Sunday, August 16, 2009

Health care overhaul


1) The compensation that the White House negotiated with Big Pharma ($80B in cost savings over a decade) may not be actual savings for us at all:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

A memo leaked describing a deal that if the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) made $80B in concessions over 10 years for Medicare drug reimbursements, Uncle Sam won't try to drive a harder bargain for future drug prices, won't import cheaper Canadian drugs, and won't move some drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D (thereby reducing reimbursements). But wasn't the whole point to save patients and the government money on exorbitant drug costs? Obviously an industry trade group wouldn't agree to a cost restructuring deal unless it benefited them in the long run. While they may have to give up $80B now to help make Obamacare appear to be paid for, that is a drop in the bucket considering the windfall sales they will reap as the pill-popping Baby Boomers get older. Just for perspective, the 2 biggest pharmas in terms of revenue are Novartis and Pfizer, who combined cleared $100B in revenue in just a single year, 2008. When the memo first broke, both the White House and PhRMA denied it's authenticity, but later probes by the LA and NY Times quoted administration officials confirming that such a deal occurred. Some in Congress were irate that the White House would cut a secret deal without their involvement, and wanted to tighten the screws on Big Pharma to get more for the taxpayers. Not surprisingly, the White House opposed them and said that generous PhRMA has promised enough. Well, according to OpenSecrets, Obama received over $19M in campaign contributions from the health care sector (over double what McCain got, despite Obama having tougher rhetoric on health care reform and reducing drug prices), of which pharma is a big chunk.

2) Is the "outrage" at health care town halls actually a manifestation of blue collar white America lashing out at their impotence in a changing American cultural and economic landscape?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111922780&ft=1&f=2
http://www.theroot.com/views/birthers-and-jim-crow-20

And of course right-wing radio and the GOP (the stupid wing of the GOP led by Palin at least) are stoking the fires, claiming ridiculous things like Obama's reforms are actually reparations in disguise, Obama is not actually a US citizen (everyone knows he's secretly a Muslim of course), and you and your relatives may have to justify their existence to "death panels" that determine whether you deserve to receive medical care - if the Dems get what they want. And moderate Republican Congressmen are scared stiff of angering the demagogues and populist mob if they make health care reform concessions too. I guess poor white America doesn't feel like America is theirs anymore (as if it ever was), and their "values" are being trampled on with change after change for the worse. What is their place in this unstable, changing world? I am sure current events are scaring college-educated, connected people like us, so one can only imagine how the anger and frustration is boiling over in the Rust Belt or Appalachians. Immigration, gay marriage, bailouts, soft power foreign policy, reforms, climate change, and such fly in the face of what they want America to be - even though the fantasy America they envision for themselves where everyone is free to prosper, no big government meddling in your life, and we are never wrong, has never and will never exist.

One of the Dems major political weaknesses since the Bush years is an inability to reach rural, white, lower income voters (the Dixiecrat voters and such from the JFK/LBJ years that they took for granted). They have tried with outreach by humble-roots white politicians like Biden and Webb, but haven't really had much success. Obama's white support mostly came from educated and higher-income people (UC System, Stanford, Harvard, and Columbia were all top-20 donors to his campaign). It's sad and ironic, because many of the Dems' social initiatives would really benefit poor whites, but conservative media and dogma have persuaded those people to hate the Dems who they think are selling this country down the river. And yet the GOP policies of deregulation, deficit spending, and low taxes contributed to their jobs being outsourced, cost of living rising well ahead of wages, and defaulting on their ARM. Remember the Howard Dean comment that his party has to connect with the voters who drive pickups with the Confederate flag bumper stickers? He got a lot of heat for that (especially from his rivals like Southerner John Edwards), and maybe it cost him the Dem nomination, but his underlying argument was sound, if very awkwardly worded. Though Obama and the Dems seem more scared to tackle the poor white issue than the black-white issue. If the Dems can successfully reach out to that demographic (I highly doubt it after so many years and a widening political gulf), then they would deplete the GOP to what it really is - a party for extremist Christians and rich champions of the military-industrial complex.

3) So much for a public insurance option:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

-------

Thought this was amusing and on-topic:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/89817/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-glenn-becks-operation

-------

LOL thanks M! He just has to be outraged about someting, even both sides of the same issue. I didn't realize Beck changed networks (not that I watch either). I would love to see a Battle Royale between Beck, Hannity, Rush, Savage, and Poppa Bear to see who is the biggest conservative propagandist prick alive. Oh, almost forgot to include Malkin vs. Coulter for the undercard.... jello wrestling.


If Beck thinks we have the "best health care" in the world, he must be taking too much oxycontin after his ass surgery (it was a complex procedure to make him an even bigger asshole).

--------

The WHO last ranked national health systems in 2000, and probably won't again because the metrics are getting too complex, but here were the rankings for those who haven't seen:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei


Life expectancy from 1997-99 (and it's much lower for African-Americans and the poor):

Rank Overall life expectancy

1 Japan 74.5
2 Australia 73.2
3 France 73.1
4 Sweden 73.0
5 Spain 72.8
6 Italy 72.7
7 Greece 72.5
8 Switzerland 72.5
9 Monaco 72.4
10 Andorra 72.3
11 San Marino 72.3
12 Canada 72.0
13 Netherlands 72.0
14 United Kingdom 71.7
15 Norway 71.7
16 Belgium 71.6
17 Austria 71.6
18 Luxembourg 71.1
19 Iceland 70.8
20 Finland 70.5
21 Malta 70.5
22 Germany 70.4
23 Israel 70.4
24 United States 70.0

