Population Explosion Costing Taxpayers Billions

The fastest growing population in the United States is not Hispanics. In fact, it is not a single minority or demographic.  In the last 25 years, this populace has swollen by 400 percent creating a dilemma for the justice system.  Yet most Americans are unaware of the crisis.

The population explosion has occurred in the federal prison system. There are more than 210,000 inmates residing in 117 federal institutions and 15 privately-managed facilities, according to a report issued late last year by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

In its 139-page report, the GAO documents the surge in the prison population and the increasing federal budget required to maintain and staff the system.  In 2013, taxpayers were tapped for $6.6 billion to operate federal prisons, which represents a 20-fold increase since 1980.

The largest chunk of the prison budget was paid out in compensation and benefits to prison personnel, most of whom are members of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).  The tab was $3.9 billion in 2013 for 38,000 employees.  The funding amounted to 59 percent of the budget.

Unless changes are made, the numbers of inmates and tax dollars required to pay for their incarceration will continue to skyrocket.  The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) projects an additional 15 percent growth in the inmate population by 2020.  

Federal prison overcrowding is already epidemic.  Staffing has not kept up with the inmate population, resulting in fewer personnel to police the prisoners.  In some prisons, triple and quadruple bunking in each cell has been used, but it still costs an average of $29,000 annually for each inmate.   

The escalation in inmates appears at odds with the decades-old decline of crime in the United States.  Crime was down 5.4 percent in 2013 from the previous year, reports the FBI.  Since 1990, violent crime has decreased more than 33 percent in America.

There is an explanation for the prison proliferation.  More than 48 percent of the inmates serving time in federal prisons were sentenced on drug charges.  The average prison sentence in 2011 was 52 months for federal inmates.  Drug trafficking sentences averaged 74 months, according to BOP statistics.

Americans get more than a little queasy about suggestions of reducing sentences for inmates.  However, without some modulation,  the number of federal prisons may one day outnumber hotels.  Thus a course correction will be required to dramatically impact the situation.

A few modest proposals for reversing the rising tide of inmates:

1.  Expand the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) operated in federal prisons.  Inmates who successfully complete the program are eligible for a reduction in their sentences.  The problem is today the program cannot meet the demand.  At last count, there were 3,000 inmates on a waiting list, reports the GAO.

2.  Reform sentencing laws to allow more alternatives to incarceration for drug users.  In 2007, Congress approved new guidelines for the threshold for crack cocaine offenses.  But fewer federal offenders are placed on probation because of strict sentencing guidelines.  Without some relaxation, the number of drug offenders in prison will increase exponentially.  

3.  Allow the Bureau of Prisons transfer low-risk inmates to local incarceration facilities.  Under current law, the bureau has no authority to transfer inmates outside its system.  This would facilitate a faster transition of rehabilitated inmates back into society.

4.  Give federal prisons more latitude to lower prison time for good behavior.  At the federal level, all offenders, regardless of crime, must serve 87 percent of their sentence.  Although the bureau does lower sentences for good behavior, it is restricted by current rules on the amount of time that must be served.

Each idea would mean drug offenders would do less jail time, a proposition that scares law-and-order skeptics. However,  the GAO estimated that reducing the sentences of incarcerated drug offenders by an average of 44 percent would save about $4.1 billion in tax dollars.

No one is suggesting freeing hardened criminals.  Only those low-level, nonviolent drug offenders would qualify for early release under the conditions outlined above.  The alternative is to continue to construct more prisons, hire more government workers and increase funding for incarceration.

Faced with those choices, America would be better off trying to attack the problem of reducing the inmate population.   

The GOP Agenda: Bold Ideas, Not Timidness

The Republican Congressional majority, swept into office on a tide of voter dissatisfaction with President Obama, has succumbed to conventional wisdom and signaled its chief goal is to prove it can competently govern.  To succeed, GOP Beltway strategists are urging timid steps, not bold leaps.

