OK, let's calm down and see these recent developments in Arizona and even the city of Costa Mesa for what they really are. They have little or nothing to do with racism and everything to do with legitimate frustration, and even desperation, about the entire situation with illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers, if you prefer). So from the standpoint of all good people, it is simply time for something affirmative to be done!
The first substantive column I wrote for this series was published on July 22, 2007, and dealt with this very subject ("Immigration system is ineffective"). What I said then is what I say now, and that is that I seldom get angry at illegal immigrants, and you shouldn't either. They are simply doing what our system so strongly encourages them to do, and they almost all come to our country for the same reasons our ancestors did: to seek better lives for themselves and their families.
The problem is that the federal government has all of the power in this area, makes all of the rules and does whatever enforcement that takes place, which is not very much. But the federal government mostly does not have to pay for the costs of illegal immigrants. Instead, most of the costs are paid by the state and local governments, and the school districts.
The irony is that it would not be hard at all to install a workable system, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats actually want this to happen. Why not? Money and power.
Many powerful Republicans are anxious to retain the source of cheap labor that is furnished to them by illegal immigrants, and many powerful Democrats are anxious to have all of these people come into the country on the hope that they eventually will vote for Democrats. In the meantime, many good people on both sides of the issue are being severely punished under the status quo.
What is the resolution? Actually, it is relatively straightforward, and just a three-step process.
First, we must understand that this failed system will never be changed until the federal government has the incentive to change it. So the federal government must be required to pay for all of the governmental costs of illegal immigrants, including health care, education and incarceration.
Second, we, and no one else, should decide how many people can enter our country to work, and for what period of time they can stay. Then we should create a program that allows foreign workers to have something like an "orange" card that will allow them to work here legally during that specified period of time.
This would be much like our former Bracero Program, and would be in addition to our present resident alien and naturalization programs. The workers probably could not bring other members of their families with them, would pay reduced taxes on their income and would receive reduced services for things like health care while they are here. But, since they would be here legally, the workers would be able to obtain driver's licenses.
The third important component of this suggested program would be to use strict sanctions for all employers who in any way hire workers who do not have the proper identification. In effect, everyone in the country would either need a passport, birth certificate, green card or orange card to be able to be hired for a job, so the laws would be applied equally to everyone. Workers who have valid proof of eligibility would be able to work, live normal lives, and travel legally across our borders within the specified times. Those who do not have proper proof would increasingly have trouble finding work, so soon they would probably go elsewhere.
Holding people who hire undocumented workers responsible for their illegal acts would be the key, but it can be done without much difficulty. With today's computer chip technology, we should easily be able to create identification cards based upon people's fingerprints or even the irises of their eyes such that the cards could not be falsified. So there would be no excuse for hiring people who do not have proper identification. And once we have that workable system in place, we could also exclude permanently from admission to the country those non-citizens who persist in violating our laws.
It is time to recognize the legitimate frustration of our state and local governments that are hemorrhaging money to pay for the status quo, but without having any controls whatsoever over those costs. Of course, there will still be problems, but these changes will allow us in large measure to regain control of our borders, reduce dangers and injustices for non-citizens, seriously reduce the burden upon our taxpayers to support such large numbers of people who are here illegally, reinstitute and reinforce the rule of law, bring more employment income back "above the table," and begin to return everybody's lives to normal.
And then — and only after we have a system in place to control our borders — should we address the difficult and truly emotional and sometimes even wrenching issues of who receives "amnesty" and who does not. And in doing this we will have to take into account the large numbers of people all around the world who have applied to enter our great country through proper channels.
States like Arizona and cities like Costa Mesa should not be criticized for wanting our laws to be enforced. In fact, they should be criticized if they do not — and so should we all. So as the June and November elections approach, I suggest you support those candidates for federal elective office who will work to implement a law to require the federal government to pay for the governmental costs of its own failure to put into place a workable immigration system. It would not be hard to fix this terrible situation, so let's push them to do just that!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Reality in Pelican Bay Prison - by Judge Jim Gray
A few weeks ago I devoted this column to the comments and observations of my friend Dr. Earl Fuller about his experiences while volunteering at the women’s prison at Chowchilla. The interest in the column was high, and I wanted to share two responses with you were posted on the Daily Pilot’s website.
The first one was: “Finally, some of the horror stories that those of us who have loved ones in prison will be told. I have been sending my son’s story to newspapers for over 2 years, but not one of them has printed it. Maybe now someone will listen to the truth and the people will understand that things are still not right in California.” The second was “What would I feel if a dear one were in prison? I am worried daily because I know someone in prison and he is sick and not being given adequate medical treatment.”
Because Fuller also volunteered to provide medical care at Pelican Bay Prison in Northern California, which houses the most dangerous male inmates, I asked him to give us his observations about the medical care these men received, and to compare it with that received at Chowchilla by the women. The following is a summary of what he told me.
The medical needs and wants of the male prisoners are really quite different than for the women, and I believe the difference is explained on a psychological basis. Women see medical care as a desirable and important adjunct to their life. Having regular visits and care by a physician confers both status and medicine, and both are considered to be a valuable commodity. The male prisoners have a different mindset because the need to see a doctor and take medicine is seen as a sign of weakness. Thus the male inmates try to limit or ignore illness until it can be ignored no longer.
The psychology also differs in another significant way. The male inmates all seemed to be convinced that they would be killed on the outside by the time they were 25 years old. So it didn’t really matter what you did or to whom you did it because you were soon going to be dead anyway. But when they were caught before they could be killed and they were sent away for 50 or 60 years to prison because of one or a series of horrible acts, they were stuck continuing to exist without really ever having learned how to live.
This resulted in most of the inmates existing almost in a vacuum. Their entire day involved being in their special violent offenders housing unit, with breakfast being brought in early, and then watching television until lunch. In the afternoon they were often handcuffed between two guards and taken down to the yard, and then put into a cage of 10-by-25 feet to run around outside for 90 minutes before they were returned to their cells. But this almost always means that when they are eventually paroled at age 45 or 50, they have no skills, no ambition and no abilities. As a result, they are poorly prepared to lead an independent existence, and often almost intentionally return to prison because that is the only place where they feel comfortable.
The prisoners whom I saw medically fell into several categories, which were those with battle injuries mostly from fighting that could not be ignored any longer, those with infections that were getting worse, and those who had contracted diseases. Mostly their sores, cuts and bruises healed quickly, as you would expect in these young people, and the infections were equally responsive, once the inmates allowed us to use medications.
The regularly established clinics ran reasonably well for those afflicted with chronic diseases like diabetes, lung diseases, hypertension and AIDS. But like with the women’s prisons, the need to keep everything fast and cheap was always present. The prisons medically could do a lot more for their inmates, but it takes money that does not seem to be available.
The process used to get them to us to be seen was interesting. First the inmate would back up to his cell door, whereupon a small barred window in his cell was opened and he would be handcuffed. Then he was walked between two guards in flak jackets to my clinic. If he had to wait, he was placed in a waiting box made out of metal and a metal screen, which was about 6 feet tall and 4 feet wide, and also had a small built-in seat inside.
The inmate would be locked into the box until I could see him. He would then be re-handcuffed and brought to me, but I would have about four to six guards around me at all times. When I would ask to have the handcuffs removed so I could examine the patient, the guards wondered about my sanity. Generally, these inmates were not nice people, and some were overtly psychotic. Yet they still got sick and they still needed to be treated humanly, if only for our sake — if not for theirs.
Those are some of Fuller’s comments. What he did not address was the organized sexual abuse and violence that is often rampant in these facilities. But from my standpoint, all of his observations again strongly reinforce the need for us to provide positive mentors to all of our children — early and often — so that they do not get caught up in the hopeless “well, I’ll be dead anyway” lifestyle Fuller described.
So continue to make special efforts to support things like the YM and YWCAs, Boys & Girls Clubs, Scouting organizations, and after-school sports and academic activities. As was stated a few years ago in this column, a “stitch in time” truly does help to keep our children from this fate.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
The first one was: “Finally, some of the horror stories that those of us who have loved ones in prison will be told. I have been sending my son’s story to newspapers for over 2 years, but not one of them has printed it. Maybe now someone will listen to the truth and the people will understand that things are still not right in California.” The second was “What would I feel if a dear one were in prison? I am worried daily because I know someone in prison and he is sick and not being given adequate medical treatment.”
Because Fuller also volunteered to provide medical care at Pelican Bay Prison in Northern California, which houses the most dangerous male inmates, I asked him to give us his observations about the medical care these men received, and to compare it with that received at Chowchilla by the women. The following is a summary of what he told me.
The medical needs and wants of the male prisoners are really quite different than for the women, and I believe the difference is explained on a psychological basis. Women see medical care as a desirable and important adjunct to their life. Having regular visits and care by a physician confers both status and medicine, and both are considered to be a valuable commodity. The male prisoners have a different mindset because the need to see a doctor and take medicine is seen as a sign of weakness. Thus the male inmates try to limit or ignore illness until it can be ignored no longer.
The psychology also differs in another significant way. The male inmates all seemed to be convinced that they would be killed on the outside by the time they were 25 years old. So it didn’t really matter what you did or to whom you did it because you were soon going to be dead anyway. But when they were caught before they could be killed and they were sent away for 50 or 60 years to prison because of one or a series of horrible acts, they were stuck continuing to exist without really ever having learned how to live.
This resulted in most of the inmates existing almost in a vacuum. Their entire day involved being in their special violent offenders housing unit, with breakfast being brought in early, and then watching television until lunch. In the afternoon they were often handcuffed between two guards and taken down to the yard, and then put into a cage of 10-by-25 feet to run around outside for 90 minutes before they were returned to their cells. But this almost always means that when they are eventually paroled at age 45 or 50, they have no skills, no ambition and no abilities. As a result, they are poorly prepared to lead an independent existence, and often almost intentionally return to prison because that is the only place where they feel comfortable.
The prisoners whom I saw medically fell into several categories, which were those with battle injuries mostly from fighting that could not be ignored any longer, those with infections that were getting worse, and those who had contracted diseases. Mostly their sores, cuts and bruises healed quickly, as you would expect in these young people, and the infections were equally responsive, once the inmates allowed us to use medications.
The regularly established clinics ran reasonably well for those afflicted with chronic diseases like diabetes, lung diseases, hypertension and AIDS. But like with the women’s prisons, the need to keep everything fast and cheap was always present. The prisons medically could do a lot more for their inmates, but it takes money that does not seem to be available.
The process used to get them to us to be seen was interesting. First the inmate would back up to his cell door, whereupon a small barred window in his cell was opened and he would be handcuffed. Then he was walked between two guards in flak jackets to my clinic. If he had to wait, he was placed in a waiting box made out of metal and a metal screen, which was about 6 feet tall and 4 feet wide, and also had a small built-in seat inside.
The inmate would be locked into the box until I could see him. He would then be re-handcuffed and brought to me, but I would have about four to six guards around me at all times. When I would ask to have the handcuffs removed so I could examine the patient, the guards wondered about my sanity. Generally, these inmates were not nice people, and some were overtly psychotic. Yet they still got sick and they still needed to be treated humanly, if only for our sake — if not for theirs.
Those are some of Fuller’s comments. What he did not address was the organized sexual abuse and violence that is often rampant in these facilities. But from my standpoint, all of his observations again strongly reinforce the need for us to provide positive mentors to all of our children — early and often — so that they do not get caught up in the hopeless “well, I’ll be dead anyway” lifestyle Fuller described.
So continue to make special efforts to support things like the YM and YWCAs, Boys & Girls Clubs, Scouting organizations, and after-school sports and academic activities. As was stated a few years ago in this column, a “stitch in time” truly does help to keep our children from this fate.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Reject cynicism - vote - by Judge Jim Gray
One of the most gratifying things about writing this column is that people often respond, either on the Daily Pilot’s website or to me personally by e-mail.
I always respond privately to the e-mails, but after my column about my having attended the April 15 Tea Party rally in Santa Ana (“We have to rally for beliefs”), I received an e-mail from David Pearse of Costa Mesa that I wanted to share with you, because the beliefs he expressed are not limited to him.
Mr. Pearse’s message focused on my frequent reminders that “if our government isn’t working, we have no one to blame but ourselves.” His point was that what I say isn’t true.
“Our government is basically a mobocracy now,” he wrote. “The poor steal from the rich, and the politicians facilitate the process. The Constitutional Republic we started out with, with its checks and balances and its protections of life and property, no longer apply, as the government has, for the past 200 years, whittled away at these protections until they are now largely nonexistent. I mean, the government can now confiscate private homes in order to build shopping malls.”
Mr. Pearse finishes by saying “Jim, I’m proud to say I’ve never voted in my life. I have not bought into the system, as I know my vote is meaningless, just as your vote has always been meaningless. I am powerless to change the downward spiral in this country, as are you. It amazes me that you still seem to think we can turn things around in this country, when in fact we are doomed to become just another stagnant European type country with perennially high unemployment and perennially low growth.”
With regret, to some degree I believe he is right. But only to some degree. Even though I do not often vote for winning candidates or issues, I am deeply proud to say that I have voted in every election since I became eligible. I often brag about that fact when I speak to young people, and tell them that I hope they can make the same claim when they are my age.
But is all of this naïve — or simply an exercise to make myself feel better? I acknowledge that my pessimism on this subject has been growing over time, particularly with the thorough gerrymandering that both the Republicans and Democrats do jointly to keep elections from being competitive. Nevertheless, I persist.