Rank Country or territory Infant mortality rate
(deaths/1,000 live births) Under-five mortality rate
(deaths/1,000 live births)
1 Iceland2.93.9
2 Singapore3.04.1
3 Japan3.24.2
4 Sweden3.24.0
5 Norway3.34.4
6 Hong Kong3.74.7
7 Finland3.74.7
8 Czech Republic3.84.8
9 Switzerland4.15.1
10 South Korea4.14.8
11 Belgium4.25.3
12 France4.25.2
13 Spain4.25.3
14 Germany4.35.4
15 Denmark4.45.8
16 Austria4.45.4
17 Australia4.45.6
18 Luxembourg4.56.6
19 Netherlands4.75.9
20 Israel4.75.7
21 Slovenia4.86.4
22 United Kingdom4.86.0
23 Canada4.85.9
24 Ireland4.96.2
25 Italy5.06.1
26 Portugal5.06.6
27 New Zealand5.06.4
28 Cuba5.16.5
29Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey)5.26.2
30 Brunei5.56.7
31 Cyprus5.96.9
32 New Caledonia6.18.7
33 United States6.37.8


Total health expenditures as %GDP, 2000-05:

Rank Location 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1 Marshall Islands 22 19.1 18.4 16.3 13.2 15.4
2 United States of America 13.2 13.9 14.7 15.1 15.2 15.2
3 Niue 8 38.1 11.1 12.5 15.5 14.5
4 Timor-Leste 8.8 8.6 8.5 9.2 10.3 13.7
5 Micronesia (Fed. States of) 9 9.8 9.1 10.7 11.7 13.5
6 Kiribati 11.6 12.3 12.6 13.7 13.7 12.7
7 Maldives 6.8 6.8 6.6 7.2 7.8 12.4
8 Malawi 6.1 7.8 10 12.8 12.8 12.2
9 Switzerland 10.3 10.7 11 11.4 11.4 11.4
10 France 9.6 9.7 10 10.9 11 11.2
11 Germany 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.8 10.6 10.7
12 Jordan 9.4 9.6 9.3 9.3 10.1 10.5
13 Nauru 11 10.8 10.6 10.3 10.4 10.3
14 Argentina 8.9 9.5 8.9 8.3 9.6 10.2
15 Austria 10 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.2
16 Portugal 8.8 8.8 9 9.7 10 10.2
17 Greece 9.3 9.8 9.7 10 9.6 10.1
18 Canada 8.8 9.3 9.6 9.8 9.8 9.8
19 Sao Tome and Principe 6.3 9.1 8.6 11.9 12.1 9.8
20 Belgium 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.6

Health expenditures per capita, OECD nations 2000:

Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States:$4,631.00 per capita
# 2 Switzerland:$3,222.00 per capita
# 3 Germany:$2,748.00 per capita
# 4 Iceland:$2,608.00 per capita
# 5 Canada:$2,535.00 per capita
# 6 Denmark:$2,420.00 per capita
# 7 France:$2,349.00 per capita
= 8 Belgium:$2,268.00 per capita
= 8 Norway:$2,268.00 per capita
# 10 Netherlands:$2,246.00 per capita
# 11 Australia:$2,211.00 per capita
# 12 Austria:$2,162.00 per capita
# 13 Italy:$2,032.00 per capita
# 14 Japan:$2,011.00 per capita
# 15 Ireland:$1,953.00 per capita
# 16 United Kingdom:$1,764.00 per capita
# 17 Finland:$1,664.00 per capita
# 18 New Zealand:$1,623.00 per capita
# 19 Spain:$1,556.00 per capita
# 20 Portugal:$1,439.00 per capita
# 21 Greece:$1,399.00 per capita
# 22 Czech Republic:$1,031.00 per capita
# 23 Hungary:$842.00 per capita
# 24 Slovakia:$690.00 per capita
# 25 Mexico:$491.00 per capita


Putting that all together, we see that we are paying a ton for health care and health outcomes that far lag behind those evil socialized medicine nations in Western Europe, Asia, and Canada. Maybe one can argue that America's lower life expectancy is also due to lifestyle (overeating, stress) and culture (guns, car accidents), not just health care. While that may be true, our smoking and binge drinking rates are much lower than most of Europe, yet many of those nations outlive us. But the biggest, most shameful metric is infant mortality. That is pretty much an even playing field to judge. Unless American mothers are prone to pregnancy complications and unhealthy parenting (no strong data to support that), it's the responsibility of the health care providers to monitor fetuses, birth those children, and make sure they have a good chance to reach adulthood. Our I.M. rate is 50% higher than France and double Japan's. Unacceptable. Especially when you consider that we commit 15% GDP to health care vs. 11% for France, or $4.6k per capita vs. France's $2.4k. Maybe that's not fair since France is ranked #1 by the WHO. But still, look at the other nations that devote >12% GDP to health care. They're either small or poor, which means they don't have much GDP to spread around anyway. We have the largest GDP, so we're wasting incredible amounts of money on sub-prime care.

Critics of Obamacare are not allowed to say that he is tampering with a great system, because the evidence is just not there. They can criticize Obama reform for cost, scale, rules, and planning, but even Mitch McConnell said that the GOP knows our health system needs some sort of reform too, it just depends on what shape it takes. So only a cretin (no offense to Greeks from Crete) would think that we're doing fine on the national level. Sure Ted Kennedy and Patrick Swayze are getting the "best health care in the world", and best care will still be available (even under a single-payer system) to those who can pay for it out of pocket, but on average the US has a long way to go before we can crown our asses (Dennis Green-ism).

Thursday, August 13, 2009

The nightmare of CA's prison system


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426

A must-read/hear, and I don't say that much.

