Don's Tuesday column

      THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   2/25/2014

Crime and punishment—Jefferson style?

During District Attorney Greg Cohen’s time with the Tea Party Patriots, he did his best to provide attendees a frank, if somewhat brutal, picture of the state of criminal prosecution and justice in Tehama County. Given the harsh reality of civic life under the imposed incarceration standards of AB 109, or “realignment,” Mr. Cohen used his hands to simplify the quandary facing local criminal prosecutors:

Holding one hand at a level above his head, he explained that that represented the relative number of crimes considered “serious” or “felonies.” His other hand was above his head but a bit short of the first hand. He explained that that hand represented how many of those serious crimes would have resulted in state prison terms prior to AB 109, Gov. Brown’s response to judicially mandated reductions of inmate populations. The euphemism “realignment” says simply that criminals are remanded back to local and county jails, probation and enforcement personnel—all never designed nor intended to deal with serious and repeat offenders who deserve hard time in state penitentiaries.

Then he moved the second hand down near his waist to dramatically illustrate the level of those crimes that will realistically result in a state prison sentence. His prosecutors know this, law enforcement knows this, and the criminals know it all too well. State Senator Jim Nielsen has labored mightily to call attention to the terrible injustice of it all, while disingenuous Democrat and news media mouthpieces downplay the obvious surge of resulting crime. It calls for citizens to take their own security in hand—handguns carried with proper permits wherever possible—because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I did not put Cohen on the spot with a question about how things could be different if Tehama County, together with similarly minded rural counties of California, were no longer under the judicial and legal authority of Sacramento. It’s not his issue but it is mine to the extent of being able to think through some applicable scenarios.

Existing state prisons could be acquired for some reasonable terms. Over time, inmates originating from California could be returned there; likewise, inmates in California from the counties forming the State of Jefferson would transfer here. Correctional officers would be informed that their employment is terminated unless they wish to take pay reductions more reflective of the market rate for such personnel, absent union-driven exorbitant salaries and benefits. New prisons, if required, could be built far more economically without the outrageous, mandated union scales of “prevailing wage” rules.

Rather than turning serious offenders loose on innocent civilian populations, they could be packed to the walls until such new facilities are completed, including field-tent operations for the low-risk prisoners that have earned such security arrangements. If judges decide against the State of Jefferson’s prison regimen, let them get their like-minded judges together and try to enforce their judicial fiats. Prisoner health care? Just the basics, please.

Anyone saying the State of Jefferson would be short of potential revenue for things as basic as law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration, should consider how much revenue would come from a booming economy, labor force and retail businesses free of sales taxes. Blessed with abundant opportunities no longer present in the over-regulated, over-taxed, highly welfare-dependent California status quo, jobs would explode. A truly conservative governor and legislature would, first and foremost, provide essential security to Jeffersonian citizens. They could also figure out how anyone with the means and desire to start a business could be expedited through a streamlined permitting process—let the moving vans be welcomed at our borders and unload the productive but formerly “Californi-cated” people yearning for economic freedom here.

In fact, with a few more states like Jefferson, the balance could even tip in Washington toward a more conservative Senate and an Electoral College advantage in presidential elections. Upon Obamacare’s repeal, free-market solutions to health care affordability and access could more easily be implemented, particularly by allowing states the flexibility they need, not currently available under Medicaid mandates, to provide health care to the truly indigent.

On a related note, Covered California follies proceed apace: “Facing a $78 million budget shortfall, California’s ObamaCare exchange has spent $1.37 million to fund an outreach featuring exercise guru Richard Simmons gyrating on the floor and hugging a contortionist who is kneeling with his buttocks in the air.” (Noted by NorCal Republican State Senator, Ted Gaines, reported by Foxnews.com, 1/30)

“In California, policies for about 900,000 Californians are being canceled because of ObamaCare’s mandates, and about two-thirds of these do not qualify for subsidies. The result: These folks will be paying higher premiums.” (1/04, Chicago Tribune) About 500,000 were enrolled in Covered California through Dec. 31 (latimes.com). So, almost twice as many lost insurance as were signed up for Obamacare in our state, same ratio as the whole nation.

Finally, I offer my antagonistic colleague some cheese (a little brie, perhaps?) to go with his “whine,” as I see it, over our local “extremely conservative climate,” “animosity among the electorate,” my “continuous diatribes,” as well as apparent supporters who “don’t hesitate to condemn and vilify,” with “harangues” directed at “everyone who speaks to the contrary.” Poor besieged liberal! Did Joan of Arc ever have such a burden?