It is worse for me because I resigned from the Republican party in 2003. I could no longer be a part of any organization that condoned, much less actively supported, the so-called Patriot Act, which I see as a direct attack on our civil liberties — and one that is not necessary to keep us safe.
I am now a Libertarian, and am trying to grow that party’s strength and influence in an effort to promote more liberty and responsibility in our country. But that means that, as a third-party voter, my vote often is diluted below the many votes of those who are still members of the majority parties. (And by the way, if Proposition 14 passes it will destroy third parties in California, so please vote “No.”) Nevertheless, even considering all of these circumstances, I am not where Mr. Pearse is, and hope I never will be.
And then there is the fact that every vote has mattered. What about the votes in Florida in the Bush vs. Gore presidential election of 2000? And what about large numbers of more local elections for political offices and issues, which are sometimes really close? How can anyone justify cynicism in those elections, even if that cynicism may apply elsewhere?
We must also discuss the alternatives. Speaking for myself, I simply will not abandon what is great in our country so that we can become socialistic like France and Greece, or capitalistic police states like Singapore and Saudi Arabia.
Simply stated, we can either do our literal best and continue to affect what we can, or we can withdraw from the process and “go to the beach.” Our great country is still the beacon of hope to most of the world. Its soul is our freedoms, and its strength is derived from free markets and free choice. How can we so easily abandon what has made our country great?
Mr. Pearse raises many valid points, but so what? His withdrawal will never be the correct thing to do as long as I and millions of other Americans continue to be an active part of the political system. What is your opinion about this? If you still hold onto these hopes for our country and posterity, what are you doing to move us back toward liberty and responsibility? As Frank Sinatra sang, are you a ram that keeps butting that dam? In the song, the ram was eventually successful — and sometimes we are too.
Yes, sometimes our heads hurt from continually butting the dam, but in several places we are making progress. As just one example, we Californians can vote this November on the critically important initiative to repeal marijuana prohibition by treating cannabis like alcohol for adults: taxing it, and holding people accountable for their actions instead of what they put into their bodies. Will your vote make any difference? Yes, it will! That vote will probably be close.
So I publicly ask Mr. Pearse to reassess his position, and I ask the same of anyone else who has similar thoughts. Register to vote, educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, support those who are important to you, and join us sometimes idealistic and maybe even naïve people and do what lots of veterans have given their lives to give us the sacred opportunity to do: vote. Sometimes your vote will matter a great deal, and, besides, at least you will know that you tried.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or www.judgejimgray.com .
I always respond privately to the e-mails, but after my column about my having attended the April 15 Tea Party rally in Santa Ana (“We have to rally for beliefs”), I received an e-mail from David Pearse of Costa Mesa that I wanted to share with you, because the beliefs he expressed are not limited to him.
Mr. Pearse’s message focused on my frequent reminders that “if our government isn’t working, we have no one to blame but ourselves.” His point was that what I say isn’t true.
“Our government is basically a mobocracy now,” he wrote. “The poor steal from the rich, and the politicians facilitate the process. The Constitutional Republic we started out with, with its checks and balances and its protections of life and property, no longer apply, as the government has, for the past 200 years, whittled away at these protections until they are now largely nonexistent. I mean, the government can now confiscate private homes in order to build shopping malls.”
Mr. Pearse finishes by saying “Jim, I’m proud to say I’ve never voted in my life. I have not bought into the system, as I know my vote is meaningless, just as your vote has always been meaningless. I am powerless to change the downward spiral in this country, as are you. It amazes me that you still seem to think we can turn things around in this country, when in fact we are doomed to become just another stagnant European type country with perennially high unemployment and perennially low growth.”
With regret, to some degree I believe he is right. But only to some degree. Even though I do not often vote for winning candidates or issues, I am deeply proud to say that I have voted in every election since I became eligible. I often brag about that fact when I speak to young people, and tell them that I hope they can make the same claim when they are my age.
But is all of this naïve — or simply an exercise to make myself feel better? I acknowledge that my pessimism on this subject has been growing over time, particularly with the thorough gerrymandering that both the Republicans and Democrats do jointly to keep elections from being competitive. Nevertheless, I persist.
It is worse for me because I resigned from the Republican party in 2003. I could no longer be a part of any organization that condoned, much less actively supported, the so-called Patriot Act, which I see as a direct attack on our civil liberties — and one that is not necessary to keep us safe.
I am now a Libertarian, and am trying to grow that party’s strength and influence in an effort to promote more liberty and responsibility in our country. But that means that, as a third-party voter, my vote often is diluted below the many votes of those who are still members of the majority parties. (And by the way, if Proposition 14 passes it will destroy third parties in California, so please vote “No.”) Nevertheless, even considering all of these circumstances, I am not where Mr. Pearse is, and hope I never will be.
And then there is the fact that every vote has mattered. What about the votes in Florida in the Bush vs. Gore presidential election of 2000? And what about large numbers of more local elections for political offices and issues, which are sometimes really close? How can anyone justify cynicism in those elections, even if that cynicism may apply elsewhere?
We must also discuss the alternatives. Speaking for myself, I simply will not abandon what is great in our country so that we can become socialistic like France and Greece, or capitalistic police states like Singapore and Saudi Arabia.
Simply stated, we can either do our literal best and continue to affect what we can, or we can withdraw from the process and “go to the beach.” Our great country is still the beacon of hope to most of the world. Its soul is our freedoms, and its strength is derived from free markets and free choice. How can we so easily abandon what has made our country great?
Mr. Pearse raises many valid points, but so what? His withdrawal will never be the correct thing to do as long as I and millions of other Americans continue to be an active part of the political system. What is your opinion about this? If you still hold onto these hopes for our country and posterity, what are you doing to move us back toward liberty and responsibility? As Frank Sinatra sang, are you a ram that keeps butting that dam? In the song, the ram was eventually successful — and sometimes we are too.
Yes, sometimes our heads hurt from continually butting the dam, but in several places we are making progress. As just one example, we Californians can vote this November on the critically important initiative to repeal marijuana prohibition by treating cannabis like alcohol for adults: taxing it, and holding people accountable for their actions instead of what they put into their bodies. Will your vote make any difference? Yes, it will! That vote will probably be close.
So I publicly ask Mr. Pearse to reassess his position, and I ask the same of anyone else who has similar thoughts. Register to vote, educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, support those who are important to you, and join us sometimes idealistic and maybe even naïve people and do what lots of veterans have given their lives to give us the sacred opportunity to do: vote. Sometimes your vote will matter a great deal, and, besides, at least you will know that you tried.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Prisons lacking proper care - by Judge Jim Gray
During my time as a trial court judge, I heard many disturbing stories about substandard medical treatment being given to the inmates in our prison system, and recently the federal courts have begun threatening to take action about the situation.
So in an effort to educate myself, I asked Earl Fuller, a good friend of mine and a retired medical doctor who had volunteered to provide medical services in the women’s prison at Chowchilla, if he would share with me some observations about his experiences while he was there.
He agreed to do so, and I am passing his comments along to you as indications about some of the conditions that existed in 1996 that the federal courts would probably have been hearing about.
Why do they care, or why do we? Because one of the responsibilities of a just and moral society is to protect and take care of everyone who is in our custody, whether they be Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper.
The following is a paraphrasing of Fuller’s comments.
You asked me to write about some of my experiences as a prison physician. I retired as a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist after 32 years in Fullerton.
My first position was at the California Women’s Prison in Chowchilla, Calif., and I was there in the spring or early summer of 1996 as a relief physician who took over for regular doctors on leave.
My first assignment was to a “yard” that housed several barracks of inmates. The women were not allowed to have prescription drugs in their possession, so they were dispensed by guards in the morning, noon and evening. Nevertheless, a certain amount of illegal drugs was always available. The inmates also made a horrible home brew called “prunella,” which caused some drunkenness after fermentation.
I was faced with a medical potpourri that was fascinating and would have supplied any medical school with more pathology than the students ever could have handled.
For example, I would see at least four patients a day with hepatitis A, B and C. Generally when a person has all three viruses it is as a result of unclean needles from injecting drugs.
There would also usually be at least four women with syphilis, two women with treated tuberculosis, and large numbers with diabetes, hypertension and arthritis.
Throughout my time there, it was my experience that the prison system’s main financial goal was to house these women as inexpensively as possible. Of course, medicine could be an irritating demand on the budget, so almost any request that could be safely denied was.
I also remember an inmate who requested long socks. She was a rather large woman and was fitted with leather high-top shoes because they were the only ones that fit her.
Unfortunately, the supply room only had short socks that would not come to the tops of her shoes, so her ankles had been rubbed raw and were bleeding from contact with the leather.
She cut the short socks to cover her ankles, but then her uncovered instep rubbed so much that it also became raw. I made four requests for appropriate socks, but they were never granted by the time I left.
Another deeply disturbing expense-saving idea I encountered was not to treat hepatitis until the liver enzymes began to rise, suggesting that the entire liver was beginning to fail.
The liver is a wonderful organ that keeps on functioning until it is almost destroyed.
So when the enzymes are rising because of hepatitis, there is probably less than 10% of the liver remaining.
When faced with the first signs of liver failure, I began treatment immediately. Unfortunately treatment is expensive, as uncomfortable as chemotherapy, and time consuming for the nursing staff.
This made me unpopular with the staff, but medically it was necessary to save as much of the liver as possible or a liver transplant would be the only option.
During my second month, I was moved to do admitting histories and physicals on new inmates. I couldn’t do much but diagnose in this position, because treatment was left to the other physicians. But I do remember talking with a woman who was sent back to prison for violating parole. She said she was riding in a car with her boyfriend when the police stopped them and found a half-smoked marijuana cigarette on the floor in the back seat.
That resulted in her parole being revoked and her being placed back in prison.
Maybe she lied to me, but if not we are paying $35,000 a year to keep her there.
Finally, I can tell you that significant numbers of inmates are in custody for drug problems. But during my entire time working in the prisons, I do not remember seeing any drug treatment, counseling or classes to help the addicts.
We seem only to be punishing them to nobody’s advantage, which is terribly expensive for the taxpayers, and everybody else.
Those are some of Fuller’s comments. So let me ask you. If you or people you hold dear were in prison with untreated failing livers, or feet being rubbed raw for lack of higher socks, how would you feel? What would you do?
Next week we will talk about this issue some more.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
So in an effort to educate myself, I asked Earl Fuller, a good friend of mine and a retired medical doctor who had volunteered to provide medical services in the women’s prison at Chowchilla, if he would share with me some observations about his experiences while he was there.
He agreed to do so, and I am passing his comments along to you as indications about some of the conditions that existed in 1996 that the federal courts would probably have been hearing about.
Why do they care, or why do we? Because one of the responsibilities of a just and moral society is to protect and take care of everyone who is in our custody, whether they be Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper.
The following is a paraphrasing of Fuller’s comments.
You asked me to write about some of my experiences as a prison physician. I retired as a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist after 32 years in Fullerton.
My first position was at the California Women’s Prison in Chowchilla, Calif., and I was there in the spring or early summer of 1996 as a relief physician who took over for regular doctors on leave.
My first assignment was to a “yard” that housed several barracks of inmates. The women were not allowed to have prescription drugs in their possession, so they were dispensed by guards in the morning, noon and evening. Nevertheless, a certain amount of illegal drugs was always available. The inmates also made a horrible home brew called “prunella,” which caused some drunkenness after fermentation.
I was faced with a medical potpourri that was fascinating and would have supplied any medical school with more pathology than the students ever could have handled.
For example, I would see at least four patients a day with hepatitis A, B and C. Generally when a person has all three viruses it is as a result of unclean needles from injecting drugs.
There would also usually be at least four women with syphilis, two women with treated tuberculosis, and large numbers with diabetes, hypertension and arthritis.
Throughout my time there, it was my experience that the prison system’s main financial goal was to house these women as inexpensively as possible. Of course, medicine could be an irritating demand on the budget, so almost any request that could be safely denied was.
I also remember an inmate who requested long socks. She was a rather large woman and was fitted with leather high-top shoes because they were the only ones that fit her.
Unfortunately, the supply room only had short socks that would not come to the tops of her shoes, so her ankles had been rubbed raw and were bleeding from contact with the leather.
She cut the short socks to cover her ankles, but then her uncovered instep rubbed so much that it also became raw. I made four requests for appropriate socks, but they were never granted by the time I left.
Another deeply disturbing expense-saving idea I encountered was not to treat hepatitis until the liver enzymes began to rise, suggesting that the entire liver was beginning to fail.
The liver is a wonderful organ that keeps on functioning until it is almost destroyed.
So when the enzymes are rising because of hepatitis, there is probably less than 10% of the liver remaining.
When faced with the first signs of liver failure, I began treatment immediately. Unfortunately treatment is expensive, as uncomfortable as chemotherapy, and time consuming for the nursing staff.
This made me unpopular with the staff, but medically it was necessary to save as much of the liver as possible or a liver transplant would be the only option.
During my second month, I was moved to do admitting histories and physicals on new inmates. I couldn’t do much but diagnose in this position, because treatment was left to the other physicians. But I do remember talking with a woman who was sent back to prison for violating parole. She said she was riding in a car with her boyfriend when the police stopped them and found a half-smoked marijuana cigarette on the floor in the back seat.
That resulted in her parole being revoked and her being placed back in prison.
Maybe she lied to me, but if not we are paying $35,000 a year to keep her there.
Finally, I can tell you that significant numbers of inmates are in custody for drug problems. But during my entire time working in the prisons, I do not remember seeing any drug treatment, counseling or classes to help the addicts.