Those of us who have the misfortune of living in dysfunctional CA already know some of this, but it's really sick how the prison guard's union has really capitalized on human misery to gain money, numbers, and power. The people claiming to hold the line between the dangerous criminals and the vulnerably citizenry are the ones making the crime problem worse. Like the pharma-medical industries, they partially exist to help people, but mainly exist to help themselves. Currently 10% of state corrections employees make six figures. There's more money in treatments than cures. Repeatedly locking up people instead of educating and rehabilitating them may increase the prison guards' job security, but it bankrupts the state and makes our streets actually less safe.

And then there were the grandstanding GOP politicians like ex-governor Pete Wilson seeking to "get tough on crime". Yes the crack epidemic promoted terrible gang problems and violence in urban centers. Something had to be done, but instead of increasing drug treatment and education programs, they just made sentencing tougher. People who show a total disrespect for the law and public safety should be punished accordingly, but a nonviolent pot smoker doesn't pose the same criminal threat as Pablo Escobar. Wilson and company wanted to make California's streets safe for Joe Blow suburbanite consumer, so of course that meant locking up Jose and Mookie of the underclasses (and in dozens of cases, giving them lethal injection too). And middle-to-upper class CA supported it. What kind of society is that where we incarcerate people we don't feel comfortable with? And it's not like those same suburbanites weren't snorting blow, hiring illegal immigrant nannies, or cheating on their taxes either.

Out of sight, out of mind. Using a marketing campaign of extreme examples of extreme criminality, con men like Wilson and Reagan (remember the Willie Horton ad?) scared us silly, to the point where we would gladly cancel indeterminate sentencing in favor of mandatory (so forget the hope of early release for good behavior), and imprison someone for their entire life for stealing a TV three times, or being in the same car while a kidnapping was taking place. Missing one parole meeting would send you back to the slammer. Since Wilson's time, CA's prison population rose from 20,000 to 167,000. Yet the number of violent, maximum security convicts has remained relatively stable. The difference is the "petty offenders", who only get nastier in the racist, inhumane confines of prison instead of rehabilitated. And some depraved prison guards even derive entertainment from that tragedy. CA has set inmates up for failure, and the 75% recidivism rate proves it. Despite all these extra people locked away, CA is not really a safer place now than 1980. Some cities even suggest the contrary. Overall US crime and CA crime did drop a lot in the 1990s, but rates have rebounded in this decade. Yet the prison population has only risen steadily, so there isn't a correlation. Those politicians, prison guard's union, and apathetic, intolerant suburban voters (yes that's us), have hurt the state far worse than a million Crips ever could.

Well our bigotry and overzeal of the past have now come home to roost. Apart from the obvious challenges to our budget ($10B a year to keep the "prison industrial complex" running, on par with our entire "bloated" education budget), we have to live with the moral stain that Californians chose the path of apartheid - and I don't say that lightly. Conditions in our prisons are so horrible that we are probably in violation of the Constitution, and I'm not even talking about the assaults, rapes, and riots. Inadequate health care causes hundreds to die each year of treatable conditions, and the court-appointed receiver for prison health reform believes we would need to spend at least $2.5B in construction and $0.48B annually just to provide the legal minimum service. We've created a monster who is eating us out of house and home. The prisoners are not the monsters; it's the system and those who gain from its existence.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/cj_primer/cj_primer_013107.aspx
http://www.facts1.com/general/Casey.htm

----------

Folsom Embodies California's Prison Blues

by Laura Sullivan


August 13, 2009

In January 1968, Johnny Cash set up his band on a makeshift stage in the cafeteria at Folsom State Prison in California.

"Hello, I'm Johnny Cash," he said in his deep baritone to thunderous applause. Song after song, the inmates thumped their fists and cheered from the same steel benches now bolted to the floor.

The morning that Cash played may have been the high-water mark for Folsom — and for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The men in the cafeteria lived alone in their own prison cells. Almost every one of them was in school or learning a professional trade. The cost of housing them barely registered on the state budget. And when these men walked out of Folsom free, the majority of them never returned to prison.

It was a record no other state could match.

Things have changed. California's prisons are all in a state of crisis. And nowhere is this more visible than at Folsom today.

Overcrowded, Underfunded
A Look at Folsom Prison

Credit: Amy Walters and Laura Sullivan/NPR

Folsom was built to hold 1,800 inmates. It now houses 4,427.

It's once-vaunted education and work programs have been cut to just a few classes, with waiting lists more than 1,000 inmates long.

Officers are on furlough. Its medical facility is under federal receivership. And like every other prison in the state, 75 percent of the inmates who are released from Folsom today will be back behind bars within three years.

California's prison system costs $10 billion a year. Its crumbling, overcrowded facilities are home to the highest recidivism rate in the country. And the state that was once was the national model in corrections has become the model every state is now trying to avoid.

'Kind Of Like A Pressure Cooker'

Lt. Anthony Gentile, spokesman for Folsom, stands in the prison's empty cafeteria, beneath chipping paint, rusting pipes and razor wire.

"There's drug activity, gang activity," Gentile says. "It's kind of like a pressure cooker."

Where a photographer stood 40 years ago and captured Cash's famous concert, an officer now stands in a metal cage. He's armed with three guns and pepper spray.

When they're confined in this environment, the problems tend to simmer and stay there. It creates somewhat of the mob mentality.

- Lt. Anthony Gentile, spokesman for Folsom

There are now 15 to 20 assaults a week here at Folsom. And while inmates used to mix with one another, Folsom today is entirely segregated by race — in the cafeteria, on the yard and in the cell blocks.

"When they're confined in this environment," Gentile says, "the problems tend to simmer and stay there. It creates somewhat of the mob mentality."

To figure out how California could have gotten to such a place, you have to start in Sacramento.

Jeanne Woodford is one of four secretaries that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has had in the past five years. She spent 30 years in the department. As secretary, she lasted two months.

