Amid record poverty, Jerry Brown pays down the debt

California Governor Jerry Brown said on Tuesday that he had some some “good news” for his state: tax revenue for the year was going to be way up, meaning he was revising his budget plan and announcing $2.4 billion in additional spending. But a day later, a couple dozen community activists braved 99-degree heat in downtown Los Angeles to say they were outraged by what he was spending that money on: while half of it will cover the cost of higher than expected enrollment in the state's health insurance program, the liberal governor said he mostly wants to just to bolster state pensions and pay off debt.

The $107.8 billion budget plan that Brown revealed on May 13 sees the state increasing its commitment to paying off its liabilities and “saving for a rainy day,” with millions of dollars set aside for a fund to be tapped in years there are budget deficits. While some Democrats in the legislature have pressed for things like universal preschool, Brown said now is not the time to being investing in social programs.

"We've done a lot already, and we haven't paid for what we've already done,” Brown explained at a press conference. That won praise from Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff, who said he was “glad to see the governor is continuing to prioritize fiscal responsibility.”

Outside the Ronald Reagan State Building in LA, community activists said Brown should have used the surplus to refund social programs that were slashed after the 2008 financial crisis. The state has 8.7 million people living under the official poverty line, 2 million of them children – people who have not shared in the modest economic recovery.

“He completely ignored the people in California, the children, who are living in poverty and suffering in poverty now,” said Nancy Gomez of the advocacy group Health Access California. Between 2011 and 2013, for instance, the number of people living on the streets of Los Angeles, increased by an estimated 67 percent. “Those people can't wait for a rainy-day fund. For them, it's already raining.”

Others said that if austerity is going to be justified in a year of surplus on the basis that California needs to first pay off its debt, then it shouldn't be spending half-a-billion dollars to build new prisons and jails.

Diana Zuniga, an organizer with Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB), said that as the child of an incarcerated person she was “appalled” that the governor wants to spend $500 million on jail construction and an addition $11 million on new prisons.

“I am tired of the governor prioritizing prison and jail spending,” said Zuniga. “There's a small amount of money that is going to reentry programs” – $49 million – “but we know we don't need more jail cells, more prisons, to be constructed in our communities.” Overall, the proposed state corrections budget is $9.8 billion, an increase of 2.9 percent over last year.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions in California's prisons were so bad it constituted cruel and unusual punishment, maintaining that the only solution in the light of the state's failure to address the problems was to simply let people go. A lower court had previously ruled that California must release 33,000 people from its prisons, noting as an “uncontested fact” that, because of their limited access to health care, “an inmate in one of California’s prisons needlessly dies every six or seven days.”

Brown has been doing everything he can to not comply, recently winning a two-year extension of the court-imposed deadline for reducing California's prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity – down from nearly 200 percent – and he has proposed spending California's “emergency fund” on shipping some of its inmates to private prisons out of state. In January, the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation admitted that the prison population is actually headed in the wrong direction, with it projected to grow by 10,000 over the next five years to over 140,000 people behind bars (compared to 60,000 in 1986).
Rather than simply release, for example, nonviolent drug offenders who have served the majority of their sentences, Brown and state lawmakers have opted instead to send most inmates to count lockups, which are themselves overcrowded. Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles, the largest in the state, is so overcrowded that an official with the ACLU described it as “the most nightmarish place I've seen,” with thousands of men suffering from mental illness “packed liked sardines in dungeon-like barracks.”

Los Angeles County has responded to the influx of inmates by proposing to spend $2 billion on new jails. At the rally on Wednesday, activists with the No More Jails L.A. Coalition passed out a statement noting that half of those in county jail are awaiting trial – people who are innocent until proven guilty – while 60 percent of those who have been convicted were convicted of non-violent offenses. With tax revenues up, local and state politicians have proposed building more human cages, with Democrats like Republicans demanding “no early release,” though the state has at last, begrudgingly, begun an elderly parole program.

“Why is California still building jails and prisons while our communities are suffering?” asked Zuniga. “Why do we not have health care? Why do we not have housing? Why do we have people suffering in our streets without the proper resources? We need to continue asking the governor.”

She might have asked another question, too: Where are all the journalists? The Associated Press listed Wednesday's rally in its roundup of news events in Los Angeles, used by reporters to determine what they are covering that day, but no members of the press were there.

Cowardly journalists and the Sunset Strip

Over at VICE, I said journalists are mostly a bunch of old white cowards.

I also wrote a feature on how the Sunset Strip came to embrace "billboard culture" by destroying the youth culture that was once there.

Interview with Jose Antonio Vargas

Jose Antonio Vargas has a new documentary in theatres regarding his decision to come out as an undocumented immigrant. I spoke to him about the film and Barack Obama's deportation of 2 million people like him, the results of which can be found on Salon.