We seem only to be punishing them to nobody’s advantage, which is terribly expensive for the taxpayers, and everybody else.
Those are some of Fuller’s comments. So let me ask you. If you or people you hold dear were in prison with untreated failing livers, or feet being rubbed raw for lack of higher socks, how would you feel? What would you do?
Next week we will talk about this issue some more.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, April 25, 2010
We have to rally for beliefs - by Judge Jim Gray
On April 15, my friends Sid and Carole Spinak invited me to join them at the Tea Party rally at the Plaza of the Flags in Santa Ana, just behind the courthouse. Never having attended such a gathering and wanting to see what it was all about, I agreed to go.
After all, it was Tax Day.
And it was quite an assemblage of people. From what I saw it was a grassroots movement that had almost no formal organization or individual candidate behind it. Nor could I perceive any racism of any kind. Instead it appeared to be a gathering of people joined by common views and frustrations at the direction that our great country has been taking over the last decade.
The most common themes discussed by the speakers, and represented by the handmade signs carried by those present, were getting back to limited government and away from socialism, reducing government spending and lowering taxes, and getting back to individual responsibility and away from the concept that government can do everything for us.
For many reasons, it was uplifting to see so many people willing to take the time to exercise their rights of free speech, and to show a tangible concern over our country’s present situation. Many of them carried American flags, and others carried “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, or their own handmade signs.
Some of the signs defined “TEA” as “Taxed Enough Already,” which also explained why some of the sign carriers were “TEAd off.” Other signs made their economic views quite clear by saying things like “The American Dream Is Not a Handout,” “Free Market, Not Freeloaders,” “Stop Spending,” and “You are not Entitled to What I Earn.”
My friend Sid’s sign actually won my personal contest for being the most creative and artistic. It said: “Uncontrolled Spending; Massive Debt; Unlimited Government; We do not Consent!”
Much of the attention and wrath were aimed at the new health-care legislation (I am unable to call it “reform”), such as “Obamacare: the Efficiency of the DMV, and the Compassion of the IRS.” Of course the members of Congress were also the objects of a large amount of scorn.
For example, “Want a Job? Replace Congress,” “The Servant is not the Master,” “Cadillac Care for Congress — Clunker Care for Us,” and “Next Time Read the Bill Before You Sign!”
In addition, and from what I can tell, the Tea Party movement is not just a gathering of so-called right-wing Christians, even though that is what the media tries to imply. To the contrary, there was a wide diversity of people present, and even a few signs saying things like “Dems Against Obama Policy.” I even met August Lightfoot, who has commented both favorably and unfavorably in print about my weekly columns. In fact, it was a pleasure to shake the hand of someone who cares enough to be so active.
The old patriot Patrick Henry also made an appearance, and gave a reprise of his historic: “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death” speech. Something like this is always good for all of us to hear.
But many of the speakers were current political officeholders and candidates for political office. That really surprised me, because it is my sense that the movement tends to mock and spurn politicians. In fact I wondered how many people in attendance actually appreciated the irony of Scott Baugh, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, being at the microphone and saying things like, “Throw the bums out!”
One of the big criticisms of the Tea Party movement was that there were similar events staged on Tax Day last year, but that nothing much had happened since. In fact, it could be that many of the signs used this year were simply left over from last year.
Well, it takes more than that because the answer is not to let your passions and beliefs be dormant. I twice ran for federal political office, once as a Republican and once as a Libertarian, and those experiences left me with the demoralizing conviction that money is much too important in our elections.
To counteract that problem, each of us must be much more active in pursuing and upholding our beliefs — whatever they may be.
So when someone knocks on your door or asks you at a supermarket to sign a petition or give your support to a candidate, thank them, regardless of whether you support that particular position or not. We need everyone’s participation in this process.
And that includes your participation as well. Educate yourself as to the issues. And no matter what your position is, find others who share it, and then hunt for and support a good candidate to promote it in public office. Our politics and economy have become a mess because We, the People, have been lazy. Shame on us!
Finally, regardless of what your political affiliation is or the issues you hold dear, I hope you agree with the person who held up the Tea Party sign “Our Kids Will Inherit this Mess.” And I also hope you agree with the person whose sign read “It Is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.” This is an important period in our country’s history, and it is our children and grandchildren’s liberty and economic futures that are at stake!
Thus, each one of us should be doing more than carrying a sign once a year at a rally. Why? Because, once again, if our government isn’t working, we have no one to blame but ourselves!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
After all, it was Tax Day.
And it was quite an assemblage of people. From what I saw it was a grassroots movement that had almost no formal organization or individual candidate behind it. Nor could I perceive any racism of any kind. Instead it appeared to be a gathering of people joined by common views and frustrations at the direction that our great country has been taking over the last decade.
The most common themes discussed by the speakers, and represented by the handmade signs carried by those present, were getting back to limited government and away from socialism, reducing government spending and lowering taxes, and getting back to individual responsibility and away from the concept that government can do everything for us.
For many reasons, it was uplifting to see so many people willing to take the time to exercise their rights of free speech, and to show a tangible concern over our country’s present situation. Many of them carried American flags, and others carried “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, or their own handmade signs.
Some of the signs defined “TEA” as “Taxed Enough Already,” which also explained why some of the sign carriers were “TEAd off.” Other signs made their economic views quite clear by saying things like “The American Dream Is Not a Handout,” “Free Market, Not Freeloaders,” “Stop Spending,” and “You are not Entitled to What I Earn.”
My friend Sid’s sign actually won my personal contest for being the most creative and artistic. It said: “Uncontrolled Spending; Massive Debt; Unlimited Government; We do not Consent!”
Much of the attention and wrath were aimed at the new health-care legislation (I am unable to call it “reform”), such as “Obamacare: the Efficiency of the DMV, and the Compassion of the IRS.” Of course the members of Congress were also the objects of a large amount of scorn.
For example, “Want a Job? Replace Congress,” “The Servant is not the Master,” “Cadillac Care for Congress — Clunker Care for Us,” and “Next Time Read the Bill Before You Sign!”
In addition, and from what I can tell, the Tea Party movement is not just a gathering of so-called right-wing Christians, even though that is what the media tries to imply. To the contrary, there was a wide diversity of people present, and even a few signs saying things like “Dems Against Obama Policy.” I even met August Lightfoot, who has commented both favorably and unfavorably in print about my weekly columns. In fact, it was a pleasure to shake the hand of someone who cares enough to be so active.
The old patriot Patrick Henry also made an appearance, and gave a reprise of his historic: “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death” speech. Something like this is always good for all of us to hear.
But many of the speakers were current political officeholders and candidates for political office. That really surprised me, because it is my sense that the movement tends to mock and spurn politicians. In fact I wondered how many people in attendance actually appreciated the irony of Scott Baugh, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, being at the microphone and saying things like, “Throw the bums out!”
One of the big criticisms of the Tea Party movement was that there were similar events staged on Tax Day last year, but that nothing much had happened since. In fact, it could be that many of the signs used this year were simply left over from last year.
Well, it takes more than that because the answer is not to let your passions and beliefs be dormant. I twice ran for federal political office, once as a Republican and once as a Libertarian, and those experiences left me with the demoralizing conviction that money is much too important in our elections.
To counteract that problem, each of us must be much more active in pursuing and upholding our beliefs — whatever they may be.
So when someone knocks on your door or asks you at a supermarket to sign a petition or give your support to a candidate, thank them, regardless of whether you support that particular position or not. We need everyone’s participation in this process.
And that includes your participation as well. Educate yourself as to the issues. And no matter what your position is, find others who share it, and then hunt for and support a good candidate to promote it in public office. Our politics and economy have become a mess because We, the People, have been lazy. Shame on us!
Finally, regardless of what your political affiliation is or the issues you hold dear, I hope you agree with the person who held up the Tea Party sign “Our Kids Will Inherit this Mess.” And I also hope you agree with the person whose sign read “It Is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.” This is an important period in our country’s history, and it is our children and grandchildren’s liberty and economic futures that are at stake!
Thus, each one of us should be doing more than carrying a sign once a year at a rally. Why? Because, once again, if our government isn’t working, we have no one to blame but ourselves!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Follow the law, not hearts - by Judge Jim Gray
News flash! The Obama administration will not be nominating me, or any other Libertarian, to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States. Among other things, the reason is that our judicial philosophy is to follow the law, and one of the stated important qualifications for the Obama administration is to employ the concept of “empathy.” Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the movement to “politicize” the judiciary, and this movement is leading us astray.
It is clear that empathy is a fine character trait for any human, and that certainly includes judges. But for judges to employ empathy in their decision-making implies that they would tend to find in favor of the “poor,” the “little guy,” the “minority person” or whatever group or cause that happens to be the object of public sympathy at the moment, regardless of the merits of the case. And, of course, that would come at the expense of the “greedy rich,” “nasty employers,” “big corporations,” or, well, you fill in the blank.
Also under this approach it would not be a big step for judges to start supporting one favored ethnic group, religion, gender or even political party at the expense of the less-favored. And I hope everyone will see that this is not where we want our justice system, or our country, to go.
Now that does not mean that judges are not frequently in a position to reasonably determine the equities or be affected by concepts of “fairness” in some cases. Far from it. In fact, if there were no interpretations or judgment calls to be made, we could simply hand our judicial robes to computers.
But, candidly, during my judicial career there were quite a few times in which I would hear small claims or other civil cases without a jury and inwardly root for the more sympathetic party. But once the evidence was submitted, as much as humanly possible, I tried to carry out my constitutional responsibilities and issue my rulings controlled by the evidence and the law. Naturally that also meant that I was required to follow the laws and judicial precedents as best I could, even when I disagreed. And I instructed my jurors that they were under the same obligations.
From what I observed, former Chief Justice Rose Bird of the California Supreme Court would have passed the Obama administration’s empathy test. She certainly cared about people, which was fine, but she often was influenced by that caring to rule in favor of some parties, even when the facts, law and established legal precedent did not support it.
The problem with that approach is that it makes “forseeability” in the law almost impossible. Why is that such a problem? Because all disputes in society simply cannot be litigated. And fortunately they will not have to be, as long as attorneys and everyone else can, with some reasonable degree of certainty, anticipate in advance how the laws would be applied by the courts if the case actually did go to trial. This allows everyone to adjust their actions accordingly, which in turn allows society to function much more smoothly and efficiently.
Unfortunately we recently saw legal precedent virtually being ignored in the recent Citizens United case by the so-called conservative Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roberts. In that case, the Supreme Court held that corporations could spend without limits in elections for candidates or causes, as long as they spent the money separately from the political campaigns themselves.
The stated rationale was that the majority on the court felt, contrary to many prior Supreme Court decisions, that corporations should have the same constitutional rights as people. (And corporations just happen to have a tendency to finance more conservative causes.) So if I am right in my assessment, this is a political result, and thus a truly harmful way to conduct judicial business — if you believe in a neutral court system and the Rule of Law.
Of course, there are some rare occasions in which prior precedent should be rejected and new precedent established. For example, the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kan. broke away from the precedent established in 1896 by the case of Plessey v. Ferguson regarding the constitutionality of allowing “separate but equal” facilities for African Americans. But in that case the High Court had the benefit of the intervening 58 years of experience, which showed that the facilities were by no means equal, and also the benefit of changing times during which many people had come to realize that segregation was simply wrong under any reasonable sense of morality. But, once again, this should happen only rarely.
Having said all of this, I am proud to report that, based upon my 25 years as a trial court judge here in Orange County, I believe that most judges do their absolute best to follow the law. In fact, I am proud of our judges here and believe that you should be as well.
But at the same time I am deeply concerned to see the increasing politicization of our federal appellate courts. So I recommend that as we approach the upcoming elections, you consider only supporting candidates for Congress who convince you that they will only vote to confirm judges who, in turn, convince them that they will maintain the independence of the judiciary and follow the Rule of Law. Our country is based upon justice being independent from politics or favoritism of any kind, and each of us must do our part to keep it that way.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
It is clear that empathy is a fine character trait for any human, and that certainly includes judges. But for judges to employ empathy in their decision-making implies that they would tend to find in favor of the “poor,” the “little guy,” the “minority person” or whatever group or cause that happens to be the object of public sympathy at the moment, regardless of the merits of the case. And, of course, that would come at the expense of the “greedy rich,” “nasty employers,” “big corporations,” or, well, you fill in the blank.
Also under this approach it would not be a big step for judges to start supporting one favored ethnic group, religion, gender or even political party at the expense of the less-favored. And I hope everyone will see that this is not where we want our justice system, or our country, to go.
Now that does not mean that judges are not frequently in a position to reasonably determine the equities or be affected by concepts of “fairness” in some cases. Far from it. In fact, if there were no interpretations or judgment calls to be made, we could simply hand our judicial robes to computers.
But, candidly, during my judicial career there were quite a few times in which I would hear small claims or other civil cases without a jury and inwardly root for the more sympathetic party. But once the evidence was submitted, as much as humanly possible, I tried to carry out my constitutional responsibilities and issue my rulings controlled by the evidence and the law. Naturally that also meant that I was required to follow the laws and judicial precedents as best I could, even when I disagreed. And I instructed my jurors that they were under the same obligations.
From what I observed, former Chief Justice Rose Bird of the California Supreme Court would have passed the Obama administration’s empathy test. She certainly cared about people, which was fine, but she often was influenced by that caring to rule in favor of some parties, even when the facts, law and established legal precedent did not support it.
