One of the sad legacies of Ronald Reagan that Obama should reset with a new, smarter approach are so-called “tough on crime” policies that brought us mandatory sentencing, three-strikes, and a complete abandonment of rehabilitation. Now, America leads the world as the number one incarcerator of human beings. Most of those incarcerated are black and Latino men, and most of the crimes are for non-violent offenses such as drug possession, petty theft and burglaries associated with substance abuse and addiction.
Despite these lengthier sentences, most of these offenders are eventually released, and they are released without any effort to address the root causes that motivated them to commit the crimes for which they were incarcerated. After release, these ex-offenders become victims of employment discrimination and are unable to find work (70-90%) because of prejudice against them. Only five states currently have laws on the books that prohibit employment discrimination against ex-offenders- Hawaii, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. As a consequence, over 70% recommit crimes within three years of being released from prison. In stark contrast to this result, in most European countries, over 70% of ex-offenders “never” commit another crime in their lifetime.
This must change!
If America really is concerned about “victims’ rights”, how can we encourage a result where ex-offenders are compelled to commit crimes to feed, clothe, and house themselves? For every new crime committed, there is a new victim, and there doesn’t appear to be much thought at all about lessoning the prospect of these new victims of crime.
Vengeance for vengeance sake, has no place in an advanced democratic country. Such vengeance merely creates a cycle of more, and more crime in which no one benefits. It costs us $37,000 a year to incarcerate each inmate, and most of this money is at the expense of other priorities like K-12 education. At 2.3 million inmates currently incarcerated in the US, that is $85 billion dollars “a year” for incarceration.
All major religions seem to understand the lunacy of this through spiritual principles of forgiveness and human redemption. Jesus was fond of helping outcasts such as lepers, prostitutes, and robbers on the cross. This social gospel of Jesus seems to have been lost in much of modern day Christianity that has been redefined by “judgment” as though we have evolved and become someone elses God.
Obama must reset this “tough on crime” legacy of Reagan with a new “smart on crime” policy. This smart on crime approach must not abandon punishment - as there should be some punishment for lawbreaking - but this punishment MUST be limited to the term of the sentence, and not be “punishment for life” as some sort of perpetual vengeance against those who commit crimes. A smarter approach must include state-of-the-art rehabilitation efforts while one is still in prison. This rehabilitation must continue upon release with supportive services for substance abuse and anger management.
It is also simply smarter to involve employers in rehabilitation efforts by providing a mix of carrots and sticks to hire ex-offenders. The carrots could be tax incentives for hiring “and” retaining ex-offenders. The sticks could be laws similar to the ones in the five states that currently prohibit employment discrimination against ex-offenders. These anti-discrimination efforts force employers to relate hiring decisions to the actual work performed, so if the crime is not rationally related to such work, discrimination is forbidden. Additional measures such as prohibiting criminal history questions on employment applications until a later stage in the hiring process where an applicant is deemed “otherwise qualified” would discourage screening out ex-offenders.
Without this smarter approach, we are simply encouraging more crime, more victims, and more extraordinary fiscal irresponsibility in paying for the incarceration of those who could be tax-paying productive members of American society. As we attempt to pay for healthcare, education and other priorities, the time is now for “smart on crime” policies.
I usually don’t take Republican makeovers very seriously, as most have simply tried to re-hash some version of trickle-down, small government, Reaganomics. But the other night I was watching an infomercial by Mike Huckabee on Winning Back the Middle Class that seemed to focus on changing Washington politics as usual.
Isn’t that supposed to be Obama’s line?
Well, with two cabinet picks who have admitted to failing to pay taxes and only admitting to their tax liability “after” the nomination process had begun, and another withdrawing due to pay-to-play type accusations resulting in an indictment, ethics and undue influence in Washington may actually be an opening for the Republicans, particularly if Obama does not get REAL campaign finance done in his first term.
So what exactly is REAL campaign finance reform…the kind that doesn’t create additional loopholes for influence peddlers?