This is a prescription for disappointment because the voters who supplied the Republican majority made it clear they wanted a dramatic course correction.  They voted for a reversal of policies that have reduced health care quality, stagnated the economy, increased regulation and legalized amnesty. 

Even with their new found majority, Republican leadership has already conceded it plans a tepid legislative agenda.  Their announced plan is to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline and repeal of the Medical Device Tax. While laudable moves, neither were key issues in the mid-term elections.  

If that's the extent of the Republican agenda, then the GOP will have wasted an opportunity to show it can govern with courage and conviction.  Avoiding mistakes is not an agenda for change.  The country has suffered enough under the obstructionism of Harry Reid, who pigeonholed GOP-passed legislation.   

Clearly, Americans are clamoring for audacious moves. Incremental change will not satisfy those who handed the reins of government to Republicans.  Instead of worrying about 2016, GOP leaders need to solidify their gains by keeping their promises to voters.

Yet Republican leadership has already waved the white flag, claiming its hands are tied because a Democrat occupies the White House. Each Obama veto will weaken the resolve of Democrats.  To maintain faith with Americans, Republicans should embrace an aggressive agenda that includes:

1.  Repeal Obamacare.   Every poll shows the president's health care reform grows more unpopular with each passing day.  Nipping at the edges of the monstrous health law will not satisfy most Americans.  It will only guarantee that the law will survive in perpetuity.  Of course, the president will veto the bill.  So what?  After he does, the GOP should rewrite the law, keeping a few popular provisions like coverage for preexisting conditions.  The new law should be no longer than 10 pages and be posted on the Internet for everyone to see before it is voted upon.  Even Democrats will have a difficult time justifying opposition to a law that eliminates the huge bureaucracy required to administer the current elephantine bill.  

2.  Reform tax laws.  The current tax code is 73,954 pages.  It stretches to nearly four million words.  It has grown an average of 1.8 percent annually since Barrack Obama became president.  The code is packed with exclusions, loopholes and ambiguous language. Republicans should pass a tax reform bill that simplifies the the tax code to a manageable 100 pages and eliminates the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo that makes the law unfathomable for most Americans. This would have the added benefit of reducing the size and the influence of the IRS, which has been granted too much power under Obama. As part of the reform, federal income taxes should be lowered for all Americans.  

3.  Invest in the economy.  Real economic stimulus follows real investment.  The President's vaunted stimulus bill was nothing more than pork to reward cronies, unions and donors.  There was no investment in infrastructure, including roads, bridges, airports, communications and utilities.  There are a myriad of actions the Congress could take to spur investment, including investment tax breaks, increased spending on transportation and tax incentives for hiring.  This is just a partial list.   For instance, it doesn't includes legislative initiatives like eliminating the corporate tax on businesses' repatriation of overseas earnings.  That measure alone could trigger billions of dollars of investment at home.  Americans businesses pay the highest taxes in the developed world.  If Congress is serious about spurring investment, then it should lower the tax rate for all businesses.  

4.  Reign in the regulatory regime.  There has been an alarming tsunami of regulations under President Obama.  The chief executive's signature health care law added 11,588,500 words in new regulations alone.  That's 30 words of regulations for each word in the law.  The size of the Federal Register, which publishes new regulations annually, grew by 7.4 percent in the first three years of his administration.  In the last ten years, the federal government has imposed more than 40,000 new regulations.  This bureaucratic red-tape costs taxpayers and businesses billions of dollars.  Yet federal regulators are free to issue rules without consulting Congress. Republicans should pass a bill that requires every regulation with an economic impact of $100 million or more to be approved by Congress.

5.  Pass a budget that reduces the size of government.  No matter what you read in the media, the federal government has grown bigger and fatter under President Obama.  Since he became president, federal budgets and borrowing have increased.  Republicans need to take a meat clever to the federal budget, not just whittle away at a few pet projects.  Leadership should start by insisting that every federal department reduce spending by one penny for every dollar in their current budget.  Those pennies will add up to billions when you consider the current gargantuan budget of $3.9 trillion.  Real government reform will never happen unless Congress reduces funding.  Washington never voluntarily does away with any project or department.