"Honestly, I was very hopeful when I went up there," Woodford said about Sacramento. "I thought it was all about the right policy and the right principle. It's really about the money."

And lots of it. California can't afford its prisons. Taxpayers spend as much money locking people up as they do on the state's entire education system.

How Did Things Get So Bad?

Experts agree that the problem started when Californians voted for a series of get-tough-on-crime laws in the 1980s. The state's prison population exploded immediately. It jumped from 20,000 inmates, where it had held steady throughout the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. Today there are 167,000 inmates in the system.

Jeanne Woodford was warden of San Quentin during the prison population boom.

"The violence just went out of control," she remembers. "And then the programs started going away. I was there during an 18-month lockdown. It was just unbelievably horrific."

California wasn't the only state to toughen laws in the throes of the 1980s crack wars. But Californians took it to a new level.

Voters increased parole sanctions and gave prison time to nonviolent drug offenders. They eliminated indeterminate sentencing, removing any leeway to let inmates out early for good behavior. Then came the "Three Strikes You're Out" law in 1994. Offenders who had committed even a minor third felony — like shoplifting — got life sentences.
Derrick Poole is enrolled in Folsom's mill and cabinetry program.
Enlarge Laura Sullivan/NPR

Derrick Poole is enrolled in Folsom's mill and cabinetry program. Due to the high prison population and budget problems, Poole is one of only 10 percent of Folsom inmates who can participate in the prison's vocational programs.

Voters at the time were inundated with television ads, pamphlets and press conferences from Gov. Pete Wilson. "Three strikes is the most important victory yet in the fight to take back our streets," Wilson told crowds.

But behind these efforts to get voters to approve these laws was one major player: the correctional officers union.

A Prison Guard Union With Political Muscle

In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law.

And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year.

Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its members.

"We have advocated successfully for our members," he said.

But he disputes that the union has purposefully tried to increase the prison population.

"The notion that we are some prison industrial complex, or that we are recruiting felons or trying to change laws, is a misnomer," he said.

Money And Influence

I think that prisons should be a place where an individual has the opportunity to change if they choose to and we move forward from there.

- Fulsom Warden Michael Evans

Campaign records, however, show much of the funding to promote and push for the passage of the laws came from a political action committee the union created. It is run out of a group called Crime Victims United of California.

Its director, Harriet Salarno, says the committee is independent from the union. But a review of the PAC's financial records shows the PAC has not received a donation from another group besides the union since 2004.

Corcoran does not deny that the two are closely connected.

"We support a number of victims' rights groups," he said.

When asked why the correctional officers union is involved in victims' rights at all, Corcoran said: "There are people that think that there's some sort of ulterior motive, but the reality is we simply want to make sure [the victims'] voices are heard."

But Corcoran acknowledges that the union has benefited from the increase in the prison population after these laws passed.

"We've had the opportunity to grow," Corcoran says, "and that has brought with it both success and criticism."

Secret Dealings With The Governor

Woodford says she stepped down as secretary of the corrections department when she found out that the union had been going on behind her back to negotiate directly with the governor's office.

"The union is incredibly powerful," Woodford says.

Former Secretary Roderick Hickman resigned for the same reason in February 2006.

"The biggest problem that I had was the relationship that I had with the union," Hickman says.

Hickman says the union was able to control the department's policy decisions, including undermining efforts to divert offenders from prison and reduce the prison population.

"Maybe I was just impatient," he says, "or it wasn't going to go fast enough, but [the department] is still in the same place I left it, with an over $8 billion budget. Now it's over $10 billion."

Today, 70 percent of that budget goes to pay salaries and benefits to the union and staff. Just 5 percent of the budget goes to education and vocational programs — the kind of programs that study after study in the past 10 years has found will keep inmates from returning to prison.

Shop Talk: A Chance To Cross Race Lines

From the instant you walk through the metal doors of the mill and cabinetry workshop at Folsom, you get a different feeling from other parts of the prison. In the shop on a recent day, a group of black, white and Latino inmates are bent over a table, talking to each other, discussing measurements for a conference table.

"When we're down here, we put all the politics to the side," says inmate Derrick Poole as he works on the table's legs. "It gives us a place to go where we can we can get out of the prison politics gang, where we don't get along, where we don't socialize outside our race. We socialize outside our race here."

Poole is spending nine years at Folsom for drug possession with intent to sell. In his life, he has been released from prison at least six times that he can remember. It hasn't worked out well.

"When I got out, you kind of lose your social skills," Poole said. "You get used to segregating yourself. You already weren't learned on the street. Then you come in here and you're not learning, and now your mind is more hollow, more empty."

Poole got very lucky this time, beating out hundreds of others to land a spot among just 27 inmates in the cabinetry program. When he's done, Poole will be an accredited woodworker with his GED.

Most of the men in Folsom won't be so fortunate. Just across from the cabinetry shop, program administrator and school Principal Jean Bracy sits in her makeshift office next to the welding class. She knows the statistics by heart.

"I have 1,797 inmates who read below the 9th grade level; 394 of those read below the 4th grade level," Bracy says. "When we put them back out on the streets, they're not employable."

And back on the streets is where 85 percent of all California's inmates are going one day when their sentences run out, regardless of whether they spent their time in prison dealing drugs and running a gang or learning how to weld.

Bracy only has a handful of vocational programs left, enough to reach less than 10 percent of Folsom's inmates — and the state plans to cut even that in half in the next few weeks.

"I think this is the worst I've ever seen it," Bracy says.

'A Merry-Go-Round'

It only costs her about $100,000 to run these programs — not even a blip in a $10 billion-a-year prison budget. But, says Bracy, the programs are always the first to go. Sometimes she almost feels like giving up.

