FIX RATHER THAN CONDEMN

The New York Times, whaa??? The New York Times chipped in on Proposition 47 with some good sense. I hope as voters you'll remember to vote for something that can help rather than hinder law enforcement. This measure is supported by SOME veteran law enforcement professionals, though the greater number of them oppose it.

A number of major California newspapers that have endorsed a Yes vote on Prop 47. Then, this morning, something unexpected happened.
The New York Times editorial board, which rarely weighs in on California ballot initiatives, added its voice to the chorus urging California voters to pass this common sense reform. Our reform movement is catching fire across California and across the country. Prop 47 could be on track to become a model for other states.
Read the full editorial below, then forward this email to everyone you know in California.

Editorial: California Leads on Justice Reform

Prop 47 Could Take the State a Step Further in Reducing Overcrowding
For a long time, the conventional political wisdom was that no one ever lost an election for being too tough on crime. That wisdom has been turned on its head in recent years, as both politicians and the public are realizing how much damage the lock-’em-up mind-set has caused.
In recent polls asking about the most important problems facing the country, crime ranks way at the bottom. That’s because crime is at its lowest levels in decades, even while overstuffed prisons cripple state budgets.
A familiar retort is that crime is down precisely because the prisons are full, but that’s simply not true. Multiple studies show that crime has gone down faster in states that have reduced their prison populations.
An encouraging example comes from California, the site of some the worst excesses of the mass incarceration era, but also some of the more innovative responses to it.
For five years, the state has been under federal court order to reduce extreme overcrowding in its prisons. In response, voters in 2012 overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to scale back the state’s notorious “three-strikes” law, leading to the release, so far, of more than 1,900 prisoners who had been serving life in prison — in some cases, for petty theft.
Dire warnings that crime would go up as a result were unfounded. Over two years, the recidivism rate of former three-strikes inmates is 3.4 percent, or less than one-tenth of the state’s average. That’s, in large part, because of a strong network of re-entry services.

The 2012 measure has provided the model for an even bigger proposed release of prisoners that California voters will consider on the ballot next week. Under Proposition 47, many low-level drug and property offenses — like shoplifting, writing bad checks or simple drug possession — would be converted from felonies to misdemeanors.
That would cut an average of about a year off the sentences of up to 10,000 inmates, potentially saving the state hundreds of millions of dollars annually. To keep people from returning to prison, or from going in the first place, the savings would be invested in anti-truancy efforts and other programs like mental health and drug-abuse treatment. Some would go to victims’ services, a perennially underfinanced part of the justice system.
Law-enforcement officials, not surprisingly, oppose the measure, warning that crime will go up. But they’ve already been proved wrong on three-strikes reform.
Californians — who support the proposition by a healthy margin, according to polls — have now seen for themselves that they don’t have to choose between reducing prison populations and protecting public safety.
It is very rare for lawmakers anywhere to approve legislation to shorten sentences for people already in prison; it is virtually unheard-of to do it by ballot measure. California’s continuing experiment on sentencing can be a valuable lesson to states around the country looking for smart and safe ways to unravel America’s four-decade incarceration binge.

Think!  Then vote.  Hooray for Californians, leaders across the nation.

WARREN BUFFET IS ONE OF US?

By all accounts, Warren Buffet is one of the 1% elite of this country, huge wealth, far removed from the 99% working classes that are the backbone of our economy. I read in our local paper ‘s letters to the editor:  “Corporations aren’t bad, they are the only ones who hire people. Without them we wouldn’t have any jobs.”
Had that writer ever figured out why corporations fear unions and strikes?  Without workers they can’t stay in business.  And he is wrong about corporations anyway. Small Business America hires more people than corporations. They don’t pay as well, but they are truly the backbone of the American economy.
Yet, Warren Buffet went on record as a one-percenter who claims the wealthy, like himself, should pay their fair share of taxes. Imagine that!  His latest shocking statement on CNBC?  “I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a  law
that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of  GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”   Don’t you just love it?  Yup!  Warren Buffet is one of us.
This Congressional Reform Act is continually passed to millions of we 99% ers,  (not official unfortunately.)
*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*
1. No Tenure / No Pension.  A Congressman collects a salary while in office
and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.  All
funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
do.
4. Congress will no longer vote  themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay
will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective
1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen
made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor,
not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours
should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
Amen, I say.  But, yesterday, I got a new one that kind of reflects the way many of us regard congress. My friend Guerry Bowen sent it to me and he may or may not be the author:
Oh please…  Let me make my comment regarding congress.  Where do I start?
 1.  The Capital building is now a museum in honor of past statesmen. 
 2.  Congress assembles in a giant Fest-Tent, the kind they use at Oktoberfest (with only 1 potbelly stove in the center).
 3.  Each congressman receives a folding table and 2 folding chairs (one chair for his use; one chair for an assistant).
 4.  Each has a rotary telephone. 
 5.  Each pays $50K his first term and an additional $20K for each successive term.
 6.  Each pays $50K for every contact with a lobbyist. 
 7.  Every bill explicitly is named for that which it pays.  I.E., a “Fix the Interstate” bill has funds only allocated to fix the Interstates with no pork added. 
To end this diatribe, we all know there are decent, hard-working people in congress, and they suffer along with the money eating slugs who have forgotten the words in the Preamble to the Constitution that state part of the duty of government is to:  PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE .  Let us not forget that this government is supposed to be for us.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.