6. Enact real immigration reform.   The president has thrown down the gauntlet to Republicans with his executive order on amnesty, daring them to pass immigration legislation.  The GOP has an opportunity to craft a bill that addresses the priority of border security.  Without that step, illegal immigrants will continue to flood into the United States forever.  Once that is done, the GOP should create legislation that facilitates the immigration of those with high-tech credentials, eliminates red-tape for those seeking political asylum and reduces the waiting time for those currently holding jobs in the country. Once those steps are taken, the Congress should insist on strict enforcement of laws that prevent the hiring of illegals.  This is a jobs issue.  American jobs are going to those who have no legal status in the country. That is unfair to tax-paying Americans who need jobs.

If Republicans want to prove they can govern, then they need to ditch the cautious approach.  The country is hungering for dynamic change. The GOP will lose its base and the 2016 presidential election if its unwilling or unable to swiftly reverse the Obama agenda.         

The Cowards in the Media and The White House

After the barbaric murders of staff members of a French satire weekly, the American news media and its president issued perfunctory expressions of outrage.  But their words were followed not by action, but by silent surrender because they were intimidated by Islamic extremism.

Big Media and its prophet Barrack Obama chose the coward's path instead of taking a courageous course.  It was a shameful performance that leaves every American wondering if free speech is no longer cherished in the nation that enshrined the principal in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

After the bloodbath in Paris, leading American news media outlets went to great pains to show their solidarity with the murdered French cartoonists and journalists.  However, none were willing to print or display the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad that ignited the Islamic outrage.

They were frightened into submission by the Islamic assassins.  The offending cartoon appeared on a few online sites, but it was banned from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, the Associated Press, The Boston Globe, ABC, NBC and most other mainstream media outlets.

These pious hypocrites, who have no problem mocking Jesus or God, were muzzled by political correctness and cowardice.  The editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer spoke for most media organizations with its fainthearted claim that it was a bad idea to run a cartoon "gratuitously insulting" Muslims.

Some media outlets, such as the gutless Financial Times, went so far as to blame the French satirical paper for baiting French Muslims with its reckless portrayal of Mohammad.  It seems freedom of press does not extend to depictions of Islamic leaders.

Yet this same pack of journalistic pacifists harrumphed when North Korea vowed to censor the showing of a movie about the country's lunatic leader.  They railed against suppression of free speech and savaged Sony Pictures for pulling the movie, "The Interview" from theaters.

These same charlatans showcase deliberately provocative photos and cartoons of those who protest abortion, same-sex marriage or gun rights.  They insult Americans who want to pray in public.  They ridicule displays of crucifixes, the Ten Commandments or the bible.  

But they won't cross the line when it comes to the Muslim Prophet Mohammad.  Americans have a right to view the cartoon that led to the slaughter of innocents and make up their own minds about its decency.  Instead, the spineless media caved and let terrorists dictate journalistic standards.

The partisan media's sympathizer-in-chief President Obama spoke about the brutal killings with all the passion of a person discussing a neighbor's unsightly yard sign.  In his monologue delivered for the benefit of television cameras, not once did the president use the term "Islamic terrorists."

This president has an aversion for mouthing the words "terrorists" and "Islamic" in the same sentence much less linking them together.  Yet even the news media referred to the cold-blooded killers as "Islamist gunmen" or "Jihadist terrorists."

But President Obama refuses to acknowledge the threat of Islamic extremists who are spreading terror throughout the world. No country can win a war against the cancer of religious-inspired violence unless it first recognizes the enemy.  The world's adversaries are Muslim fanatics who kill in the name of Allah.

In Obama's world view, terror doesn't exist.  These acts of violence are manifestations of the past mistakes of the United States.  It's sheer utter nonsense.  But it helps explain why America is no longer seen as the defender of democracy and the scourge of evil.