"It's just not cost-effective to throw men and women in prison and then do nothing with them," she said. "And shame on us for thinking that's safety. It's not public safety. You lock them up and do nothing with them. They go out not even equal to what they came in but worse."

The numbers bear that out, with 90,000 inmates returning to California's prisons every year.

But compare that to the Braille program here at Folsom. Inmates are learning to translate books for the blind. In 20 years, not a single inmate who has been part of the program has ever returned to prison. This year, the program has been cut back to 19 inmates.

Out on the prison yard, one of the oldtimers, an inmate named Ed Steward — or "Lefty" — sits in old chair in the only bit of shade on the dusty dirt field. He watches the inmates stand in groups by their race and shakes his head.

"Nowadays, you know, the kids are just coming through this like it's a merry-go-round," he said. "Like there's nothing to it."

Most of these inmates here on this yard aren't here for serious or violent crimes. The number of inmates incarcerated in California's prisons for murder, assault or rape has been relatively unchanged in two decades. The difference is this yard is now packed with drug dealers and drug users, car thieves and shoplifters who stole something worth more than $500.

What Used To Be

But all across this prison are signs of what this place once was — when administrators came from New York and Texas to find out how Folsom kept its violence so low and its inmates from coming back.

There's the deserted shop where inmates used to train to be butchers; it was closed when the prison couldn't afford to remove the asbestos.

Its thriving medical facility was shuttered when it couldn't keep up with thousands of new inmates.

And hovering above the prison is China Hill, a now-barren field where inmates once trained to become landscapers. The prison can't afford to pay the teacher.

Warden Michael Evans can see China Hill just outside his office. Its meaning is not lost on him.

"If I have a dog and I put him in a cage and I beat [him] regularly, ultimately [it] will bite me when I open that door," he said.

After three decades working in corrections, Evans says he has come to one conclusion.

"I think that prisons should be a place where an individual has the opportunity to change if they choose to," he said, "and we move forward from there."

For now, California is at a standstill, unable to find the money to move forward with a different strategy, unable to move backward to a time when it didn't need one.

--------

In addition to being rife with typos and grammatical errors this article is disheartening from a topical perspective as well... There's a reason why it's possible to hear of a prison colloquially referred to as "Crime University" and it's a shame that we continue to push in the same direction with respect to criminal justice rather than stopping to consider whether an alternative approach might be feasible (e.g. Vipassana)...

--------

the three strikes prgrm works fine, it is the overwhelming number of prisoners in the jail system that is the problem which is the obvious problem...we simply need to reintroduce the death penalty to separate the "strikers" from the true "strikers" - i watched a documentary that showed an overwhelming ratio of inmate to guard in the prison system in the california system - it was something like 15 to 1 that is what they are dealing with...fights, riots, etc are occuring on a daily basis and this will continue to happen with our economy as it is - the prison system is a low priority - obama does not have that on the top of his list...

--------

What are we going to do? Kill people for possession of pot? Stealing a bike? There are a number of 3 strikers in jail along with drug possession criminals filling the cells in CA. My suggestions?
1. the state needs to take ownership of the prison system. They're privatized at this point and full beds means more income for these investors. Who's one of the biggest investors in the private CA prison system? Bar Bush. The private prisons get 50K per inmate per year. Hell, what if we gave these people 35K a year to live on their own? Oh, I'm sorry that would be welfare, giving people money for nothing. What's prison? Maybe we should do like they did in a prison in Tennesee? They were starving the inmates so the management could pocket the extra money.
2. legalize drugs, let all people out of jail immediately that are there for drug arrests, period.
3. Assess risk to the population based upon violence and keep those that are violent out of the general population. Unfortunately, soon all of them will be dangerous to the general population b/c they're being tortured in jail. They use sleep deprivation, bright lights and isolation in these systems. I know someone who'd been there and saw it firsthand.
4. Lock up the real violent criminals-Rumsfeld, Cheney, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove. Let them share a 6X10 cell with a toilet in the corner.

--------

Some of what you proposed may happen anyway, due to economic forces. Because of prison overcrowding, they are releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of elderly or minor-offense convicts early. Drug legalization always seems to be on the table (at the back of the table), but now with CA's deficit it seems like a reasonable price to pay for the extra revenue. Amsterdam did not deteriorate into Gomorrah, and it is much better than most, if not all, US cities.

If the prison guards treated the inmates better and tried to forge a respectful relationship, then there would be less violence. In other prisons around the world (maybe not in the US, but definitely in the past), guards don't even carry weapons. There is no lock down and solitary confinement. If you want people to treat you right, start by treating them right. And for how much we want to forget, inmates are still human beings.

I do not know how many of our life-sentence inmates are there for Three Strikes, but it is not an effective program. As I said, overall US and CA crime did drop precipitously in the 1990s. But that would have happened with or without Three Strikes. If you've read Freakanomics, the author has a very controversial theory on the reason behind US crime reduction (he cites the legalization of abortion in the 1960s putting fewer poor, desperate, crime-prone people on the streets by the 1990s, but also increases in law enforcement budget/personnel, reduced crack use, and prosperous economic conditions). We have to use data and predictions to estimate how much worse crime would have been without Three Strikes. Since it's installment of 1994, a GWU study charted its enforcement county-by-county. Since different CA counties enforced Three Strikes more or less strictly, if the program worked, you would expect crime rates to have decreased the most in counties where the enforcement was strictest. But there was no correlation, despite Sacramento's assurances that the program "drastically" reduced crime. So we're spending a lot of extra money and ruining more lives for very little social benefit.