The problem with that approach is that it makes “forseeability” in the law almost impossible. Why is that such a problem? Because all disputes in society simply cannot be litigated. And fortunately they will not have to be, as long as attorneys and everyone else can, with some reasonable degree of certainty, anticipate in advance how the laws would be applied by the courts if the case actually did go to trial. This allows everyone to adjust their actions accordingly, which in turn allows society to function much more smoothly and efficiently.
Unfortunately we recently saw legal precedent virtually being ignored in the recent Citizens United case by the so-called conservative Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roberts. In that case, the Supreme Court held that corporations could spend without limits in elections for candidates or causes, as long as they spent the money separately from the political campaigns themselves.
The stated rationale was that the majority on the court felt, contrary to many prior Supreme Court decisions, that corporations should have the same constitutional rights as people. (And corporations just happen to have a tendency to finance more conservative causes.) So if I am right in my assessment, this is a political result, and thus a truly harmful way to conduct judicial business — if you believe in a neutral court system and the Rule of Law.
Of course, there are some rare occasions in which prior precedent should be rejected and new precedent established. For example, the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kan. broke away from the precedent established in 1896 by the case of Plessey v. Ferguson regarding the constitutionality of allowing “separate but equal” facilities for African Americans. But in that case the High Court had the benefit of the intervening 58 years of experience, which showed that the facilities were by no means equal, and also the benefit of changing times during which many people had come to realize that segregation was simply wrong under any reasonable sense of morality. But, once again, this should happen only rarely.
Having said all of this, I am proud to report that, based upon my 25 years as a trial court judge here in Orange County, I believe that most judges do their absolute best to follow the law. In fact, I am proud of our judges here and believe that you should be as well.
But at the same time I am deeply concerned to see the increasing politicization of our federal appellate courts. So I recommend that as we approach the upcoming elections, you consider only supporting candidates for Congress who convince you that they will only vote to confirm judges who, in turn, convince them that they will maintain the independence of the judiciary and follow the Rule of Law. Our country is based upon justice being independent from politics or favoritism of any kind, and each of us must do our part to keep it that way.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, April 12, 2010
Our brains are our strength - by Judge Jim Gray
During my recent trip to Hong Kong, Vietnam and Cambodia, I noticed that American goods and services were prominently available in each of those countries. This started me thinking that, with all of the poor economic news about our deficits, joblessness and trade imbalances, maybe we should focus more on those commercial areas where we still dominate the world and are at least fully competitive.
So, further being reminded of FDR’s comment that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” we should remember that we still have lasting economic strength in much of the world’s markets. Our outlook should reflect that reality. In other words, we still have cause for optimism.
Today, among other things, American companies are dominant in the overnight package delivery business with UPS and FedEx Corp.; the credit card business with VISA, MasterCard and American Express; the fast food industry with McDonald’s Corp., KFC and Burger King; the soft drink industry with Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.; consumer electronics and software with Microsoft Corp., Oracle Systems Corp., Apple Computer Inc., and Google; and the entertainment industry with movies, television, news, sports coverage and popular music.
We are also highly competitive in the stock brokerage business, the hotel industry, world engineering and construction, the oil industry, the airplane industry, farm tractors and bulldozers, aircraft engines, the dental and eye care industry, and, sadly, the cigarette industry.
Furthermore, United States companies are among the leaders in the world in pharmaceuticals; heart valves, pacemakers, and hip and knee replacements; breakfast cereals and other packaged foods; aerospace, rocket control systems and business jets with companies; elevators; and venture capital.
And Nike Inc. is simply a world leader in sports shoes and wearing apparel. We also mostly lead the world with technology and inventory control with large retailers like Costco Wholesale Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co.
And don’t be misled: today General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. are producing some of the world’s best automobiles, vans, SUVs and small trucks. For example, the new Cadillac recently beat the BMW 5 Series in many important performance tests. And these are just some samples that I know of where American companies are highly competitive — surely there are many more.
So let’s not get carried away about how bad things look for us economically, even in these hard times. Yes, Japan, Korea and China are much more competitive now. But Japan’s economy is still struggling, and the quality of many of China’s products is increasingly seen as questionable.
Furthermore, although India has benefited from much outsourcing business, we are beginning to see some companies like United Healthcare bringing their work back here because India’s quality control is often not seen as high as we can consistently provide here in America.
We must also, of course, realize that we will probably never again compete with countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, India and China in low-cost labor. We can compete with our brains, but not our brawn. This means that those people in our country without an education who used to be able to have a reasonably good lifestyle, by working in factories and in other unskilled jobs, now run the risk of being left behind. Thus we all must help everyone to focus upon the importance of getting an education so that they can be marketable.
And then there are our universities. Although there are many good universities today in China, India and much of Europe, the United States still dominates the world in this critical area. Of course, we are not supporting our public universities nearly as much as we once were, and their quality cannot help but suffer eventually as a result. For example, California only provides about 15% of the funding for UCLA. But so far our universities are mostly holding their own.
So where does all of this leave us? We must once again focus upon the reality that businesses, whether they be small, medium or large, create the jobs that make and keep our economy strong. Thus the more we can do, within reason, to make our environment business friendly, the better off everyone will be.
For example, Intel Corp. recently left California and opened up a new plant in Oregon, and other companies are doing the same in Arizona and Nevada. Why? Because those states are seen as much more business friendly. That does not mean that we must abandon our environmental or anti-trust laws, or regulations promoting things like safety in the workplace. But it does mean that our governments and our laws must become more friendly for businesses, or they will either fold or move.
All of us can help. Elections are fast approaching for federal, state and local officeholders. So we should educate ourselves about the backgrounds and positions of the candidates. Read their materials, listen to their presentations, and ask questions — and follow-up questions — about where they stand.
If candidates favor more government regulations and controls, consider supporting and voting for someone else. California is one of the least business-friendly venues in the western United States, and we have the loss of jobs to prove it. Turning this around will largely determine whether we can continue to be optimistic about our financial future.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
So, further being reminded of FDR’s comment that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” we should remember that we still have lasting economic strength in much of the world’s markets. Our outlook should reflect that reality. In other words, we still have cause for optimism.
Today, among other things, American companies are dominant in the overnight package delivery business with UPS and FedEx Corp.; the credit card business with VISA, MasterCard and American Express; the fast food industry with McDonald’s Corp., KFC and Burger King; the soft drink industry with Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.; consumer electronics and software with Microsoft Corp., Oracle Systems Corp., Apple Computer Inc., and Google; and the entertainment industry with movies, television, news, sports coverage and popular music.
We are also highly competitive in the stock brokerage business, the hotel industry, world engineering and construction, the oil industry, the airplane industry, farm tractors and bulldozers, aircraft engines, the dental and eye care industry, and, sadly, the cigarette industry.
Furthermore, United States companies are among the leaders in the world in pharmaceuticals; heart valves, pacemakers, and hip and knee replacements; breakfast cereals and other packaged foods; aerospace, rocket control systems and business jets with companies; elevators; and venture capital.
And Nike Inc. is simply a world leader in sports shoes and wearing apparel. We also mostly lead the world with technology and inventory control with large retailers like Costco Wholesale Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co.
And don’t be misled: today General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. are producing some of the world’s best automobiles, vans, SUVs and small trucks. For example, the new Cadillac recently beat the BMW 5 Series in many important performance tests. And these are just some samples that I know of where American companies are highly competitive — surely there are many more.
So let’s not get carried away about how bad things look for us economically, even in these hard times. Yes, Japan, Korea and China are much more competitive now. But Japan’s economy is still struggling, and the quality of many of China’s products is increasingly seen as questionable.
Furthermore, although India has benefited from much outsourcing business, we are beginning to see some companies like United Healthcare bringing their work back here because India’s quality control is often not seen as high as we can consistently provide here in America.
We must also, of course, realize that we will probably never again compete with countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, India and China in low-cost labor. We can compete with our brains, but not our brawn. This means that those people in our country without an education who used to be able to have a reasonably good lifestyle, by working in factories and in other unskilled jobs, now run the risk of being left behind. Thus we all must help everyone to focus upon the importance of getting an education so that they can be marketable.
And then there are our universities. Although there are many good universities today in China, India and much of Europe, the United States still dominates the world in this critical area. Of course, we are not supporting our public universities nearly as much as we once were, and their quality cannot help but suffer eventually as a result. For example, California only provides about 15% of the funding for UCLA. But so far our universities are mostly holding their own.
So where does all of this leave us? We must once again focus upon the reality that businesses, whether they be small, medium or large, create the jobs that make and keep our economy strong. Thus the more we can do, within reason, to make our environment business friendly, the better off everyone will be.
For example, Intel Corp. recently left California and opened up a new plant in Oregon, and other companies are doing the same in Arizona and Nevada. Why? Because those states are seen as much more business friendly. That does not mean that we must abandon our environmental or anti-trust laws, or regulations promoting things like safety in the workplace. But it does mean that our governments and our laws must become more friendly for businesses, or they will either fold or move.
All of us can help. Elections are fast approaching for federal, state and local officeholders. So we should educate ourselves about the backgrounds and positions of the candidates. Read their materials, listen to their presentations, and ask questions — and follow-up questions — about where they stand.
If candidates favor more government regulations and controls, consider supporting and voting for someone else. California is one of the least business-friendly venues in the western United States, and we have the loss of jobs to prove it. Turning this around will largely determine whether we can continue to be optimistic about our financial future.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, April 5, 2010
Cambodia shows progress - by Judge Jim Gray
My recent trip to Vietnam and Cambodia with my wife, Grace, consisted mostly of a visit to Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon, and a five-day boat trip up the Mekong River to the Cambodian cities of Phnom Penhand Siem Reap, near Angkor Wat. Our visit to Ho Chi Minh City was the topic of last week’s column. Today, I will discuss our trip to Cambodia.
The highlight was our visit to Angkor Wat, and they truly lived up to our high expectations. This huge complex began in the 9th century and prospered until the 13th century. Many of the statues and stone carvings that have been protected from the elements look like artistic masterpieces that could have been created last week. It is well worth a trip to Cambodia just to see Angkor Wat alone: a truly amazing, inspiring and wondrous creation!
We also visited the holocaust museum in the capital of Phnom Penh. Tuol Sleng was a high school used to imprison and torture thousands of Cambodians for — as they frequently told us — three years, eight months and 20 days between 1975 and 1979. Most of the prisoners were subsequently taken out to the “killing fields” and executed with a club to the back of the head. The victims were the so-called traitors to the revolution, as well as the nation’s educated class or “intellectuals.” They included anyone considered to have had a relationship with the West or anyone who wore eyeglasses — as well as the children of any of the above. As a result, children were callously executed by having their heads beaten in with sticks and clubs.
What I had not focused upon previously was that this genocide was influenced by Mao Tse Tung from Communist China. It happened not long after China’s so-called Cultural Revolution, and was carried out by the Khmer Rouge, which are the French words for the “Red Khmers.” And, just like in China, many from the communist guard were young teenage boys who were given AK-47s and let loose on the population.
By the time it ended, 1.7 million Cambodians, or 21% of the population, perished under Pol Pot’s regime, according to Yale University’s Cambodia Genocide Project. Thus from what I could tell, “The Killing Fields” was unfortunately quite accurate with regard to the bloodbath, although many of the Cambodians perished from starvation and disease that resulted from the KR’s radical policies.
For this reason, half the population is younger than 20. It has also made Cambodia one of the poorest Asian countries. Cambodia is also one of the worst offenders when it comes to human trafficking. This appears to be the mind set because a recent poll showed that 75% of the women in Cambodia feel that it is all right to be beaten by their husbands.
Furthermore, few of the side streets are paved, and education is not compulsory, although it is free through the elementary grades. But for many, higher education is simply not available, either because of the cost or because the children are needed to work to help to support their family. In fact, none of the nation’s three top rulers has a high school degree.
In addition, 29% of its population has access to toilets, which means dysentery is a major killer. Nevertheless, the Cambodian people, whose ethnicity is different from the Vietnamese, were almost uniformly pleasant and cheerful. It was as much of a pleasure to be with them as with the people of Vietnam.
Cambodia uses American dollars as a currency, and, as you can imagine, the cost of living there is quite low. For example, where an hourlong massage costs $12 in Vietnam, a Khmer massage (which is different from anything I have had before and is outstanding) costs $5 for an hour in Cambodia.
But one thing that really stayed with me was the times that I looked at some of the teenage girls who were living on houseboats on the river as they were watching our tourist boat go by. They would look at us in a way that expressed a deep resignation that they knew that their lives would never be any better. They would eventually get married and have children, but still live as fishermen in these same houseboats on the river.
I wish I could take some of our children here in the U.S. and impress upon them the importance of their staying in school and getting an education. So many of these young Cambodians are absolutely desperate to have the education that many of our children are simply throwing away!
But slowly things are getting better in Cambodia. There seems to be a fair amount of freedom of the press, because several of the newspapers I read included articles that were actually critical of the government. Clean drinking water also now seems to be much more readily available, and prison reform is increasing, as is access to their justice system. Religious freedom in the country also does not seem to be a problem, and at least the girls seem to have a veto power over whom they will marry. In addition, tourism dollars are increasingly flowing into the country, at least in Siem Reap, although tourists still must procure a cumbersome and expensive visa to enter the country.