Americans are stuck with a president who is afraid of offending Muslims and a media that values advertising dollars and nothing else. As a result, in a moment of history when America could have stood for its values, instead the nation's leader and his media cowered to blood-thirsty thugs.

The hooded terrorists have been allowed to kill free speech in America.  Shame on President Obama.  Shame on the news media. Shame on any American who remains silent about this affront to freedom.

Afghanistan: Righting The Media Distortions

After 13 years, the combat role of American forces in Afghanistan has officially come to an end.  The news media has used the occasion to tarnish the policy of America's intervention in this central Asian republic, while maligning the sacrifices made by the military and repudiating the cost of the war.

Big Media's retrospective has been colored by their opposition to the war and to President George W. Bush, who launched the military incursion against the Taliban embedded in Afghanistan after the attacks of September 11, 2001.  News outlets have bemoaned the chaos that still grips Afghanistan.

However, the view from ground level in this country, officially known as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, looks a lot different from the perspective more than 10,000 miles away in the U.S.  Afghanistan has emerged from its sordid past to become a democratic nation with a growing economy.

This dichotomy between perception and reality in Afghanistan is reflected in recent polls.  Nearly one-half of Americans believe nothing has been achieved in Afghanistan.  The Afghans hold a very different view.  Nearly 80 percent think the country is better off for America's involvement.

As recently as 2010, there were 100,000 U.S. troops hunkered down in Afghanistan. As of October 6, troop deployment levels had dipped to 24,050 American military men and women.  President Obama recently announced a U.S. force of about 10,000 troops will remain to advise and train Afghans.

Despite the draw down of troops, Afghanistan's future has never shone brighter.  That is the assessment of U.S. Army General John F. Campbell, who assumed command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in August of last year.

"I recently took a flight over Kabul at night and was amazed at the number of lights, wedding parlors, traffic and other things that simply weren't there in 2001," General Campbell wrote in an email to friends and military comrades.  His point:  a sense of normality has returned to Afghanistan.

To illustrate his observation, the general ticked off a few statistics. Afghanistan's economy has leapfrogged from $2 billion in 2001 to $20 billion.  The population in the capital of Kabul has swollen from less than 500,000 to more than 3 million.  The number of paved roads has more than doubled.

In 2001, there were 1,000 schools in the Asian nation staffed with 20,000 teachers.  Today there are more than 14,000 schools and 180,000 teachers in the country.  There were no females in primary or secondary schools 13 years ago, but now girls represent 48 percent of the student population.

According to General Campbell, there are 50 television outlets, 150 radio stations, 6 million Internet users and more than 22 million cell phone subscribers in the country.  When the Taliban ruled, there were no electronic media or Internet users.  Less than 25,000 people had wireless phones.

Most Afghans have benefited from the changes made possible by U.S. military involvement.  The average per capita income was $150 in 2001.  It has risen to $1,100.  Unemployment has nosedived from 50 percent during the dark days of terror to less than 35 percent today.

Opinion polls conducted in Afghanistan confirm citizens are confident about their country's outlook.   Nearly eight in 10 report they expect the future to be better.  Importantly, 78 percent of Afghans want the multi-national military coalition (ISAF) to remain in their country to train their own forces.

Regarding that last point, the country's leaders agree.  In the last few weeks, both houses of the Afghan parliament have nearly unanimously approved the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) paving the way for continued U.S. involvement.

In addition to its military role, one of the coalition's chief objectives has been to "facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development."  Measured by General Campbell's statistics, America and its military partners have left the country better off than when they found it.

This does not mean the Taliban has abandoned efforts to reclaim control of the country.  But the terrorist group has been substantially weakened, even in Kandahar Province, once a Taliban stronghold. Significantly, popular support for the Taliban has dwindled.

Suicide bombings and roadside explosive devices still make the news in Afghanistan.  However, while those events grab headlines in the U.S., Afghans are quietly working to build a nation where security and prosperity are found in abundance.

Most Afghans are grateful to the United States for making that transformation possible.