The punishment is not proportional. Yes it's terrible if you are convicted for a felony three times in your life, but it does not warrant losing your freedom forever. Violent crime is another matter, and usually the sentencing for those offenses become de facto life terms anyway. Actually reading up on Three Strikes, it seems that the first two strikes have to be "serious" felonies, and the third can be any felony (auto theft, burglary, property theft >$500, even if no one is hurt). The second strike mandates 2X length of normal sentencing, and the third strike you are in prison for 25 to life. Good behavior rewards are reduced from 50 to 20% of sentence. And even for non-violent, non-escape-risk inmates, they are not permitted to serve their time in county jails, probation, or house arrest (as they used to do in the past) - further bloating the prison population. I was not in the state at the time, but in 2004 there was a Proposition 66 that would have toned down Three Strikes at a savings of several hundred million dollars per year to the state. It was narrowly voted down (53% to 47%), so that shows nearly as many Californians disapprove of Three Strikes as approve.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_Strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4009/index1.html

Or maybe the better solution is prevention. As L said, why spend $50k per prisoner when you can spend a fraction of that on social programs and urban outreach? Attack the seeds of crime before they grow. Poverty and low education are heavily correlated with criminality. But again, that would reduce job security for cops and prison guards, so no-go. They would rather spend millions on GPS parolee tracking, Tazers, Kevlar, assault rifles, and faster cars. You can't get rid of 100% of crime, but the whole point is getting the most bang for your buck, and hopefully doing it humanely. Yeah the private prisons idea is terrible. Just another way to fleece the gov't, like defense contracts. But it's the gov'ts fault too for shirking their responsibility on this serious issue, and passing it off to the for-profit "private sector" that is supposedly more efficient.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Sotomayor confirmation


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080401691.html?wprss=rss_nation
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/24/20090524obama-court0524.html

"Latinos see [Sotomayor] as a symbol of Hispanic leadership in America," said Lionel Sosa, a Latino political strategist who has advised several presidential candidates on Hispanic outreach, including McCain. "If they vote against Sotomayor, it's a vote against Hispanic leadership in America. That's the way Latino voters will see it."

Well if they see it that way, then they are idiots.

It's not good for the country if symbolism and identity take too prominent a role in politics. Just because you oppose a public official doesn't mean you oppose their entire ethnic group's involvement in politics. It's like how AIPAC and other groups blanketly label any Israel critics as anti-Semitic. That is a sad reflection on our country and our political culture if some Latino-American politicians and activists threaten to punish any GOP "no" votes during the next election cycle. What does that say about their community if they feel the need to bully and blackmail opponents into agreement? The NRA and right-wing radio are doing the same thing for any Republicans who confirm Sotomayor, so what are they to do? I hope the Latino-American political machine doesn't want to lower itself to the level of the NRA and Limbaugh. I know it's not like they're in the streets with torches and pitchforks, but still I would hope for more restraint. If Sotomayor truly is the most worthy nominee in the eyes of the Latino community (and I doubt many even bothered to read up on her beyond the sound bites, or share much in common with her beyond speaking Spanish), then they should trust that the public, media, and Senate will come to the same conclusion. And if some don't, well you can't please everyone. Let the political process, which they seek greater visibility in, work.

Sotomayor probably well exceeds qualifications for the job. But it's not like she is the overwhelming obvious choice. Other names floating around were Kagan, Wood, Granholm, Wardlaw, and Napolitano (all white women), and their records are similarly impressive. Obama is playing politics too, and it would be a great boost to the Democrats for them to take credit for her historic nomination, considering that Latino swing votes may become more influential in future elections. It shouldn't be so consequential, but that is reality. And there's no need to play affirmate action with our High Court. Yes it would be nice if the Nine represent their country's demographics and were also the top judicators in the land, but it's not like we need quotas for various minorities. We are supposed to pick the most qualified, blindly. At least Sotomayor knocks off two categories: female and Latina. But if America worries about quotas and representation, then why nominate another Catholic when 5 of 8 justices are already Catholics?

After all, she will surely be confirmed despite 28 or so GOP nays. So what is the point of all their fussing? Maybe it's just media overexposure, but still this should really be a non-issue. I guess they wanted to hit a home run with nay votes in the teens or fewer, to send a positive message for Obama and the Latino community. And to put things in perspective, she is but one vote out of nine, and not even a swing vote. The court still leans conservative. Probably LA Mayor Villeraigosa is a more influential Latino leader, and he was elected directly by the people, unlike the undemocratic Senate-decided life term of a justice. Latino-Americans vote majority Democrat, so I don't remember them threatening Democrat senators over no-votes for Alberto Gonzales' nomination by Bush to AG a few years ago. He was a "historic" first Latino to that position too. Lastly, I don't recall the black community threatening the opposition party for refusing to support Thurgood Marshall, Eric Holder, or even Barack Obama - all three being the first African-Americans to their respective positions. I guess the GOP figured it was a moot point, since blacks vote over 90% Democrat anyway (even if the candidate isn't black), so very few additional votes to lose. But maybe it matters more with Latinos, who are projected to occupy a much larger slice of the American population in the coming decades vs. other minorities.

Pro-Sotomayor Republicans say that they are disappointed with their party for placing ideology concerns over professional qualifications over the Sotomayor confirmation. Well unfortunately for a Supreme Court nominee, ideology is part of your qualifications. Maybe that is true for most jobs in Washington (remember the attorney firings during the Bush years?). But probably they have little to worry about, since Sotomayor was rumored to be under consideration by right-winger Bush for the Supreme Court opening that Alito eventually took. Liberals would do the same thing against nominees who may want to overturn Roe-v-Wade, prohibit gay marriage, or other sensitive liberal issues. Of course nominees are smart enough to keep mum about their personal views during the long-winded confirmation hearings, and will come up with all sorts of confusing excuses to explain their past controversial comments, because they want the job so badly - and I guess we all do the same at job interviews.

