularly those the Governor and his administration consistently undermine, need to be pushed front and center.

They, and we, also need to advocate against those forces deliberately distorting the agenda our legislative leaders are pushing on our behalf. Do not shy from calling out partisans in the media. Do not shy away from those conservatives who are fighting social justice or any other group that is distracting from a badly needed progressive legislative agenda.



. . . UPDATED down under . .

The effect of inartful language in the Times Argus‘ “poll” **  is nothing more than a direct, in-your-face, jab at gays and lesbians specifically, and the majority of Vermonters, in general, who value equal protection of the law.

The TA’s behavior The survey’s language has the effect of playing into a narrative that anti-marriage rights opponents are pedaling, which pits Vermonter directly against Vermonter. The poll’s not-too-subtle message to its readers is “Your interests are necessarily mutually exclusive from the priorities of other Vermonters’ interests when it comes to legislative priorities.”

This is just plain untrue. It is toxic thinking. It creates a false, media generated, and media perpetuated conflict of priorities where none exists.

Is the TA afraid too much consensus is building around equal marriage rights? Seriously, what is the inspiration for this?

Here is the problem.  When a survey in a newspaper asks:

Do you think same-sex marriage should be a top priority for the Legislature?

What it is really telling its readers is “are the issues that are important to gays and lesbians more important than the issues that affect you?”

If that’s the questions they are really asking, then want to know what the real answer to that question is?  The answer is Bullshit!  It’s bullshit because the implication is false. The conflict is non-existent.

If the Times Argus really wants to play those games, what’s stopping them from pulling out all the stops and pitting the rest of “us” (whoever “we” happen to be) against each other and against our neighbors?  Let’s see the TA put up a poll that pits children against farmers or the elderly against working people. Why only imply to your readers that it stops with marriage rights? Certainly there are other groups that can fight to trump each other?

Try this:

What’s more important?

Do you think the legislature should make the needs of working families a top priority OR are the elderly more important?

When media outlets such as the Times Argus (they are not the only ones, just the most recent example) carelessly use language in surveys that plays into a false narrative being promoted by the GOP, the effect is to pit Vermonter divisively against Vermonter and it asks us to dig deeply into our inner-hate.

Memo: Stop pitting Vermonter against Vermonter.

This is just shameful because there really is no shortage of targets for the TA, or others, to use when pitting one group of Vermonters against another. Once the tone is set, everyone gets into the game. Worse, it makes people think they may have competing interests when, in fact, nothing is further from the truth. Because, if the TA or other well-poisoners want to play that game, they can throw frogs into the drinking water all day. How about this one:

What’s more important? Do you think the Legislature should preserve Vermont’s image of natural beauty and make cleaning up Lake Champlain a priority OR should the legislature protect Vermont’s farming heritage and ignore agricultural discharging or animal feces and pesticide runoff into the Lake?

Same false assumptions and same false priorities. They are easy to “poll,” but hard to explain.

When the equation is: “What’s more important, marriage and family rights or [Fill.In.The.Blank]?” — why even bother to ask the question? Why frame an issue in a way that suggests (as the Governor and other conservatives are also doing) that fixing one problem means ignoring others? I’ll say it again, nothing is further from the truth.

Divisive questions are really nothing more than divisive statements that are really an editorial about a false conflict. And the conflict pits Vermonter against Vermonter. It does not illuminate the subject. It does not pit “this is where we are today” with “this is where we need to be tomorrow – and why.” No, the editorial questioning keeps public policy on a zero-sum reptilian level and ignores what is truly at issue.

Chew on this: Liberals can address more than one serious problem at a time, just like Republicans and conservatives can spend their entire day trying to obstruct and block progress on any work to fix more than one problem at a time. Smell the coffee, assholes.  

When the General Assembly is in session, every State law that is on the books is potentially on the table. Every (1) State dollar of every (2) State funding priority is at issue and every (3) State policy is subject to review. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

The fact is WE ALL have an interest in civil rights. Civil rights is always a top priority. And top priorities do not make anything else less important either.