It was a great trip and one that I would recommend to any semi-adventurous travelers. But, as my father used to say, the best part of any trip is coming home. Our visits to Vietnam and Cambodia further helped me to appreciate what we have in our wonderful country, even to the extent that it makes my paying our income taxes in a few weeks quite a bit more palatable.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
The highlight was our visit to Angkor Wat, and they truly lived up to our high expectations. This huge complex began in the 9th century and prospered until the 13th century. Many of the statues and stone carvings that have been protected from the elements look like artistic masterpieces that could have been created last week. It is well worth a trip to Cambodia just to see Angkor Wat alone: a truly amazing, inspiring and wondrous creation!
We also visited the holocaust museum in the capital of Phnom Penh. Tuol Sleng was a high school used to imprison and torture thousands of Cambodians for — as they frequently told us — three years, eight months and 20 days between 1975 and 1979. Most of the prisoners were subsequently taken out to the “killing fields” and executed with a club to the back of the head. The victims were the so-called traitors to the revolution, as well as the nation’s educated class or “intellectuals.” They included anyone considered to have had a relationship with the West or anyone who wore eyeglasses — as well as the children of any of the above. As a result, children were callously executed by having their heads beaten in with sticks and clubs.
What I had not focused upon previously was that this genocide was influenced by Mao Tse Tung from Communist China. It happened not long after China’s so-called Cultural Revolution, and was carried out by the Khmer Rouge, which are the French words for the “Red Khmers.” And, just like in China, many from the communist guard were young teenage boys who were given AK-47s and let loose on the population.
By the time it ended, 1.7 million Cambodians, or 21% of the population, perished under Pol Pot’s regime, according to Yale University’s Cambodia Genocide Project. Thus from what I could tell, “The Killing Fields” was unfortunately quite accurate with regard to the bloodbath, although many of the Cambodians perished from starvation and disease that resulted from the KR’s radical policies.
For this reason, half the population is younger than 20. It has also made Cambodia one of the poorest Asian countries. Cambodia is also one of the worst offenders when it comes to human trafficking. This appears to be the mind set because a recent poll showed that 75% of the women in Cambodia feel that it is all right to be beaten by their husbands.
Furthermore, few of the side streets are paved, and education is not compulsory, although it is free through the elementary grades. But for many, higher education is simply not available, either because of the cost or because the children are needed to work to help to support their family. In fact, none of the nation’s three top rulers has a high school degree.
In addition, 29% of its population has access to toilets, which means dysentery is a major killer. Nevertheless, the Cambodian people, whose ethnicity is different from the Vietnamese, were almost uniformly pleasant and cheerful. It was as much of a pleasure to be with them as with the people of Vietnam.
Cambodia uses American dollars as a currency, and, as you can imagine, the cost of living there is quite low. For example, where an hourlong massage costs $12 in Vietnam, a Khmer massage (which is different from anything I have had before and is outstanding) costs $5 for an hour in Cambodia.
But one thing that really stayed with me was the times that I looked at some of the teenage girls who were living on houseboats on the river as they were watching our tourist boat go by. They would look at us in a way that expressed a deep resignation that they knew that their lives would never be any better. They would eventually get married and have children, but still live as fishermen in these same houseboats on the river.
I wish I could take some of our children here in the U.S. and impress upon them the importance of their staying in school and getting an education. So many of these young Cambodians are absolutely desperate to have the education that many of our children are simply throwing away!
But slowly things are getting better in Cambodia. There seems to be a fair amount of freedom of the press, because several of the newspapers I read included articles that were actually critical of the government. Clean drinking water also now seems to be much more readily available, and prison reform is increasing, as is access to their justice system. Religious freedom in the country also does not seem to be a problem, and at least the girls seem to have a veto power over whom they will marry. In addition, tourism dollars are increasingly flowing into the country, at least in Siem Reap, although tourists still must procure a cumbersome and expensive visa to enter the country.
It was a great trip and one that I would recommend to any semi-adventurous travelers. But, as my father used to say, the best part of any trip is coming home. Our visits to Vietnam and Cambodia further helped me to appreciate what we have in our wonderful country, even to the extent that it makes my paying our income taxes in a few weeks quite a bit more palatable.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, March 29, 2010
It’s certainly not yesterday’s Vietnam - by Judge Jim Gray
My wife Grace and I just returned from a two-week trip to Vietnam and Cambodia. This column will discuss today’s Vietnam — which has certainly changed since I was there briefly during the war — and next week’s column will talk about Cambodia.
The first thing we noticed about Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) is the chaotic traffic: mostly motorbikes and motor scooters, but also lots of cars, trucks and bicycles mixed in, and precious few traffic signals. So with these pesky two-wheelers darting all over the place, it’s kind of like driving in spaghetti. But, amazingly enough, although we saw and experienced many near misses, we didn’t see even one collision while we were there. And we didn’t even see many scratches on the cars. So, one way or the other, the system is working.
We also saw that most of the Vietnamese women driving motor scooters wore a mask over their faces, long sleeves and gloves. The reason we were given was that having the fairest skin possible is considered to be much better looking in Vietnam.
We also were told about an example of the true new Vietnamese (and American) entrepreneurial spirit. A few years ago during the bird flu epidemic, the people in Vietnam simply stopped eating chicken. Many Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets compensated by importing chickens from France, and publicizing that fact to encourage sales. But it didn’t help. So until the epidemic waned, KFC became KFF, which stands for Kentucky Fried Fish. And they got along nicely.
The most sobering experience on our trip to Vietnam was a visit to the Cu Chi Tunnels, which were dug by the Viet Cong during the French occupation, and continued during the fighting with our troops. The Viet Cong were South Vietnamese guerrillas who fought as against the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. Cu Chi was a cobweb of about 120 miles of tunnels about 40 miles from the center of Saigon. The tunnels were often three stories deep, and contained quarters for storage, sleeping and eating, as well as kitchens and rooms for medical operations. The entrances and breathing holes were highly camouflaged, and the system allowed the Viet Cong fighters to appear in and disappear from most areas above ground virtually at will.
The Viet Cong also built booby traps in the same area, examples of which were demonstrated to us. These would be holes dug in the ground and camouflaged. When our soldiers stepped on the traps they would fall upon metal spikes laced with feces that would pierce their feet, or long sharpened poles that would pierce their armpits. There were others that, when triggered, would release metal balls covered with spikes that would swing down upon our soldiers on a vine from a tree. And, of course there were homemade land mines. These traps reflected the realization that the Viet Cong could obtain greater and more lasting psychological advantages by severely injuring our soldiers.
Imagine being a U.S. soldier on the ground in this area. In the first place, you couldn’t distinguish the friendly Vietnamese from the enemy. And secondly, imagine being with your best buddy when he had his foot punctured by a metal spike or lost his legs from a land mine. It is not an accident that about one-quarter of all of the disabled homeless people in Orange County are military veterans.
Of course, hundreds of thousands of Viet Cong were killed or injured during this “police action.” The conditions in the tunnels alone were terribly unhealthy, with the dampness and the poor air quality caused by oil-burning lamps. And many of the wounded died from infections contracted simply from being in the dampness under ground. We also noted that the Viet Cong remolded the metal from the bombs that our forces dropped on them into the spikes for their booby traps, and also that some of the VC would cut some unexploded bombs open so they could reuse the metal and the explosives inside. One spark and you were history.
But all of this vividly brought home to me the commitment of the Viet Cong to kick out what they saw as foreign occupiers.
While I was stationed with the Navy in Guam from April 1972 until October 1974, I routinely saw large military trucks on our roads carrying 500-pound bombs from the Naval Magazine over to Anderson Air Force Base, where they were loaded onto B-52s. Their motto at Anderson was “Bombs on Target,” which is certainly understandable, because that was their job. But I had never before really appreciated the significance of being on the receiving end of a B-52 raid. As we could see at the tunnels area, each bomb left a crater about 30 feet in diameter and about 15 feet deep. Imagine being on the ground or in the tunnels during such a raid!
When we departed Vietnam, I was left with the thought that North Vietnam would have been far better off had it lost the war because then we probably would have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their country to spur their economy and well-being. They would also have more freedom, and we would probably be driving Vietnamese cars. Or, on the other hand, we should have had the courage of our philosophy from the outset and not put in troops in the first place. How so? Because communism simply doesn’t work. Our guides in Vietnam routinely said that their country had moved away from communism and over to capitalism exactly for that reason, because once the subsidies from the Soviet Union stopped after its demise, they had no choice. The same thing happened to a major degree in Cambodia and Cuba — and also in China. So today the Vietnamese government only really runs its oil industry, and, of course, the newspapers and the radio and television stations.
Of course, the communist government in Vietnam committed many human rights atrocities before and after it won the war, and, although the situation is somewhat better, it continues to do so. Furthermore, although our guides often said there is freedom of speech in Vietnam, reality shows otherwise. And even though the government appears to have the money, it is not spending much of it to address the problems of creating or maintaining the country’s infrastructure with regard to paving roads, cleaning water, disposing of trash, and making toilets available. Nevertheless, one way or the other, both sides are worse off because we pursued a military solution.
On the positive side, Vietnam has radically changed for the better in almost every regard. Its government has shifted from taking a highly dogmatic and doctrinaire approach to a more practical one. Vietnam is actively trading goods and services with other countries, and is successfully soliciting investments of foreign capital. With all of that progress, it surprises me that the visa process was so cumbersome and expensive. But these are good signs because only rarely do people shoot their customers, and most investors do not place their money in countries that are not stable.
As a result of this progress, the average wage per person has increased from about $1,000 per year in 1975 to about $2,700 today. Prices are still low there, as, for example, an hour’s massage costs about $12. But who could have imagined seeing a Mercedes or a Cadillac being driven down the streets of Ho Chi Minh City by a non-government official? That is a revolution all in itself.
In summary, we had a great trip, meeting good people, seeing interesting sights, and eating good food (try some Pho noodle soup at one of our local Vietnamese restaurants). And on no occasion while in Vietnam did I perceive any rancor or ill will toward me as an American as a result of the war. Nevertheless, and after due consideration, both Grace and I have decided that we would still prefer to live in Newport Beach instead of on a self-constructed 30-foot houseboat with no toilets on the Mekong River that is floating on bamboo poles.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
The first thing we noticed about Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) is the chaotic traffic: mostly motorbikes and motor scooters, but also lots of cars, trucks and bicycles mixed in, and precious few traffic signals. So with these pesky two-wheelers darting all over the place, it’s kind of like driving in spaghetti. But, amazingly enough, although we saw and experienced many near misses, we didn’t see even one collision while we were there. And we didn’t even see many scratches on the cars. So, one way or the other, the system is working.
We also saw that most of the Vietnamese women driving motor scooters wore a mask over their faces, long sleeves and gloves. The reason we were given was that having the fairest skin possible is considered to be much better looking in Vietnam.
We also were told about an example of the true new Vietnamese (and American) entrepreneurial spirit. A few years ago during the bird flu epidemic, the people in Vietnam simply stopped eating chicken. Many Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets compensated by importing chickens from France, and publicizing that fact to encourage sales. But it didn’t help. So until the epidemic waned, KFC became KFF, which stands for Kentucky Fried Fish. And they got along nicely.
The most sobering experience on our trip to Vietnam was a visit to the Cu Chi Tunnels, which were dug by the Viet Cong during the French occupation, and continued during the fighting with our troops. The Viet Cong were South Vietnamese guerrillas who fought as against the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. Cu Chi was a cobweb of about 120 miles of tunnels about 40 miles from the center of Saigon. The tunnels were often three stories deep, and contained quarters for storage, sleeping and eating, as well as kitchens and rooms for medical operations. The entrances and breathing holes were highly camouflaged, and the system allowed the Viet Cong fighters to appear in and disappear from most areas above ground virtually at will.
The Viet Cong also built booby traps in the same area, examples of which were demonstrated to us. These would be holes dug in the ground and camouflaged. When our soldiers stepped on the traps they would fall upon metal spikes laced with feces that would pierce their feet, or long sharpened poles that would pierce their armpits. There were others that, when triggered, would release metal balls covered with spikes that would swing down upon our soldiers on a vine from a tree. And, of course there were homemade land mines. These traps reflected the realization that the Viet Cong could obtain greater and more lasting psychological advantages by severely injuring our soldiers.
Imagine being a U.S. soldier on the ground in this area. In the first place, you couldn’t distinguish the friendly Vietnamese from the enemy. And secondly, imagine being with your best buddy when he had his foot punctured by a metal spike or lost his legs from a land mine. It is not an accident that about one-quarter of all of the disabled homeless people in Orange County are military veterans.
Of course, hundreds of thousands of Viet Cong were killed or injured during this “police action.” The conditions in the tunnels alone were terribly unhealthy, with the dampness and the poor air quality caused by oil-burning lamps. And many of the wounded died from infections contracted simply from being in the dampness under ground. We also noted that the Viet Cong remolded the metal from the bombs that our forces dropped on them into the spikes for their booby traps, and also that some of the VC would cut some unexploded bombs open so they could reuse the metal and the explosives inside. One spark and you were history.
But all of this vividly brought home to me the commitment of the Viet Cong to kick out what they saw as foreign occupiers.
While I was stationed with the Navy in Guam from April 1972 until October 1974, I routinely saw large military trucks on our roads carrying 500-pound bombs from the Naval Magazine over to Anderson Air Force Base, where they were loaded onto B-52s. Their motto at Anderson was “Bombs on Target,” which is certainly understandable, because that was their job. But I had never before really appreciated the significance of being on the receiving end of a B-52 raid. As we could see at the tunnels area, each bomb left a crater about 30 feet in diameter and about 15 feet deep. Imagine being on the ground or in the tunnels during such a raid!