I only have one thing to add about the "wise Latina" comments. She can say whatever she wants as a private citizen off duty, and that has nothing to do with her professional performance. But anyone who declares herself as "wise" demonstrates the contrary. The truly wise don't have to announce it to anyone, and Pascal said, "Do you wish people to think well of you? Don't speak well of yourself. " Gandhi followed with, "It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." That comes from two of the wisest humans in history. She wasn't wise enough to maintain her marriage, and has no children (and nothing edifies a person like having kids). So by missing out on those "life experiences", can she empathize as well as the other justices with families? She's very bright and a geek of the law. She's wise in the courtroom, but probably not on the streets. That's no better or worse than the other justices, so she and the public should stop trying to claim that she's something more. I don't mean to be so harsh on her, but suffering through her boooooring confirmation hearings on NPR for a week made me bitter! I think Sir Oscar Wilde summed up the Senate confirmation hearings process well ahead of his time: "In examinations, the foolish ask questions the wise cannot answer.”

She says that her background will help her empathize and understand more cases/people than a white male justice. But Sotomayor does not think, act, and live like a typical Latino-American now and for many years. She is rich and powerful, and actually lives more like an upper class white. Although much "poorer" than recent millionaire nominees Roberts and Alito, her net worth is over $770k plus full judge salary pension after she turns 65, according to NYT. The Pew Hispanic Center cited the median net worth of Latino American households at $7,900 in 2002, and I doubt it's much better now. So how much does she have in common with people who are 100X poorer? I am sure she is well versed in Latino issues from books and colleagues, but it has been decades since she was a poor Puerto Rican from the Bronx. It's just like the Obamas - what kind of personal/social connection do they have with the African Americans in Oakland or Alabama? Yet those communities love and embrace them as if they are a product of their neighborhood. I guess that is the "cult of personality". We love and vote for people who we identify with (in our minds at least), which is sadly no better than the fragmented Afghans and sectarian Iraqis.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Problems with our Afghanistan approach


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/stew01_.html

I found these 3 quotes from the author to be most telling:

-Counter-insurgency is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for state-building.
-Americans are particularly unwilling to believe that problems are insoluble.
-The new UK strategy for Afghanistan is... not a plan; it is a description of what we have not got.

From Rory Stewart, Kennedy School of Government, Afghanistan expert. NATO may find it a lot harder to achieve Iraq-level "success" in Afghanistan (how disheartening is that?). A troop surge may buy time for government to fill the Taleban void, reconcile the hostile groups, and improve the rule of law/human services, except that this is the Afghan government we're talking about - completely incapable of doing any of that. It's not necessarily their fault, since Afghanistan is one of the 10 poorest nations on Earth, very remote/harsh, with a very under-educated populace, and recovering from decades of war and social turmoil. In addition, there are no marginalized, deal-making Sunnis to "awaken" to our side, and Afghanistan is geographically larger than Iraq yet we've devoted 38% fewer troops: 146,000 for Iraq vs. 90,000 for Afghanistan (that is including the less motivated, experienced, risk-taking non-US forces, as well as the upper estimate of Obama's 2009 surge request). But of course military models recommend a force of at least 500,000 to properly stabilize a nation like Afghanistan. That is impossible, and so is this: the Pentagon seeks to train and deploy a combined Afghan security force of approx. 450,000 men to take over as we draw down (assuming Surge part 2 succeeds). But supporting such a force would require 500% of Afghanistan's current budget (narco-commerce not included).

This is what Obama recently said of the Afghanistan challenge:

[The Afghan gov't] is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency . . . If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can . . . For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralysed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls. The return in force of al-Qaida terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.

‘There can be only one winner: democracy and a strong Afghan state,’ Gordon Brown predicted in his most recent speech on the subject.

Well that leaves very little room for error, doesn't it? Isn't this the same problem Bush/Blair had justifying/selling the Iraq quagmire? I guess Democrats can do fear-mongering too, like LBJ in Vietnam. Just as it was ludicrous to fear that Saddam would equip terrorists with WMD to strike America, it's unrealistic to think that Western inaction will lead to Taleban/Qaeda takeover of 2 failed states and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. And it's not a foregone conclusion that those 2 groups will even be able to cooperate in the future, as they have poor track records and clearly different objectives.

And Stewart continues: It misleads us in several respects simultaneously: minimising differences between cultures, exaggerating our fears, aggrandising our ambitions, inflating a sense of moral obligations and power, and confusing our goals. All these attitudes are aspects of a single worldview and create an almost irresistible illusion. It conjures nightmares of ‘failed states’ and ‘global extremism’, offers the remedies of ‘state-building’ and ‘counter-insurgency’, and promises a final dream of ‘legitimate, accountable governance’. The path is broad ... general ... and almost too abstract to be defined or refuted. It papers over the weakness of the international community: our lack of knowledge, power and legitimacy. It conceals the conflicts between our interests: between giving aid to Afghans and killing terrorists. It assumes that Afghanistan is predictable. It makes our policy seem a moral obligation, makes failure unacceptable, and alternatives inconceivable. It does this so well that a more moderate, minimalist approach becomes almost impossible to articulate.

Sounds like a blast from the past. New administration but same ignorance, hubris, and vague/misplaced goals. Yes it's true that the stakes are great and Afghanistan is a critical foreign policy priority, but framing the discussion in this manner is not helpful or responsible. In other words, we can't approach Afghanistan as a test of wills or a holy war. That is how our opponents think (or so some say), and that is what they want from us. Yet strangely everyone and their mother are on board for Obama's plan (the UN, aid groups, NATO, our Muslim allies, and even Afghans). It's just because they hate/fear the oppressive Taleban so much, and are terribly war-weary and desperate. We all hope that an increase in troops will magically fix Afghanistan, but we have to remember history and consider the objective data.