————————-



UPDATE:  Thank you to Rob Mitchell, of the Times Argus, for commenting on this post.

He re-states the Times Argus’ support for equal marriage rights and comments that:

The editorial of a newspaper is the voice of the publisher and the community we serve. Sometimes the editorial leads the community, sometimes it follows. . . we support gay marriage as a civil right. We said so editorially, and that is separate from our news coverage. . .

We are not just a poll question, we are much more than that. We provide a forum for people to voice their opinions, and we do not discriminate against any opinion – we protect free speech.

It is easy to get fired up about a poll question, but we have put our money where our mouth is in support of equal rights time and time again.

Please see all of his comments including, HERE and HERE, below.  I note there are revisions in my post in light of his comments.

– cl

———————

[** the “poll” is a stolen cookie click’n’refresh feature. Not only is it not a poll, but this means it cannot even gauge reader preference since one person can vote as many times as desired.]

Also, an alert reader directed us to a neutrally worded survey at WPTZ (and one that does not require you to clear or “toss” your cookies!).

 Loading ...

(Very substantive diary addressing Douglas’s proposed cuts. – promoted by Jack McCullough)

she posed the following question re. the decision to close a prison and (presumably) ship more prisoners out of state

“How much does it cost us to export prisoners?  Is that cheaper than running a prison ourselves?”

Doug Hoffer Testimony

House Government Operations

Regarding CCA and the DOC

2 April 2008

We know that the cost of housing a prisoner is cheaper at an out of state (OOS) facility than in Vermont.  But is the comparison apples-to-apples?   If not, the purported savings are exaggerated and could result in bad decisions.  Here are some differences.

1. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) does not provide mental health services.   DOC has not provided data for the actual cost of mental health services in Vermont prisons.

2. CCA does not provide services related to sexual abuse, substance abuse, or violent offenders.   DOC programs not available through CCA include the Cognitive Self Change program for violent offenders; the Intensive Domestic Abuse Program; Batterers Intervention Program; the Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Programs; and the Discover Program for those with substance abuse problems.  

DOC has not provided data for the actual cost of these services in Vermont but they must be substantial.  For example, the treatment programs for sexual abusers include over 100 beds in St Albans, Springfield, and Windsor staffed with 7+ FTE master’s level MH professionals.

3. CCA provides a GED program but, according to DOC, it is not comparable Vermont’s Community High School (CHS).   DOC has not provided data for the actual amount spent by CCA for its GED program or any details about the program.

DOC’s cost for “education” was $3.6 million in FY07.   DOC was unable to say what CCA spends.  When asked to provide comparable figures to reflect the difference in services, DOC adjusted its education costs downward to $1.45 million.  

According to CCA, 120 inmates earned a GED at its Kentucky facility in 2006. But the company did not say how many Vermont inmates went through the program (and DOC did not tell us).  CCA reported that about half the inmates at the Kentucky facility were from Vermont.  But since Vermont does not send inmates under 22 years of age OOS, it is likely that Vermont’s share of CCA GED graduates is less than half the total.  

CHS reported that 148 high school diplomas were awarded in FY07.   DOC describes the CHS as a very substantial program serving hundreds of inmates who log thousands of hours of time in the classroom.  DOC is required to spend the equivalent of the statewide average for public school students (minus trans. & debt service).  Since CCA’s business model is based on cost containment and limited services, the quality of instruction cannot be comparable to the CHS.  

Therefore, without more information, it is difficult to understand DOC’s adjustment from $3.6 million to $1.45 million.  

4. DOC reported spending $13.4 million for medical care – $7,953 per inmate (not including mental health services).   It seems highly unlikely that CCA would spend anywhere near that much since the total annual cost per inmate is only about $23,000.  Thus, notwithstanding the differences due to the economies of scale, there must be significant differences in the health of the two populations and/or the nature and quality of the services provided.  

We asked DOC for information about health care services and costs at CCA facilities, but DOC had none.  When asked, CCA provided information on Vermont inmates’ share of the percentage of total expenditures for medication.  Vermont inmates represented about half the population at the Kentucky facility but accounted for 77% of the total cost for medication (including diabetic, cardiac, HIV, Hepatitis C, and asthma medication).  