When we departed Vietnam, I was left with the thought that North Vietnam would have been far better off had it lost the war because then we probably would have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their country to spur their economy and well-being. They would also have more freedom, and we would probably be driving Vietnamese cars. Or, on the other hand, we should have had the courage of our philosophy from the outset and not put in troops in the first place. How so? Because communism simply doesn’t work. Our guides in Vietnam routinely said that their country had moved away from communism and over to capitalism exactly for that reason, because once the subsidies from the Soviet Union stopped after its demise, they had no choice. The same thing happened to a major degree in Cambodia and Cuba — and also in China. So today the Vietnamese government only really runs its oil industry, and, of course, the newspapers and the radio and television stations.
Of course, the communist government in Vietnam committed many human rights atrocities before and after it won the war, and, although the situation is somewhat better, it continues to do so. Furthermore, although our guides often said there is freedom of speech in Vietnam, reality shows otherwise. And even though the government appears to have the money, it is not spending much of it to address the problems of creating or maintaining the country’s infrastructure with regard to paving roads, cleaning water, disposing of trash, and making toilets available. Nevertheless, one way or the other, both sides are worse off because we pursued a military solution.
On the positive side, Vietnam has radically changed for the better in almost every regard. Its government has shifted from taking a highly dogmatic and doctrinaire approach to a more practical one. Vietnam is actively trading goods and services with other countries, and is successfully soliciting investments of foreign capital. With all of that progress, it surprises me that the visa process was so cumbersome and expensive. But these are good signs because only rarely do people shoot their customers, and most investors do not place their money in countries that are not stable.
As a result of this progress, the average wage per person has increased from about $1,000 per year in 1975 to about $2,700 today. Prices are still low there, as, for example, an hour’s massage costs about $12. But who could have imagined seeing a Mercedes or a Cadillac being driven down the streets of Ho Chi Minh City by a non-government official? That is a revolution all in itself.
In summary, we had a great trip, meeting good people, seeing interesting sights, and eating good food (try some Pho noodle soup at one of our local Vietnamese restaurants). And on no occasion while in Vietnam did I perceive any rancor or ill will toward me as an American as a result of the war. Nevertheless, and after due consideration, both Grace and I have decided that we would still prefer to live in Newport Beach instead of on a self-constructed 30-foot houseboat with no toilets on the Mekong River that is floating on bamboo poles.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, March 21, 2010
To protect the state — and the church - by Judge Jim Gray
Last week we discussed a sermon I gave at the Garden Grove United Methodist Church, which focused on the decisions that Christians are called upon to make, and whether it makes any difference that we are Christians.
That discussion leads into another discussion I was involved in recently at St. Michael and All Angel’s Episcopal Church in Corona del Mar, about the importance of the separation of church and state. This subject can be considered controversial because some people consider that it could be seen as an attack on religion. I simply do not agree with that assessment.
I view this separation as being one of the most important war-and-peace issues of the 21st century. Of course there will be some exceptions, but in general governments that maintain the separation of church and state will be far less likely to be involved in war than those that do not. For example, we all should be concerned today about the governments of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and others where religion plays a large part in the affairs of government.
Although we generally consider separation of church and state to be addressed in our Constitution, it is not all that clear. The 1st Amendment specifies that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, but that could be read as only controlling the actions of Congress, not those of individuals or churches.
The most-cited reference to the separation doctrine comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, well after the Constitution was ratified, to the Danbury Baptist Assn. of Connecticut.
In this letter Jefferson said that there must be a “wall of separation between church and state.” Nevertheless, the 1st Amendment was later interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as forbidding anyone from bringing religion into government, and vice versa.
This is considered an important issue because of the two goals connected to it. The first is to protect government from the undue influence of the church. That is not to say that governments cannot be influenced by religious values, and it does not imply that we should become a secular society. That is not even a part of the discussion, nor should it be! But if you look back into the history of our country, you will find that churches strongly influenced the Salem Witch Trials. Elsewhere, you will find similar tragic results with the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and the Holy Roman Empire. That is not to say we are in imminent peril; it is simply to say that we should be aware that the seeds are there.
Similarly, the Catholic Church in the 1600s caused Galileo to be prosecuted for proposing the scientific belief that the Earth rotated around the sun. This is not an untypical response when churches have some controls over governments and governments attempt to question church dogma. The seeds are there as well for the suppression of such an inquiry.
More recently we see the involvement by the Taliban in blowing up statues of Buddha in Afghanistan because they presented “inappropriate influences” to the people. Similarly some governments require women to cover themselves with scarves and burqas, or countenance the stoning of women for perceived sexual or other transgressions. Religion is often corrupting of government, and it should be kept separate.
Furthermore, it is not hard for one person or a small group of people to accumulate a large amount of power and influence in a church. Most churches are designed that way, with examples being the pope in Rome, and the ayotollahs in Iran. No one should want church officials to become in any way in charge of civilian governments.
Besides, probably anyone who does not see the problem can almost immediately be helped to see the light by being asked the following question: How would you feel if the other guy’s religion is chosen to lead or have undue influence on your government? I think we all know the answer.
If our country were to choose to have a state religion, or even be strongly influenced by a particular one, a conservative Christian religion would probably be selected. But in reality it is too late. We have long since also become a nation of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, less conservative Christian religions and many other religions, and also of people who are atheists, humanists or who have no religion at all. And if those people felt that someone else’s beliefs were going to have undue influence with their own government, it could very well lead to a civil war. Why? Because they are Americans, too and would rightly not want formally to be discriminated against by their own government.
So what about “In God We Trust” on our currency, or “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance? Is it unconstitutional? No, fortunately the courts understand that these are a large part of who we are, and an expression that, from the Founding Fathers on up until today, we are generally a God-fearing people, and that we trust and believe in God. The same thing is true for us to continue to celebrate Christmas as a national holiday, or for religious events or servants like Mother Teresa to be celebrated on our postage stamps. Of course, there will be those who try to “push the envelope” on both sides of those issues. But fortunately, the courts have seen it appropriate to celebrate and maintain the historical and traditional parts of our nation.
By analogy, probably aspirin would not be cleared today by the Food and Drug Administration, because it can be used in a dangerous if not life-threatening fashion. But we have grown up with it, it is a part of us and our culture, and there is virtually no chance that it will be recalled. Nor should it be. But had the phrase on our money been “In Jesus We Trust,” or the pledge instead contained “one nation under Buddha,” that would appropriately have been held to violate the Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of church and state.
The second critical goal is to enforce this separation for the protection of churches from the undue influence of government. When my wife, Grace, and I took our fabulous trip to Turkey, we learned that the government actually pays much of the salaries of the imams, who are the Muslim prayer leaders. When I asked why, our guide simply said that this was an effective way for the government to exercise some control over the actions of religious leaders. Obviously, these religious leaders would have a tendency to ease back on their criticism of the same entity that was issuing their paychecks. But the danger to religious freedom under those circumstances is obvious.
Similarly, we should be quite concerned about our government funneling charitable funds through religious institutions. It sounds fine in concept for the government to fund wonderful organizations like the Salvation Army and church-sponsored food kitchens for the poor, but remember that where government money is given, control is sure to follow. And then the “strings” attached to the funding invariably become ropes and chains. So in many ways it would be better for the money to be funneled to non-religious organizations. Besides, if the government funds your religious group’s charities, why shouldn’t it also fund mine? And that only begins the friction, because one person’s charity can quickly become another person’s terrorist group. Those conflicts will never end, so it is better not to get started down that road in the first place.
So for those reasons, we should try as firmly as we can to keep the function and control of government and of churches as separate as possible. That should not be seen as a comment that we are not supportive of religion or of government. In fact, it is a statement to the contrary — we actually support both. But true religious freedom can only be enjoyed, and government can only better provide equity, justice and protection for all, if the separation between the two of them is maintained.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
That discussion leads into another discussion I was involved in recently at St. Michael and All Angel’s Episcopal Church in Corona del Mar, about the importance of the separation of church and state. This subject can be considered controversial because some people consider that it could be seen as an attack on religion. I simply do not agree with that assessment.
I view this separation as being one of the most important war-and-peace issues of the 21st century. Of course there will be some exceptions, but in general governments that maintain the separation of church and state will be far less likely to be involved in war than those that do not. For example, we all should be concerned today about the governments of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and others where religion plays a large part in the affairs of government.
Although we generally consider separation of church and state to be addressed in our Constitution, it is not all that clear. The 1st Amendment specifies that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, but that could be read as only controlling the actions of Congress, not those of individuals or churches.
The most-cited reference to the separation doctrine comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, well after the Constitution was ratified, to the Danbury Baptist Assn. of Connecticut.
In this letter Jefferson said that there must be a “wall of separation between church and state.” Nevertheless, the 1st Amendment was later interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as forbidding anyone from bringing religion into government, and vice versa.
This is considered an important issue because of the two goals connected to it. The first is to protect government from the undue influence of the church. That is not to say that governments cannot be influenced by religious values, and it does not imply that we should become a secular society. That is not even a part of the discussion, nor should it be! But if you look back into the history of our country, you will find that churches strongly influenced the Salem Witch Trials. Elsewhere, you will find similar tragic results with the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and the Holy Roman Empire. That is not to say we are in imminent peril; it is simply to say that we should be aware that the seeds are there.
Similarly, the Catholic Church in the 1600s caused Galileo to be prosecuted for proposing the scientific belief that the Earth rotated around the sun. This is not an untypical response when churches have some controls over governments and governments attempt to question church dogma. The seeds are there as well for the suppression of such an inquiry.
More recently we see the involvement by the Taliban in blowing up statues of Buddha in Afghanistan because they presented “inappropriate influences” to the people. Similarly some governments require women to cover themselves with scarves and burqas, or countenance the stoning of women for perceived sexual or other transgressions. Religion is often corrupting of government, and it should be kept separate.
Furthermore, it is not hard for one person or a small group of people to accumulate a large amount of power and influence in a church. Most churches are designed that way, with examples being the pope in Rome, and the ayotollahs in Iran. No one should want church officials to become in any way in charge of civilian governments.
Besides, probably anyone who does not see the problem can almost immediately be helped to see the light by being asked the following question: How would you feel if the other guy’s religion is chosen to lead or have undue influence on your government? I think we all know the answer.
If our country were to choose to have a state religion, or even be strongly influenced by a particular one, a conservative Christian religion would probably be selected. But in reality it is too late. We have long since also become a nation of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, less conservative Christian religions and many other religions, and also of people who are atheists, humanists or who have no religion at all. And if those people felt that someone else’s beliefs were going to have undue influence with their own government, it could very well lead to a civil war. Why? Because they are Americans, too and would rightly not want formally to be discriminated against by their own government.
So what about “In God We Trust” on our currency, or “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance? Is it unconstitutional? No, fortunately the courts understand that these are a large part of who we are, and an expression that, from the Founding Fathers on up until today, we are generally a God-fearing people, and that we trust and believe in God. The same thing is true for us to continue to celebrate Christmas as a national holiday, or for religious events or servants like Mother Teresa to be celebrated on our postage stamps. Of course, there will be those who try to “push the envelope” on both sides of those issues. But fortunately, the courts have seen it appropriate to celebrate and maintain the historical and traditional parts of our nation.
By analogy, probably aspirin would not be cleared today by the Food and Drug Administration, because it can be used in a dangerous if not life-threatening fashion. But we have grown up with it, it is a part of us and our culture, and there is virtually no chance that it will be recalled. Nor should it be. But had the phrase on our money been “In Jesus We Trust,” or the pledge instead contained “one nation under Buddha,” that would appropriately have been held to violate the Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of church and state.
The second critical goal is to enforce this separation for the protection of churches from the undue influence of government. When my wife, Grace, and I took our fabulous trip to Turkey, we learned that the government actually pays much of the salaries of the imams, who are the Muslim prayer leaders. When I asked why, our guide simply said that this was an effective way for the government to exercise some control over the actions of religious leaders. Obviously, these religious leaders would have a tendency to ease back on their criticism of the same entity that was issuing their paychecks. But the danger to religious freedom under those circumstances is obvious.
Similarly, we should be quite concerned about our government funneling charitable funds through religious institutions. It sounds fine in concept for the government to fund wonderful organizations like the Salvation Army and church-sponsored food kitchens for the poor, but remember that where government money is given, control is sure to follow. And then the “strings” attached to the funding invariably become ropes and chains. So in many ways it would be better for the money to be funneled to non-religious organizations. Besides, if the government funds your religious group’s charities, why shouldn’t it also fund mine? And that only begins the friction, because one person’s charity can quickly become another person’s terrorist group. Those conflicts will never end, so it is better not to get started down that road in the first place.
So for those reasons, we should try as firmly as we can to keep the function and control of government and of churches as separate as possible. That should not be seen as a comment that we are not supportive of religion or of government. In fact, it is a statement to the contrary — we actually support both. But true religious freedom can only be enjoyed, and government can only better provide equity, justice and protection for all, if the separation between the two of them is maintained.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
We are all living in the arms of God - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently I was asked to give a sermon at Garden Grove United Methodist Church, the church I belonged to before I met and got married to my wife, Grace, and I was truly happy to do so. So when you have an opportunity to speak on a topic of your own choosing in church, what would you talk about?
Well, I reflected for a while on the subject, and eventually landed on the theme: We are Christians – does it make any difference? Of course, there are significant differences because of Christian theology, and the story and teachings of Jesus. But are there any other differences as well? And if there are, what are they? See if your answers are the same as mine.