Ice cream and military recruiters

Local governments around the United States are fingerprinting people who drive ice cream trucks for no good reason (they think they're perverts), which I wrote about for VICE.

Military recruiters are also dishonest creeps who have data on millions of Americans, which I also wrote about for VICE.

Connecticut Democrats kill student privacy bill

Last month, a measure that would have barred schools in Connecticut from sharing student test results with military recruiters easily passed the state Education Committee. Today, that legislation died.

In an email, Rep. Jack Hennessy, a Democrat, told me that “the Veterans’ Affairs Committee met this morning and killed the bill.” Hennessy is the chairman of that committee. He did not say why.

The legislation, which would have stopped schools from sharing with recruiters data collected as part of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) — advertised to high school students as a career aptitude exam — was opposed by the Pentagon, which I suppose is all the explanation we need.
Democrats control 120 out of 187 seats in the state legislature, as well as the governor’s office.

UPDATE: I wrote about the bill's failure for VICE.

Money for war, but can't feed the poor

Liberals and conservatives are both wrong about taxes, I argue in a piece for VICE which notes that when some people learn the truth about what the IRS does with their money, they never pay their taxes again.

You say you want a revolution

My latest piece for VICE tells the tale of how one FBI agent infiltrated a left-wing activist group and tried to get a bunch of people thrown behind bars for talking about revolution. Read and share with your lovers and/or loved ones.

Don't be a dick

I wrote about the concept of "microaggression" for VICE, where I now have an archive and where I never read the comments.

Stuff I forgot to post here

I wrote three articles since I last updated this blog, so now I am going to link to them with the expectation that you will read them. And you will read them. I have your IP address.

-- I wrote about how the for-profit South by Southwest is breaking the law by relying on unpaid labor. Read it.
-- I wrote about how white immigrants from Germany get special treatment compared to brown Latinos. Read it.
-- I interviewed a guy who thinks we should abolish prison. Read it.
Until next time!

Update!

I’m a few weeks late pointing this out here because, frankly, writing more than 140 characters is passé, but in case you missed it — and why would you? — my last article for VICE (all caps) had to do with a recent government study finding that reports of rape behind bars are on the rise. Go read the piece but, as always, not the comments.

The week in me

– VICE published my latest piece on unpaid labor, concerning the use of armed volunteers by police departments across the United States.

– Salon published my interview with The Nation’s Eric Alterman regarding his opposition to diversity in the debate over Israel-Palestine.

– And finally, Salon published my piece arguing that if California Governor Jerry Brown really cares about “public safety,” he should spend the state’s emergency fund on preparation for the next earthquake, not to transfer non-violent drug offenders to private prisons.

The year in review

This year, 2013, wasn't a bad year for me, all told, but it was a weird wooden roller coaster of a 12-month period with highs that were high and lows which are better left for my LiveJournal. In this weirdest of years, I wrote some things, some of which got traction and some of which even I've already forgotten. Among the pieces I remember writing which you should get busy reading, in no particular order:

"Sharing Science is a Crime," Al Jazeera English -- If you discover the cure for cancer while working for a corporation or school, you better keep it a secret.

"Steal This Article," The New Inquiry -- It may not always be practical, but it's almost always moral to take what you need from someone who has plenty (and doesn't deserve it).

"The Exploited Laborers of the Liberal Media," VICE -- The liberal magazine Mother Jones gave its interns/"fellows" a $500 a month raise after this piece was published, meaning they will now be paid almost the bare minimum legally allowed in San Francisco (almost).

"Libertarians Are Very Confused about Capitalism," Salon -- Libertarians like to point out that America does not enjoy a "free market," but if that's true: why are they always so busy defending America's wealthy?

"US Hedge Funds Paint Argentina as Ally of Iran (& part two)," Inter Press Service -- Wall Street is trying to extract tens of billions of dollars from Argentina and it's using warmongers in Washington to try and get it.

LA considers IDs for inmates

Every year in Los Angeles County, thousands of people are released from jail without any way to prove who they are, which makes it that much harder to find a job and a place to live -- to stay out of jail, in other words. In my latest for VICE, I report on an effort to change that.

Sorry, those are the rules

Barack Obama may not have pulled the trigger that led 15 members of a wedding party in Yemen to lose their lives — to be murdered by an anonymous killer remotely piloting an American drone — but according to the US president’s own administration, he bears responsibility for their deaths just as much as if he had carried out the killings with his own two hands.

“The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership,” said the US State Department four months ago, “even if command and control – he’s not the one that pushes the button or said, ‘Go,’ on this.”

