RE: Probation

originally published May 23, 2007

I am writing about the article in Flagpole [City Pages, May 2] that brought up issues involving DUI/ drug court and probation. First of all, I have been working with offenders since the 80s in a variety of settings. Currently I see probationers at my practice, Person-Centered Court Services LLC, on a daily basis. The offenders come from DUI/ drug Court, Providence Probation, Sentinel Probation, and others from around the state.

I would like to say that perhaps if private probation companies were allowed to “hand-pick” their clients the way Judge Lawrence’s DUI court is able to hand-pick its participants, the compliance rate would be even better than the 90 percent Sentinel received. However, DUI court picks the offenders who are employed or capable of becoming employed and who do not have an extensive criminal history other than DUI. This simply stacks the deck in favor of DUI court participants being able to be compliant. Private probation companies are sent the poorest of the poor and the worst of the worst by the courts.

DUI court is also much more expensive than other treatment providers, who by the way typically have more training, experience and credentials in the substance abuse field. The Georgia Department of Human Resources has a vast registry of highly trained successful treatment providers that are certified and monitored by the state and that can provide much better services at a much lower cost to the offender.

I recently spoke with a police sergeant who is an investigator with the ACCPD who told me that the police in Athens do not have the resources or personnel to investigate misdemeanor crimes, so I’m wondering how in the world Clarke County would find the resources to make all of the arrests for State Court and provide supervision for thousands of probationers.

It would be a disaster to put this extra burden on the backs of the taxpayers of Clarke County. What the judge proposes would require hiring additional county employees who would have police powers of arrest to take over and supervise the multitude of probationers in the county. Would we also have to build a larger jail to house them? Would we need more county vehicles to transport them to court every week in the manner of the DUI/ drug court model? What has been proposed would take us back to managing misdemeanor probation the way it was handled up until the year 2000, a way that was proven ineffective and not cost-effective. It would not only revert back to the previous system of managing probationers but add extra burdens on the tax payers by adding an additional layer of overkill to the system. Do we really want misdemeanor probationers and those who have merely violated an ordinance so highly guarded and supervised? This proposal that is before the county commission would provide more supervision to those who commit petty crimes and violate county ordinances than the state currently provides for murderers and rapists. It’s simply overkill and a costly venture.

According to the Banner-Herald and Flagpole a recent audit indicates that perhaps the $30 per month paid by probationers would fund this venture. However, I do not believe that this would fund the retirement and health benefits of the proposed newly hired POST certified probation officers, nor would it pay for the buildings, utilities, equipment, vehicles, and legal costs of this venture. I believe that this is why the state turned it over to private probation seven years ago.

Last of all, in addition those that have proposed this change have already required the taxpayers of this county to pay the salary of an additional State Court judge because currently State Court is busy providing DUI/ drug court services, probation services, and substance abuse testing and treatment, something that I believe should be handled in the private sector.

Sam Evans

Athens

More FairTax

originally published May 23, 2007

There are many points on which the FairTax can be debated. In a previous letter [May 2], one reader suggested the new bill would shift taxes disproportionately onto the poor and would harm American companies like Delta and Ford. You won’t find much opposition to the FairTax coming from American corporations. It’s a good deal for them even if they must endure a year of double taxation. Where you DO find opposition to the FairTax is among highly-paid accountants, lobbyists, and tax attorneys. The conflict of interest should be obvious. Compliance costs for the current tax code are astronomical. Don’t Americans deserve a tax law that is so short and so simple that we all understand it - without having to pay someone to explain it?

You also find opposition to the FairTax among people who haven’t read the bill, but merely oppose it based on ideology or talking points handed down from a Pundit-on-High. Here are the self-proclaimed goals and intended results of the FairTax, as stated in The FairTax Book:

1. Completely eliminate all federal taxes - payroll, capital gains & dividends, estate, AMT, etc.

2. Replace these with one single consumption tax: 23 cents of each dollar spent would go to the federal government. This tax will be imposed on all NEW goods and services. Education would be viewed as an investment rather than a service, and would not be taxed.