I began my talk by saying that I recently had published a book on judging in an attempt to pass along to new judges any wisdom I had gathered from my 25 years on the bench. And the first sentence of the preface of that book said that the best decision I had ever made in my life was choosing my parents. Of course, the benefits of that “choice” had made enormous differences in my life. My parents were a huge support system, and they provided me with love that was both unconditional and unending.
I confess that sometimes I put that love to the test. For example, when I was 10 years old I once attempted to shoplift a bag of Tootsie Rolls I got caught, and then was forced to inform my parents. They stood by me without recrimination, but I could tell that they were as disappointed in me as I was in myself. Since that time I have never again stolen anything from anybody, and I also have not been able to look another bag of Tootsie Rolls in the face!
But what a gift my parents gave me with this love and support! Of course, I believe that gift also came with a moral obligation to help those people on this Earth who did not “choose” their parents quite so well.
Like me, most people at least originally became Christians only by accident of birth. Thereafter, many people actually focus on the teachings of Jesus, weigh the Christian theology against that of other religions, and then choose to continue to follow the Christian faith. But many people did not choose to stay as Christians any more than I actually chose my parents. In fact, if their parents had been Hindu, the odds are overwhelming that they would still be Hindu to this day.
Did God choose us? Well, I certainly do not know the answer to that question – it is well above my pay grade. But I do know that God did give us choices in life, and then, just like my parents, is proud when we choose well, and disappointed when we choose poorly. But He still loves us regardless of the choices we make, without condition and without end. And that is a difference, in fact a big one.
As we discussed previously in this column, our attempts in peer court to have high school students focus on the fact that we are not a thief not because we fear being caught, but because we are better than that! Even if no one else in the world will know that we had taken some other student’s watch from his locker, we would know. And our parents did not raise us to be a thief! And, as Christians, neither did our Father who art in heaven.
Like many other people, I have tried to live the type of life that would allow me to be satisfied when I looked back on it from my deathbed, just as St. Peter would as we try to enter the Pearly Gates. So if I could give myself some advice from that position at the end of my life, it would be three things. First, love the people who treat you right, and absolutely forget about those who don’t. Second, if you get a chance in life, take it! In that regard, try to make the lyrics of the song “I’m Gonna Live Till I Die” as your motto. “Until my number’s up, I’m gonna fill my cup / I’m gonna live, live, live until I die.”
And third, treat people like people. In so many ways, my wonderful father was my role model in this regard, as well as many others. When he was a federal judge in downtown Los Angeles, he would know the names of not only the custodians who kept our office spaces clean, but also the names of their children. And they loved him for it.
So without thinking about it, I naturally followed his lead. One day when I was a federal prosecutor in the same courthouse, I saw one of the men who worked on our floor, and said, “Good morning, Mr. Wicks.” At this point, this man completely stopped what he was doing and said, “Mr. Gray, I have been working here for 18 years, and you are the first person ever to call me by name.” What a shame. (As a further but irrelevant part of the story, I later found out that this nice and hardworking man was the father of Sidney Wicks, the All American basketball player for my treasured UCLA Bruins.) This experience also resulted in my lifelong tendency to try to leave bigger tips for people who wait on tables at cafes and who clean our hotel rooms. They work hard, but are generally taken for granted and unappreciated.
Similarly, my mother told me that one time she had accompanied my father on a trip to inspect Lompoc Federal Prison.
It so happened that the inmates had a talent show on the day of the visit, and my parents stayed to watch the show. As such, my father was seated with the warden on one side and my mother on the other. But next to my mother was an inmate who struck up a conversation with her by saying that my father happened to have sentenced him to prison, and that he had received a maximum sentence. With that piece of news, my mother said she literally tried to move over closer to my father and away from this inmate.
But he went on to say that nevertheless, because throughout the trial and sentencing my father had always treated him with dignity and respect, my father was his favorite judge he had ever appeared before – and he had been before lots of judges!
That is why in so many ways our state’s drug courts have been a positive revolution in our court system. Why? Because it forces judges, prosecutors, probation officers and even the arresting police officers to treat the defendants as real people. No longer are the criminal defendants who happen to be drug-addicted thought of or labeled as “hypes,” “junkies,” or even statistics. Instead, they are thought of as fellow human beings, who have the same desires, needs, dreams, and failings that all of the rest of us have. So treating people as people does not at all mean that we have to be taken advantage of by them, or that we do not hold them accountable for what they do. It just means that we treat them as individuals.
On this subject, I recommend you read the book, “The Anatomy of Peace,” by the Arbinger Institute. This well-crafted and easy-reading book discusses the difference between treating another person as a person, or as an object. If we treat others as people, we do not need to justify our own prejudices, depressions, self-righteousness, or fears, because those issues simply don’t arise. But if we treat them as objects, all of these harmful and degrading traits within us often increase and harden, which will in turn allow them to poison us. Then we proceed to use the injustices that are done to us as justifications to do injustices to others. At that point, we become our own enemies by using our mistreatments to destroy our own peace.
So it is not just the dictators of some nations of the world that inflict bad things upon others in order to get or maintain power. All of us can do that as well.
Jesus said: “If you love me, then feed my sheep.” With the blessings we have received, we can help administer to the needs of others who, through nothing they have done, are not as fortunate as we are. I think that is the answer. Oh, I know that we can’t bring peace to the whole world, and it may be naïve to believe otherwise. But we can bring peace to our world! Like the hymn says, “Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.”
We are truly blessed. We have chosen well, or, one way or the other, we were eternally lucky to have been chosen. Our Father loves us – without condition, and without end. He cares about us, and wants to be proud of us. It matters, and what a difference it makes!
So in the time remaining to us upon this earth, we should stand up extra straight. Walk proud. And fear not. Because we are Christians. We are living our lives nestled in the arms of a loving God!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Well, I reflected for a while on the subject, and eventually landed on the theme: We are Christians – does it make any difference? Of course, there are significant differences because of Christian theology, and the story and teachings of Jesus. But are there any other differences as well? And if there are, what are they? See if your answers are the same as mine.
I began my talk by saying that I recently had published a book on judging in an attempt to pass along to new judges any wisdom I had gathered from my 25 years on the bench. And the first sentence of the preface of that book said that the best decision I had ever made in my life was choosing my parents. Of course, the benefits of that “choice” had made enormous differences in my life. My parents were a huge support system, and they provided me with love that was both unconditional and unending.
I confess that sometimes I put that love to the test. For example, when I was 10 years old I once attempted to shoplift a bag of Tootsie Rolls I got caught, and then was forced to inform my parents. They stood by me without recrimination, but I could tell that they were as disappointed in me as I was in myself. Since that time I have never again stolen anything from anybody, and I also have not been able to look another bag of Tootsie Rolls in the face!
But what a gift my parents gave me with this love and support! Of course, I believe that gift also came with a moral obligation to help those people on this Earth who did not “choose” their parents quite so well.
Like me, most people at least originally became Christians only by accident of birth. Thereafter, many people actually focus on the teachings of Jesus, weigh the Christian theology against that of other religions, and then choose to continue to follow the Christian faith. But many people did not choose to stay as Christians any more than I actually chose my parents. In fact, if their parents had been Hindu, the odds are overwhelming that they would still be Hindu to this day.
Did God choose us? Well, I certainly do not know the answer to that question – it is well above my pay grade. But I do know that God did give us choices in life, and then, just like my parents, is proud when we choose well, and disappointed when we choose poorly. But He still loves us regardless of the choices we make, without condition and without end. And that is a difference, in fact a big one.
As we discussed previously in this column, our attempts in peer court to have high school students focus on the fact that we are not a thief not because we fear being caught, but because we are better than that! Even if no one else in the world will know that we had taken some other student’s watch from his locker, we would know. And our parents did not raise us to be a thief! And, as Christians, neither did our Father who art in heaven.
Like many other people, I have tried to live the type of life that would allow me to be satisfied when I looked back on it from my deathbed, just as St. Peter would as we try to enter the Pearly Gates. So if I could give myself some advice from that position at the end of my life, it would be three things. First, love the people who treat you right, and absolutely forget about those who don’t. Second, if you get a chance in life, take it! In that regard, try to make the lyrics of the song “I’m Gonna Live Till I Die” as your motto. “Until my number’s up, I’m gonna fill my cup / I’m gonna live, live, live until I die.”
And third, treat people like people. In so many ways, my wonderful father was my role model in this regard, as well as many others. When he was a federal judge in downtown Los Angeles, he would know the names of not only the custodians who kept our office spaces clean, but also the names of their children. And they loved him for it.
So without thinking about it, I naturally followed his lead. One day when I was a federal prosecutor in the same courthouse, I saw one of the men who worked on our floor, and said, “Good morning, Mr. Wicks.” At this point, this man completely stopped what he was doing and said, “Mr. Gray, I have been working here for 18 years, and you are the first person ever to call me by name.” What a shame. (As a further but irrelevant part of the story, I later found out that this nice and hardworking man was the father of Sidney Wicks, the All American basketball player for my treasured UCLA Bruins.) This experience also resulted in my lifelong tendency to try to leave bigger tips for people who wait on tables at cafes and who clean our hotel rooms. They work hard, but are generally taken for granted and unappreciated.
Similarly, my mother told me that one time she had accompanied my father on a trip to inspect Lompoc Federal Prison.
It so happened that the inmates had a talent show on the day of the visit, and my parents stayed to watch the show. As such, my father was seated with the warden on one side and my mother on the other. But next to my mother was an inmate who struck up a conversation with her by saying that my father happened to have sentenced him to prison, and that he had received a maximum sentence. With that piece of news, my mother said she literally tried to move over closer to my father and away from this inmate.
But he went on to say that nevertheless, because throughout the trial and sentencing my father had always treated him with dignity and respect, my father was his favorite judge he had ever appeared before – and he had been before lots of judges!
That is why in so many ways our state’s drug courts have been a positive revolution in our court system. Why? Because it forces judges, prosecutors, probation officers and even the arresting police officers to treat the defendants as real people. No longer are the criminal defendants who happen to be drug-addicted thought of or labeled as “hypes,” “junkies,” or even statistics. Instead, they are thought of as fellow human beings, who have the same desires, needs, dreams, and failings that all of the rest of us have. So treating people as people does not at all mean that we have to be taken advantage of by them, or that we do not hold them accountable for what they do. It just means that we treat them as individuals.
On this subject, I recommend you read the book, “The Anatomy of Peace,” by the Arbinger Institute. This well-crafted and easy-reading book discusses the difference between treating another person as a person, or as an object. If we treat others as people, we do not need to justify our own prejudices, depressions, self-righteousness, or fears, because those issues simply don’t arise. But if we treat them as objects, all of these harmful and degrading traits within us often increase and harden, which will in turn allow them to poison us. Then we proceed to use the injustices that are done to us as justifications to do injustices to others. At that point, we become our own enemies by using our mistreatments to destroy our own peace.
So it is not just the dictators of some nations of the world that inflict bad things upon others in order to get or maintain power. All of us can do that as well.
Jesus said: “If you love me, then feed my sheep.” With the blessings we have received, we can help administer to the needs of others who, through nothing they have done, are not as fortunate as we are. I think that is the answer. Oh, I know that we can’t bring peace to the whole world, and it may be naïve to believe otherwise. But we can bring peace to our world! Like the hymn says, “Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.”
We are truly blessed. We have chosen well, or, one way or the other, we were eternally lucky to have been chosen. Our Father loves us – without condition, and without end. He cares about us, and wants to be proud of us. It matters, and what a difference it makes!
So in the time remaining to us upon this earth, we should stand up extra straight. Walk proud. And fear not. Because we are Christians. We are living our lives nestled in the arms of a loving God!
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Take heart: a proposed tax that is ‘fair’ - by Judge Jim Gray
No one should need any convincing that our present federal and state income tax system is costly, oppressively complex, and economically inefficient.
The present federal tax code exceeds 54,000 pages and contains more than 2.8 million words, and much of it is for providing special tax breaks for individual companies or industries. Well, take heart because help is on the way.
A Fair Tax Plan has been introduced into Congress in the form of House Bill 25 and Senate Bill 25, and, if passed, would establish a federal progressive national retail sales tax.
We have previously discussed a Flat Tax in this column, which is a severely modified income tax that would be a vast improvement over the present system, and one that we should seriously consider.
But the FAIR Tax, as taken from an open letter from 80 college professors and financial experts to the President, Congress, and the American People, would be different, and in many ways far better.
The FAIR Tax is a national retail sales tax that would be levied upon only the final sale of goods and services.
It also provides that all income, capital gains, payroll, Medicare, and estate taxes, and social security (FICA) withholdings would be abolished upon its implementation!
Among other things, this would enable all workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits because, since there would no longer be an income tax or these other taxes, there would be no need for any withholding from their paychecks. That would further mean that the woes of April 15 would be gone forever with regard to the federal government!
Importantly enough, this tax would not fall disproportionally upon the poor.
This would be assured by a rebate to all households each month on all of the sales taxes that were paid on necessities, up to an independently determined poverty amount of spending. That poverty level would probably be determined by a government agency like the Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition, there would be no sales tax attached either to the rental of or mortgages to purchase real property.
The sales taxes would be collected on all retail transactions, just as 45 states do already. And, importantly enough, the sales tax itself would be revenue neutral.
That is to say, it would not increase or decrease the amounts of tax monies that are paid each year to the federal government.
But it would significantly reduce the amount of administrative, collection, and enforcement expenses that the government now expends – and it would also materially reduce fraud.
How so? Because the only audits that would be required would be those of retail providers of goods and services.