The numbers appear compelling but there’s a lot of information missing.  Percentages don’t tell us what the costs are.  For example, 77% of a small amount is no big deal.  And we don’t know whether a significant portion went to a small number of inmates with more serious conditions.  And we don’t know anything about the demographics or medical condition of the Kentucky inmates.  And, most importantly, we don’t (yet) know how the per inmate medication costs for VT inmates in Kentucky compare to the costs at DOC facilities.  The question was about costs, not percentages.

5. The CCA contract calls for the company to provide only the first $2,000 in care outside the facility (it was $20,000). A DOC memo claims this change will cost the state $360,000 per year.   It does not appear that this cost has been added to the published contract costs for OOS prisoners.

6. AHS and DOC staff make periodic visits to the OOS sites for various purposes.  DOC estimated that the cost for FY07 was $139,000.  

All these costs should be taken into consideration when comparing the CCA contract rate and the DOC instate cost.  The bottom line is that a fair comparison can only be made when the characteristics of the population and the services provided are apples-to-apples.  We don’t yet have the data necessary to do this.

CCA only takes inmates who do not need mental health care or specialized treatment programs. And it seems highly unlikely that CCA’s GED program is anything like the full-service high school experience offered by the CHS.  Therefore, it’s not surprising that CCA’s program is so much cheaper; it is the equivalent of an insurance company cherry picking only healthy people.  

What’s the alternative?

We asked the DOC to help explain the differences in the cost structure.  According to DOC, the primary reason is that CCA achieves economies of scale with larger facilities.  This is reflected in Vermont’s figures as well since the larger in-state facilities have lower costs per person.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean the best solution is to outsource.

Note: CCA also keeps the price down by paying very low wages.  The median annual wage for a corrections officer in Kentucky is less than $25,000.

Every dollar spent with CCA is a dollar lost to the Vermont economy.  On the other hand, if we built a new prison, we would have a fifty-year asset large enough to achieve at least some of the economies of scale we need to save money.  And we would get the short-term benefits of the construction and fit-up (tens of millions in local payroll), as well as the long-term benefit of those continuing expenditures for salaries (money circulating in the local economy).

Having said that, I understand that the annual savings appear to be large. But we don’t yet have an apples-to-apples comparison.  Once we do, the question is how do the savings from outsourcing compare to the benefits of building and operating a new facility? This critical question has not been addressed.

Furthermore, if Vermont continues to rely on CCA for more and more beds, the instate infrastructure (physical & human) will be reduced over time from closures, retirement, and layoffs.  If so, what is to prevent CCA (or another vendor) from raising the price when Vermont has even less capacity?  

Miscellany

Some items in DOC’s report to the legislature that merit brief comments.

• The table at the top of page 26 shows the “Hypothetical Cost of Contracting by Facility”. It says the state could save $41 million by outsourcing all of Vermont’s inmates.  This is not accurate.  As discussed above, CCA does not provide a number of very expensive services.  If they were required to do so, the cost would go up accordingly.  In my view, it is terribly misleading to present this kind of information.

• The second table on page 26 shows the projected contract costs for the “New England Option”.  This too shows tens of millions in annual savings but suffers from the same flaws as the first table.  More importantly, it notes that CCA’s per diem cost would likely rise to $80 from $58, in part to cover the capital costs of the new facility.

I ask you to think about this.  Why should Vermont taxpayers pay for a new prison in another state, to be owned not by Vermont but by a private company?  If taxpayers are asked to pay for a new prison, why shouldn’t the facility and the jobs be in Vermont?  This just makes no sense to me.

• Under “Plan C” (Re-Task Several Facilities), the report states “The correctional facilities serve multiple populations and functions, and intersect with the interests of the criminal justice system, law enforcement, cities and towns, victims, families of offenders, advocates, and taxpayers. Each of these stakeholders has a valid interest in Vermont’s current and future correctional system.” (emphasis added)

Sending inmates OOS does not serve families or advocates.