Publicly funded elections for all federal elections, and “reasonable” Supreme-Court-proof limits on the free speech of so-called independent groups like 527s so that they cannot run campaign ads for or against a candidate within 90 days of a primary or general election would be REAL campaign finance reform.
If Obama does not get this done in his first term, much of his change agenda could be thwarted by the handful of special interest groups that have dominated the agenda in Washington for quite some time. And as stated above, he could create an opening for the Republicans to portray him as a “change is only a slogan to drum up votes” type of candidate while Washington continues business as usual.
Such an appeal to ignore empty change rhetoric will resonate with the very swing voter that put Obama over the top in previously red states like CO, NV, NM, IN, OH, VA, FL, and NC. This is therefore a critical issue for Obama to pay close attention to if he wants to hang on to these voters.
With an 80% approval rating, NOW is the time for Obama to push for this kind of reform, as there are enough Democratic and Republican votes, especially if one vote meant they did not have to face reprisals from these same special interest groups in subsequent elections. Obama’s popularity will not always be this high, and if he waits until his popularity slips, it may be too late to get this done.
Let’s take money completely out of politics now!
-Metteyya Brahmana
Conventional wisdom dictates that cabinet positions are selected between the November election and inauguration, while VPs are selected before the convention. But with Barack Obama's unique challenge to persuade voters that he has sufficient experience to be president on day one (thanks to Hillary) and concerns about his ability to protect America (also thanks to Hillary), perhaps this conventional wisdom should be challenged.
Obama's weakest poll numbers concern his "lack of experience" and "ability to keep America safe". But he shouldn't waste a VP pick in an attempt to shore up these weak poll numbers, he should use his VP pick to increase turn-out of a key demographic group and/or win a red state or red region. Picking his proposed cabinet early would give him the political leeway to do this.
If Obama announced his proposed key cabinet position choices at the same time as his VP pick, he could put John McCain on the defensive by presenting a team of such overwhelming experience and depth that it would make McCain look "inexperienced" and not ready to govern on day one.
Here would be my picks:
Secretary of Energy – Al Gore: there is no one with greater depth and credibility on climate change and alternative energy than this Nobel Prize winner, champion, and chief advocate for the sustainability of our planet.
Secretary of Defense – Wesley Clark: despite media generated controversy concerning his comments about military service not being a qualification to be president, no one would doubt General Clark's ability to command the armed forces.
Secretary of State – Bill Richardson: as a former ambassador to the United Nations and successful negotiator in the North Korean nuclear crises, Richardson has diplomat written all over him and would be a great chief diplomat as Secretary of State.
Secretary of HHS – Hillary Clinton: as a tireless advocate for children and universal healthcare, HHS would be a perfect fit and position for Hillary to continue to make contributions in this area.
Secretary of Homeland Security – Chuck Hagel: despite being a Republican, Hagel has stood up to the Administration on timetables for withdrawing from Iraq, domestic spying, and the surge. He also sided with Ted Kennedy on comprehensive immigration reform, and immigration is now part of homeland security.
Secretary of Treasury – Laura Tyson: as one of the architects of the economic prosperity in the Clinton Administration, Tyson has tremendous credibility in economic affairs, and the economy will be the key issue in this campaign.
The remainder of the cabinet should be chosen at the normal time between November and inauguration, as Obama doesn't gain much politically by announcing those positions early and they could provide too much fodder for the media to scrutinize, especially for picks that have not been fully vetted.
After announcing the key cabinet positions above, no one would question Obama's readiness to govern on day one, his experience, or his commitment to keeping America safe. He would therefore be able to pick a VP like Kathleen Sebelius, who like Hillary, would energize women to turn out in record numbers, and creates the prospect of bringing in more red states that border Kansas, like Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska.
Although early announcement of key cabinet positions is not conventional, the political dividends in Obama's case would be immense with no real downside because all of these picks have already been vetted on the national stage.