3. Provide a monthly rebate check to every American household equal to the amount of sales tax they would pay on the basic necessities of life up to the poverty level.

With these three policies in place, the authors of the bill (economists of all political stripes, though the opponents of the FairTax will never tell you that) and the authors of the FairTax Book (a Libertarian talk show host and a Republican congressman, in the interest of full disclosure) claim that the following results will likely follow:

1. Overall reduction in the total lifetime tax burden for most Americans

2. A massive influx of investment capital, new company headquarters in American cities, and a surging economy.

3. Dramatic growth in jobs. There may be more jobs than workers to fill them, causing higher wages and more benefits for everyone. This may also lead to more liberalized immigration policies due to a need for more workers.

4. The complete un-taxation of the poor, as well as an increase in their paychecks - all our paychecks - of about 15 percent due to the end of withholding. Social Security & Medicare will be funded at equal levels under this bill.

5. The end of wealthy people avoiding the tax code: they will pay every time they buy a yacht or a limo, hire a caterer, gardener, re-decorator, psychiatrist, pool boy, escort service, etc.

6. Taxation of the underground economy: drug dealers, prostitutes and pimps, bookies, illegal aliens, and foreign tourists or students visiting our country.

7. Economic growth and a larger tax base will provide increased tax revenue, allowing for full funding of social safety nets. Studies are available on www.fairtax.org that dispute the President’s advisory panel and demonstrate that tax revenue would be substantially greater than under our current system.

8. In order to compete economically with our new tax law, other nations would have to liberalize their economies, which always leads to more general liberty. So the authors also wistfully muse that this law might spread liberty across the globe far better than military might ever could.

These are the core claims of the FairTax movement, a grassroots campaign that continues to grow in size. If you think that the authors are lying about what they hope to accomplish, then it’s your right to say so and disbelieve every claim that they make. However, so much of the opposition to the FairTax comes from people who have neither read the bill nor bothered to learn what its proponents say about it. All they care to hear is what they’ve already decided is true, and that’s no way to have a debate.

They might be surprised to know how many liberal Democratic goals are expressed in this tax bill and the language of its supporters - untaxing the poor completely, fully funding our imperiled social safety nets, closing tax loopholes to the wealthy, and taxing the black market. They might also be shocked to find out that George W. Bush’s tax advisory panel has recommended that he NOT support the FairTax. If Bush is opposed to it, it must be good policy, right?

Don’t believe any of these things because you read them in this letter - go read the bill and THEN you can absorb the various arguments that are floating around and make an informed decision for yourself.

Aaron Lee

Athens

On Memorial Day

originally published May 23, 2007

This Memorial Day we honor those brave, idealistic soldiers who gave their lives in order that we might have freedom not only in our nation, but also in order that peoples around the world might have freedom. 3,400 American soldiers have died in Iraq fighting so that peoples in that land might have freedom. In the 20th Century, 664,000 American soldiers gave their lives in order that Americans and peoples around the world might have freedom. Are we gaining more of this freedom for which they gave their lives? Our freedoms are written in the U.S. Constitution, which encapsulates the principles for which our nation’s founding fathers fought and for which 10,000 Americans gave their lives in the struggle for independence from Britain. Let us review the U.S. Constitution and some of its principles today. It has as one component the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizure; this freedom has been abridged by the “Patriot Act” which permits warrant-less searches of our phone calls, health, financial, and library records, emails and web sites visited. If freedom has as one component the right of a fair and speedy trial and of habeas corpus, then this freedom has also been abridged. If freedom has as one component a guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment, then this freedom has been abridged by our nation’s “rendition policy,” outsourcing torture to Third World countries. If freedom has as one component the Legislature’s creating laws to be faithfully executed by the Executive Branch, then this has been abridged by this administration’s signing letters, picking and choosing among the laws’ features whichever it chooses to execute. I pray that, on this Memorial Day, our nation will again rekindle its commitment to honoring those precious principles for which a million of our fellow citizens, friends, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, fathers and forefathers have given their last full measure of devotion.

Robert D. Clements

Athens