In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State ~ From The Sixth Amendment of The United States Constitution
So it’s come to this. California is closing the courthouse doors. The recently enacted state budget is slashing 350 million dollars from the California Judicial System. Over the last three years the court budget has been reduced by more than 30 percent. And of course, he remarked dryly, the criminal element has chosen to reduce its activity by 30 percent so as not to further burden the groaning justice system. This is just another casualty of the scorched earth, revenue free budget passed by that pompous Sacramento crowd.
Let’s take a moment to delve into some of the details of what the budgetary meat axe wrought.
You’d best get used to that albatross you once called your loved one because a divorce is now going to take 18 months. That’s going to take a toll on the kitchen crockery.
Lawsuits are now going to take five years to get to trial. On the plus side I guess this gives the frivolous a few moments of pause but a truly egregious offense will fester.
Child custody cases which used to take four weeks will now wait for up to four months and there really isn’t anything humorous or cute I can say to that.
In San Joaquin County the small claims court is closed. Yes, I said closed, as in out of business. So you’re a landlord whose property got trashed or a tenant whose landlord unfairly kept a deposit? You’re just going to have to suck up that loss.
According to an article in The L.A. Times, the cuts may require changes in the law allowing for shorter trials or trials without juries.
And you know that right to a speedy trial that The United States Constitution guarantees. Well you can look for that guarantee to expire soon. Closed courthouses, staff cuts and shorter hours will guarantee nothing but a pushed out trial date.
But here is my favorite of all from The Times article, “State lawmakers raided Judiciary Branch funds for courthouse construction to balance this year's budget. The funds, built up through legal fees and fines, were supposed to be used to replace decrepit courthouses riddled with health and safety problems. State legislators said the funds would be repaid in more solvent times.” That’s absolutely hilarious. They’re going to pay it back. That money is as gone as the 500 dollars you loaned to your 20 something year old child who says he swears he'll pay it back once he's back on his feet. The difference of course is you love your child and you'll simply write it off. Nobody loves the legislators, I dare say not even their parents. I wouldn’t loan a thin dime to any of those brigands. And if they don’t pay it back I suppose the courts can sue the state; that is if they have time to wait for it to go to trial.
Look, this is nothing short of travesty. In a previous post, I commented on The State Legislature abdicating its responsibility and here is yet another instance. It is a case of the budgetary knife cutting not just to the bone but into the bone so that the marrow is oozing out. And we have a Republican wing of the legislature to thank for this. A contingent that has made a no taxation vow come hell, high water or the rending of The Constitution. Republican bashing you say? Sure, but if it were on the Democratic foot I would be bashing them and frankly I’m a little tired of the continual caving on the part of the Democrats.
I’m also getting a little tired of the shop worn “tax and spend” cliche and the overworked analogy of “Well when you max out your credit at home you stop spending." Personally I recall a time when my expenditures were exceeding my income. Yes I did cut where I could but I also decided that I needed to raise more revenue and that’s just what I did. I took a second job. It wasn’t fun and it put a crimp on my lifestyle but I needed more revenue. Well, California needs more revenue and while that might not be fun either we’re well beyond the point of biting that bullet.
Many of the cuts could have been avoided simply by renewing a quarter-percentage point increase in personal income tax and a one percent increase in sales tax. These aren’t exactly usury taxes that require pulling the musket down off the wall and marching on Sacramento but a minority of legislators dug in their ideological heels. The result is that in The State of California you’ll have your justice served; it will just be served late and cold.
Most people I've talked with who are against tax increases, even though they are intelligent or reasonably so, seem to have no grasp of basic economics. They may not do their own tax returns but they probably manage their monthly budgets. How is it that they don't understand basic economics?
ReplyDeleteNot increasing revenue when expenditures increase is the primary reason budgets aren't balanced and we end up with a ridiculous amount of national debt.
This is easily understandable when applied at a personal level, yet those who are in steadfast opposition to tax increases don't seem to understand it.
The Tea Party folks are a good example. They are opposed to tax increases, are for national debt and budget deficit reduction, and are in favor of lower government spending. Those are great in theory, but theory and practical reality often don't correlate.
Reduced government spending is desirable and necessary when there are obvious areas of wasteful spending such as bloated bureaucracies. I am all for such "cutting the fat" from local, state, and federal spending. There are two reasons why such cuts are rarely if ever 100% of what they should be. The first is that, human nature being what it is, there will be those in public service who will successfully avoid cuts to their office because of greed and self-serving interests. The second reason is that, again due to human nature, perfection is rarely achieved.
Whatever percentage the cuts in wasteful government spending are compared to what they should be, it is unlikely that those cuts alone would be enough for balanced budgets and significant debt reduction. Because of this economic reality, those cuts end up being (as you put it) not just to the bone but into the bone.
Like most reasonably sane citizens, I would prefer tax increases to the middle class to be as light as possible if two conditions are met. The tax breaks for the wealthy need to end or be significantly reduced. Being wealthy is intrinsically a financial break, those privileged few don't deserve tax breaks as a reward for having wealth. The second condition would be ending or significantly reducing corporate tax breaks.
Republican bashing, conservative bashing, they're the same because most Republicans are conservatives. While I am also tired of Democrats caving in to the Republicans, I understand that the Republicans tend to be so stubborn as to not want to give an inch.
I neglected to mention the gazillions of dollars wasted in absurd wars which could be much better spent on domestic problems and programs. Time has come today for an amendment to our Constitution, something like this: Congress may declare war only if agreed to by popular vote and if enough ready money is available to fund the war. These stipulations do not apply in situations where the United States has clearly and unmistakably been attacked.
ReplyDeletePeople want services but they don't want to pay for them. We've been so inundated, particularly in California with the notion that the government is awash in waste. I'll agree with that to a point but the fact that budget slashing has closed courts and delayed trials has shown we've had cut too deeply. There is a way out of the mess and that is to revise Prop 13. Prop 13 was the beginning of this mess.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly was the beginning of the mess. You'll recall the noxious landlords I had while living on 41st Avenue in the mid '70s. One day they dropped in on me imploring me to vote for Prop.13, promising me that if it passed they would lower my rent. It passed and, you guessed it, they immediately raised my rent.
ReplyDeleteIn a previous post on UC tuition I mentioned Bill Bageley. He was furious with the legislature. In an interview he was asked what caused the situation and he was quick to blame Prop 13. Interesting to note that he was a Republican Assemblyman and was a staunch Deukmajian man. I'm making an assumption when I say that back in the 70's he was probably a Prop 13 supporter.
ReplyDeleteThe basic idea of Prop 13 was not entirely bad because homeowners were being eaten alive by property taxes. My mother would set up a special savings account (like the old xmas club account) just to be able to pay the property taxes. Prop 13 came along and it went way too far but beleaguered property owners jumped on the band wagon without knowing where the wagon was going.