Since the United States is a country where the rule of law is respected and political leaders are judged by the same standards they impose on others, Obama’s trial for murder should begin any day now, which raises the obvious question: How will this impact the race for the White House in 2016?

The NSA likes 'em young

A week after I named them in my piece for VICE on liberal outlets exploiting their laborers, Salon published my latest piece, on the NSA's use of (paid) interns as young as 15. So, thanks to Salon for being the better left-of-center website. Now pay your interns.

My only VICE

On Monday, VICE published a piece of mine concerning the liberal media's reliance on unpaid and barely paid labor ("interns"). As I explained later to a writer for Romenesko.com, no traditionally "left" outlet was willing to publish the piece -- only VICE -- which is itself a commentary on the state of progressive media. I'm tempted to send all the outlets that declined or ignored my pitch a link to this.

On Friday, Inter Press Service published my interview with Madiha Tahir, a journalist who spoke to survivors of US drone strikes in Pakistan for her new documentary, Wounds of Waziristan.

I had another piece on interns that was supposed to be published this week by an outlet named in my VICE piece. Maybe next week.

Religous students found guilty of being Pakistani

When a man shot up a Sikh temple in Wisconsin last year, Barack Obama announced how “deeply saddened” he was that such an attack "took place at a house of worship.” His Republican challenger for the presidency, Mitt Romney, likewise expressed his disgusted at “a senseless act of violence . . . that should never befall any house of worship.”

At the time, that was grotesquely funny because, by that point, Barack Obama had himself committed numerous acts of senseless violence against houses of worship. And, being the commander-in-chief of a military fighting a war in Afghanistan and Pakistan that he dramatically expanded upon taking office, he has continued to bomb religious institutions ever since.

As Reuters reported on Wednesday:

A suspected U.S. drone fired on an Islamic seminary in Pakistan's northwestern region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa early on Thursday, killing at least five people, police said.

#####

Fareed Khan, a police officer, said the unmanned aircraft fired at least three rockets at the madrassa in the Hangu district, killing two teachers and three students just before sunrise on Thursday.

Now, and this is important: an anonymous official did say a potentially bad person was potentially seen at that madrassa a few days earlier (potentially), so Barack Obama can sleep soundly at night knowing he authorized the killing of a few people who were probably familiar with that bad guy, even if that bad guy himself is currently back at home alive and well playing Call of Duty: Death to America.

Meanwhile:

The attack took place a day after Pakistan's foreign policy chief Sartaj Aziz was quoted as saying that the United States had promised not to conduct drone strikes while the government tries to engage the Taliban in peace talks.

The United States has not commented on Aziz's remarks.

I'm really pretty sure that it has.

Help MSNBC bring liberal values to the workplace

Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Al Sharpton are some of the biggest names in televised liberal commentary, but when it comes to supporting the rights of those who work under them at MSNBC, these big names have come up rather small.

According to the Writers Guild of America East, “Producers and associate producers at Peacock Productions, NBC’s nonfiction and reality unit at 30 Rockefeller Center, have been organizing and fighting against unionbusting at NBC for over a year now.” What they want are the benefits of being in a union, such as health insurance, better pay and less outrageous hours.

“These producers and APs [associate producers] have had enough of NBC’s attempts to stop their organizing drive,” says the guild. “They are asking MSNBC hosts to do one simple thing: sit down with them and hear their stories.”

So far, that has not happened. But it is not like MSNB’s on-air talent is unaware of what their producers do to make their shows happen.

“The staff of @allinwithchris works so so hard,” Chris Hayes tweeted yesterday. “It’s a marvel to watch every day.”

Hayes should do more than just tweet about how great his producers are: he should let some of them come on his show to explain the work they do – and why they need the benefits that come with being part of a union.

“The reality of freelance employment in nonfiction TV,” said Writers Guild of America Executive Director Lowell Peterson, “is that even creative professionals face grueling hours, no job security, no benefits, and no certainty about compensation.”

As a former non-fiction television producer who enjoyed neither job security nor benefits, join me and the guild in helping draw the attention of the following hosts at MSNBC to their producers’ organizing drive – and be sure to report what you hear back:

Rachel Maddow, “Rachel Maddow Show,” @maddow

Ed Schultz, “The Ed Show” @wegoted

Tamron Hall, “NewsNation” @tamronhall

Al Sharpton, “PoliticsNation” @thereval

Chris Hayes, “All In with Chris” @chrislhayes

Lawrence O’Donnell, “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” @lawrence

US federal prisons overflowing with drug offenders

No country imprisons more of its citizens than the United States, where more than 2 million people are behind bars, or roughly 1 in 100 adults. The majority of those behind bars did not commit acts of violence, but were convicted of non-violent offenses, mostly involving drugs. Indeed, the war on drugs is responsible for quadrupling the U.S. incarceration rate over the last 30 years, which a new report shows has created dangerous levels of overcrowding in federal prisons.