Stewart suggests a sleeker approach with less of a Western footprint on Afghanistan. Nation-building must be an Afghan-driven process, and nothing that we implement will work well or last. Our special forces operations to cripple Qaeda have been effective since 2001, so let's continue that instead of clogging the battlefield and Afghan communities with our regular troops that weren't built or trained for this delicate, difficult purpose. Careful air strikes and 20,000 special forces are enough for surgical missions that will place fewer civilians at risk. If we truly want to increase the rule of law, government functionality, and development over there, then we should stop pretending and actually seriously fund/equip those projects to the level that is required. So we need more boots on the ground for sure, just not boots toting rifles.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Cash for clunkers


http://www.cars.gov/
http://www.kbb.com/kbb/cash-for-clunkers/list.aspx
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111456626&ft=1&f=1006

I question the necessity and execution of this program. Yes it appears to be a success when the $1B CARS fund has nearly depleted after a week of enrollment, and the House quickly passed another $2B replenishment. Assuming that the average rebate is $4,000, that means 250,000 new car sales were subsidized by CARS (assuming no overhead and clunker junking costs). But what is the purpose of the program? A) to get surplus new vehicles off dealer lots, B) to make America's auto fleet less polluting, and/or C) to help consumers fight the recession with increased spending and enjoy the quality-of-life benefits of a new car? And shouldn't this program accomplish those goals fairly and efficiently?

Well let's look at goal A. If Uncle Sam wanted to incentivize Americans to buy more cars (and more fuel-efficient cars... tie-in to goal B), why not just give a tax rebate for buying high-MPG vehicles? Hybrids already have a tax credit, and under the Bush admin. they even gave polluting mega-trucks and SUVs up to a $12k tax break if the vehicle was used for a small business (an easily abused condition). Efficient vehicles are already cheaper than gas-guzzlers, and it's easier to get a great deal for a new car these days, but maybe another $1-2k off the sticker price would help consumers do the right thing. Because if the Feds are essentially rewarding consumers for making poor decisions in the past, that is no different than the bank and mortgage bailouts to irresponsible lenders/borrowers.

So for goal B - will this program make America's auto fleet a bit less polluting? Hard to say but doubtful. There are over 140M autos in the US (1 car for ever 2.5 people, so even if CARS facilitates 500k trade-ins, that will raise our overall fleet MPG under 0.1%). To qualify for the program, clunkers must achieve 10 MPG (or 4 MPG for "work trucks") according to Kelly Blue Book. And to get a full rebate, you must buy a new car that is 10 MPG more efficient. So if I trade in a guzzler 9 MPG Suburban, that means I can buy another medium-sized SUV that gets 19 MPG, and Uncle Sam takes $4,500 off my bill. Why? We know that SUVs not only consume more fuel, but their emissions are dirtier and some studies suggest they are more accident-prone (maybe more a function of the SUV-driver demographic than the actual vehicle class, but still). SUVs may hurt Americans more than cigarettes, yet we tax the hell out of the latter and subsidize the former? So this program hardly discourages the purchase of low-MPG vehicles, which is why the Senate may re-think the weak MPG rules attached to the addition $2B in funding that the House passed. One may still buy a new car that is only 3-5 MPG better than the trade-in clunker and receive $3,500 credit, which is 78% of the maximum rebate. So I can trade in my old Suburban for a slightly smaller Suburban, and somehow that makes me worthy of $3,500 from the taxpayers?

It doesn't make sense. If anything, you should receive a smaller rebate proportional to how low your trade-in vehicle MPG is. If one trades in an efficient but old Civic for a new Civic, that is the "model consumer" the government should reward, not the person trading in an old truck for a new one. And in order to achieve the maximum effect, the trade-in vehicle should be the person's primary or secondary car. If many of these clunkers are a family's "forgotten" fifth car that sits in the driveway and maybe gets 1,000 miles a year, then by removing it from circulation we haven't really helped fight the CO2 problem, because even badly polluting vehicles don't pollute much if they're not driven. So again, the government is subsidizing a family's poor consumer decision and giving them a free pass to the junkyard. And speaking of junking these clunkers - it's not cheap to safely dispose of a junked car. Parts must be salvaged, toxic components must be safely disposed of, and the bulk metal must be compressed or shredded. Or they'll just end up in a Third World nation with laxed environmental laws, like much of the West's consumer trash.

And lastly for goal C - how will this program stimulate the economy? If anything, it looks like another cash infusion to auto companies. Why not just cut a check to the Big 3 and call it even? Because the administrative costs of running this program are not trivial either. "Cash for appliances" seems just as appropriate to meet goals A-C, if not moreso since appliances are cheaper so we can reach more people. As far as I know, there are no income eligibility requirements for CARS. So Warren Buffet and I are equal in the program's eyes. I know it's too early, but I would like to see some demographic data for those who used the CARS program. I highly doubt many of them are "needy" in this recession. Was there even an effort to spread awareness of this program to lower-income or non-English speaking communities? I know CARS is not a charity (it seems DC is mainly interested in helping the rich and irresponsible during this recession), but still. Why not cap eligibility at $150k household income? Otherwise we are giving people who were going to buy a new car anyway a pointless subsidy. Or you have the "cheapskate rich" who are financially able to buy a new car any time they want, but are just waititng for an opportunity like this for Uncle Sam to save them money. Other Americans who unfortunately must rely on their clunker to get to work and pick up the kids from school every day may not be able to afford a newer, better, more efficient vehicle, even with an extra $4,500.

So is this program fair, effective, green, and edifying for America? Possibly but I have my doubts.