In 1980, federal prisons held under 25,000 people. In 2013, federal prisons are now home to more than 219,000 people.

“This growth is unsustainable,” said Julie Samuels, a co-author of a new report from the Washington, DC-based Urban Institute, a think tank founded by US President Lyndon Johnson. For one, housing that people in state institutions is costly, with the federal prison budget for fiscal year 2014 of a projected $6.9 billion set to eat up more than a quarter of the Department of Justice’s total budget.

“Second, overcrowded federal prisons are dangerous, posing safety risks for staff and prisoners alike,” said Samuels. And US federal prisons are extremely overcrowded.

According to the report, “Stemming the Tide: Strategies to Reduce the Growth and Cut the Cost of the Federal Prison System,” the average federal detention center exceeds its planned capacity by 35 to 40 percent. Overcrowding is even more of a problem in high-security prisons, which as of 2012 were operating at 151 percent of their capacity.

Part of the increase is due to increased law enforcement targeting of immigrant communities. President Barack Obama has ordered more deportations than of his predecessors: 2 million people kicked out of the United States and counting, many of whom were picked up for minor infractions. But, “Though the number of inmates sentenced for immigration crimes has also risen, long drug sentences are the main driver of the population’s unsustainable growth.”

Bipartisan blame

The war on drugs, characterized by long mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent offenders, disproportionately people of color, is not the product of any one president or party, but a policy agreed to by both major parties in the United States and prosecuted with enthusiasm by every president in modern history. Today, half of those in federal prisons are there for drug crimes that were once not treated as offenses worthy of prison time.

What changed is in 1984, the US Congress – at the time controlled by liberal Democrats – passed legislation requiring judges to issue long, mandatory minimum sentences to non-violent drug offenders. Called the “Sentencing Reform Act,” the bill was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican. The signing of that bill and later, bipartisan “tough-on-crime” legislation in the 1986 and 1988 at the height of the media-fueled “crack epidemic,” coincided with a trend of state psychiatric hospitals shutting down and kicking out patients who, in addition to mental health problems, often had serious substance abuse issues. While there were more than 500,000 people in such institutions in 1960, by 2010 that number was closer to 50,000. People who would have been put in a hospital were instead put in a prison.

As the Urban Institute notes, before the massive escalation of the drug war in the 1980s, “a quarter of all federal drug offenders were fined or sentenced to probation, not prison.” Today, “95 percent are sentenced to a term of imprisonment,” with the average time served about twice what it was in 1983.

Slashing sentences

Reducing the federal prison population requires undoing the policies that have put more people behind bars in world history while doing little to affect actual rates of drug use. “The most effective way to reduce overcrowding,” according to the report, “is to lower mandatory minimums for drugs, which, alone, would reduce overcrowding to the lowest it has been in decades.”

Indeed, “Reducing the number of drug offenders is the quickest way to yield an impact on both population and cost,” says the report. “In 10 years, reducing certain drug mandatory minimums by half would save $2.485 billion and reduce prison crowding to 20 percent above capacity.”

There is actually some political support for that. In 2010, Congress passed the “Fair Sentencing Act,” which reduced – but did not eliminate – the disparity in sentencing for crack cocaine offenses compared to powder cocaine. Though crack and powder cocaine are chemically identical, possessing 1 gram of crack used to be treated exactly the same as possessing 100 grams of powder cocaine, whose users are generally more white and affluent than users of crack. The act, passed with the support of all but one member of Congress, cut that disparity to 18 to 1.

The report argues one way to reduce overcrowding in federal prisons is to make that reform retroactive: there are more than 3,000 people behind bars who would not be there had they been sentenced under the 2010 guidelines. Conservatively, releasing them would “lead to savings of $229 million over 10 years,” according to the report. Like other federal inmates, those drug offenders are currently ineligible for parole, another policy the Urban Institute says should change.

“Even with a mix of reforms, federal prisons may continue to be overcrowded,” says the report. “But a smart combination of policies will save taxpayers billions, make prisons less dangerous, and improve the quality and reach of programs designed to keep inmates from offending again.”

------

The outlet that was to publish this piece ran out of money mid-week in case you're feeling generous and would like to provide me a form of validation that can be exchanged for goods and services.

No capitalism? No wealth.

Over at Salon, I argue that libertarians who insist we do not have true "capitalism" today -- and believe that's a bad thing -- should then logically support the radical redistribution of wealth, as money not made on a "free market" is money made in contravention of their own libertarian ethics.

Go ahead and give it a read. It's more fun than it sounds.