And since the transparency of the tax system would be increased to almost complete, and the complexity would be reduced almost out of existence, it would increase everyone’s belief in the fairness of the system.
Obviously the imposition of this system would also result in similar enormous savings in compliance costs to individuals and corporations, which conservatively cost a total of about $225 billion per year.
And, importantly enough, this would also allow individuals and corporations once again to make family and business decisions based upon family and business considerations, instead of tax considerations.
In other words, for the most part the only people that would lose under the FAIR Tax would be some of the accountants and tax preparers of this world, as well as the employees of the Internal Revenue Service.
In addition, members of Congress would also lose a great deal of their power with the passage of this measure.
Why is that true? Because the ability to designate tax breaks for particular special interests directly results in a great deal of power for the members of Congress. And this power translates into campaign contributions, which, in turn, keep politicians more beholden to those same special interests. Passing the FAIR Tax would substantially do away with that problem area.
There would be other favorable tangible and intangible results as well. For example, all people, whether citizens or documented or undocumented residents, would end up paying their appropriate share of taxes. So this measure would materially enlarge the federal tax base.
Furthermore, it would also make our domestic goods more competitive with foreign goods both inside and outside of our borders.
Why? Because under our present system, payroll, Medicare and social security taxes are now paid on the labor to produce the goods and services that are created here, but not on those created abroad. With this new system, the taxes would be the same for all goods and services in our country, regardless of their origin. This is the system that most foreign countries use already, to our competitive disadvantage.
Similarly, the tax biases against working for the extra dollar and saving and investing money would also be removed, thus strongly re-encouraging these beneficial practices. Today’s income and capital gains taxes to an appreciable degree punish working for the extra dollar, and the saving and investing of those dollars. So removing these disincentives would directly lead to higher economic growth, a faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher standard of living for the American people.
Finally, even though the FAIR Tax would be designed to be revenue neutral, it would probably eventually increase gross revenues for the government, for each of two reasons. First, the savings both to individuals and to businesses would probably spur the economy significantly just by themselves, so more tax money would be generated. And secondly, since simplicity of enforcement as well as the reality and perception of fairness would all be increased, more people would pay their full share of taxes without feeling that they were being treated as chumps. So what’s not to like?
So how do we implement this change? Well, people are getting excited, and not only those involved with the Tea Party, and they are communicating that excitement to their members of Congress. That is what it takes, so please join them. Imagine the positive changes. Yes, the sales tax will probably be around 23% of all retail transactions, but keeping all of your income until you decide to make a purchase, no longer keeping records for the filing of tax returns, repealing all taxes on savings and investments, and so much more would truly result in a much better, less expensive, and more equitable system, for the prosperity of us all.
For further information, please visit www.passfairtax.com, or call (800) 962-8237.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
The present federal tax code exceeds 54,000 pages and contains more than 2.8 million words, and much of it is for providing special tax breaks for individual companies or industries. Well, take heart because help is on the way.
A Fair Tax Plan has been introduced into Congress in the form of House Bill 25 and Senate Bill 25, and, if passed, would establish a federal progressive national retail sales tax.
We have previously discussed a Flat Tax in this column, which is a severely modified income tax that would be a vast improvement over the present system, and one that we should seriously consider.
But the FAIR Tax, as taken from an open letter from 80 college professors and financial experts to the President, Congress, and the American People, would be different, and in many ways far better.
The FAIR Tax is a national retail sales tax that would be levied upon only the final sale of goods and services.
It also provides that all income, capital gains, payroll, Medicare, and estate taxes, and social security (FICA) withholdings would be abolished upon its implementation!
Among other things, this would enable all workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits because, since there would no longer be an income tax or these other taxes, there would be no need for any withholding from their paychecks. That would further mean that the woes of April 15 would be gone forever with regard to the federal government!
Importantly enough, this tax would not fall disproportionally upon the poor.
This would be assured by a rebate to all households each month on all of the sales taxes that were paid on necessities, up to an independently determined poverty amount of spending. That poverty level would probably be determined by a government agency like the Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition, there would be no sales tax attached either to the rental of or mortgages to purchase real property.
The sales taxes would be collected on all retail transactions, just as 45 states do already. And, importantly enough, the sales tax itself would be revenue neutral.
That is to say, it would not increase or decrease the amounts of tax monies that are paid each year to the federal government.
But it would significantly reduce the amount of administrative, collection, and enforcement expenses that the government now expends – and it would also materially reduce fraud.
How so? Because the only audits that would be required would be those of retail providers of goods and services.
And since the transparency of the tax system would be increased to almost complete, and the complexity would be reduced almost out of existence, it would increase everyone’s belief in the fairness of the system.
Obviously the imposition of this system would also result in similar enormous savings in compliance costs to individuals and corporations, which conservatively cost a total of about $225 billion per year.
And, importantly enough, this would also allow individuals and corporations once again to make family and business decisions based upon family and business considerations, instead of tax considerations.
In other words, for the most part the only people that would lose under the FAIR Tax would be some of the accountants and tax preparers of this world, as well as the employees of the Internal Revenue Service.
In addition, members of Congress would also lose a great deal of their power with the passage of this measure.
Why is that true? Because the ability to designate tax breaks for particular special interests directly results in a great deal of power for the members of Congress. And this power translates into campaign contributions, which, in turn, keep politicians more beholden to those same special interests. Passing the FAIR Tax would substantially do away with that problem area.
There would be other favorable tangible and intangible results as well. For example, all people, whether citizens or documented or undocumented residents, would end up paying their appropriate share of taxes. So this measure would materially enlarge the federal tax base.
Furthermore, it would also make our domestic goods more competitive with foreign goods both inside and outside of our borders.
Why? Because under our present system, payroll, Medicare and social security taxes are now paid on the labor to produce the goods and services that are created here, but not on those created abroad. With this new system, the taxes would be the same for all goods and services in our country, regardless of their origin. This is the system that most foreign countries use already, to our competitive disadvantage.
Similarly, the tax biases against working for the extra dollar and saving and investing money would also be removed, thus strongly re-encouraging these beneficial practices. Today’s income and capital gains taxes to an appreciable degree punish working for the extra dollar, and the saving and investing of those dollars. So removing these disincentives would directly lead to higher economic growth, a faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher standard of living for the American people.
Finally, even though the FAIR Tax would be designed to be revenue neutral, it would probably eventually increase gross revenues for the government, for each of two reasons. First, the savings both to individuals and to businesses would probably spur the economy significantly just by themselves, so more tax money would be generated. And secondly, since simplicity of enforcement as well as the reality and perception of fairness would all be increased, more people would pay their full share of taxes without feeling that they were being treated as chumps. So what’s not to like?
So how do we implement this change? Well, people are getting excited, and not only those involved with the Tea Party, and they are communicating that excitement to their members of Congress. That is what it takes, so please join them. Imagine the positive changes. Yes, the sales tax will probably be around 23% of all retail transactions, but keeping all of your income until you decide to make a purchase, no longer keeping records for the filing of tax returns, repealing all taxes on savings and investments, and so much more would truly result in a much better, less expensive, and more equitable system, for the prosperity of us all.
For further information, please visit www.passfairtax.com, or call (800) 962-8237.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Monday, March 1, 2010
Human trafficking is still big business - by Judge Jim Gray
There is no question that the United Nations has become enormously political and petty. But it still offers some hope for addressing and even resolving some disputes around the world, and it should be allowed to continue to exist — if only to keep that hope alive.
One of the best ways for the U.N. to regain some positive status would be to find, focus upon and work to resolve a serious problem in the world, and it would be more likely to be successful if the actions that spawned that problem were condemned by every government in the world. Well, such an opportunity exists, because human trafficking, or human slavery, exists all around the world and generates about $9.5 billion each year! So this is an unimaginably large problem, and the United Nations should make the eradication of slavery its top priority.
The most common definition of a slave is a person who is in a social or economic relationship in which he or she is controlled by violence or the threat of violence, forced to work without being paid, and is not permitted to leave. Depending upon which institution you consult, there are somewhere between 12.3 million and 27 million slaves in the world today. And, hard as it may be to believe, it is estimated that about 15,000 people are brought into the United States each year to be enslaved. About 80% of the world’s slaves are women, and 50% are younger than 18. The reason for this is that women and children are usually more docile, which means that they are more easily held in bondage.
With globalization, it is far easier now to transport slaves around the world. In fact, after illicit drugs and guns, slaves are the largest illegal commodity in the world. Slaves are used worldwide not only in prostitution, but also as agricultural, garment and domestic workers. Often they are lured from poverty areas by the promise of food and jobs in another country. But once they arrive, their passports are confiscated, and they are enslaved. Some children are even sold by their desperate parents so that the parents will have more resources to feed and clothe their other children.
As it is required to do by the Trafficking Persons Protective Act, each year the U.S. secretary of state’s office provides a list of countries that are turning a blind eye to the existence of slavery within their borders. As of 2009, these countries are Burma (Myanmar Republic), Chad, Cuba, Eritrea, Fiji, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Niger, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria and Zimbabwe. Slavery occurs in these countries because many police, government officials and judges either look the other way to its presence or actually take bribes to allow it to continue.
As a result, and contrary to what most people would think, the 20th century saw a three-fold increase in slavery over what was present in the 19th century. In fact, slavery is so prevalent that the costs of owning a slave today are far lower than before. For example, in many places a slave today can be bought for about $90, whereas in the 1850s the average price in today’s currency was about $40,000. That means that, among other things, there is far less of an incentive to keep one’s slaves alive today than there was before, because it is so cheap to purchase replacements. For that reason, slaves are often referred to as “disposable people.”
It is hard to imagine how there could there be a more important and non-controversial issue that the world could unite and rally behind, and the United Nations would be the best place to start. How could any civilized society publicly refuse to take part in the total eradication of slavery?
Well, unfortunately, the answer to that question often is money. Imagine how hard some governments around the world are pushing OPEC countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia on this issue, considering at the same time that they desperately need to buy oil from those same countries. In addition, often the enslaved people who are discovered and liberated in various places around the world are so fearful about what may happen to their family members back home if they testify against those who sold them into bondage, or kept them there, that prosecutions are difficult. Therefore, often the traders are simply deported instead of being prosecuted.
But if there is the political will, progress can be made. For example, in direct response to the public outrage that resulted from discovering a farm that was using hundreds of slaves, the government of Brazil began taking action to punish slave trading, and has been successful in freeing thousands of slaves. In addition, Brazil has also taken the action permanently to deprive any company from receiving any government grants or loans if they have been involved in using slaves in their businesses.
Another successful manner of fighting slavery comes from consumers organizing themselves to boycott companies that use slave labor. Traditionally one of the industries that has engaged in this despicable behavior was the cocoa plantations in West Africa. Of course, sometimes it is difficult to determine on a retail level which producer is involved and which is not. Nevertheless, when consumers boycotted the entire industry it was so effective that most of the companies that were using slaves changed their ways. That means that, with a little caring and effort, all of us can do our part to reduce and even eventually eliminate this practice.
For more information about the slavery problem of the 21st century I recommend you read two books. One is Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl L. WuDunn’s “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide” (Borzai Books, 2009), and the other is Kevin Bales’ “Ending Slavery: How We Free Today’s Slaves” (University of California Press, 2007). You can also visit www.freetheslaves.net or www.castla.org (which stands for Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking) to learn more about how you can get involved.
Finally, as fortune would have it, Kevin Bales, who is considered to be one of the foremost authorities in the world about modern day slavery, will be speaking at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles near Los Angeles International Airport at 7:30 p.m. Monday in Hilton Hall, Room 100. I encourage you to attend this sobering and important presentation and then get involved.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
One of the best ways for the U.N. to regain some positive status would be to find, focus upon and work to resolve a serious problem in the world, and it would be more likely to be successful if the actions that spawned that problem were condemned by every government in the world. Well, such an opportunity exists, because human trafficking, or human slavery, exists all around the world and generates about $9.5 billion each year! So this is an unimaginably large problem, and the United Nations should make the eradication of slavery its top priority.
The most common definition of a slave is a person who is in a social or economic relationship in which he or she is controlled by violence or the threat of violence, forced to work without being paid, and is not permitted to leave. Depending upon which institution you consult, there are somewhere between 12.3 million and 27 million slaves in the world today. And, hard as it may be to believe, it is estimated that about 15,000 people are brought into the United States each year to be enslaved. About 80% of the world’s slaves are women, and 50% are younger than 18. The reason for this is that women and children are usually more docile, which means that they are more easily held in bondage.
With globalization, it is far easier now to transport slaves around the world. In fact, after illicit drugs and guns, slaves are the largest illegal commodity in the world. Slaves are used worldwide not only in prostitution, but also as agricultural, garment and domestic workers. Often they are lured from poverty areas by the promise of food and jobs in another country. But once they arrive, their passports are confiscated, and they are enslaved. Some children are even sold by their desperate parents so that the parents will have more resources to feed and clothe their other children.
As it is required to do by the Trafficking Persons Protective Act, each year the U.S. secretary of state’s office provides a list of countries that are turning a blind eye to the existence of slavery within their borders. As of 2009, these countries are Burma (Myanmar Republic), Chad, Cuba, Eritrea, Fiji, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritania, Niger, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria and Zimbabwe. Slavery occurs in these countries because many police, government officials and judges either look the other way to its presence or actually take bribes to allow it to continue.
As a result, and contrary to what most people would think, the 20th century saw a three-fold increase in slavery over what was present in the 19th century. In fact, slavery is so prevalent that the costs of owning a slave today are far lower than before. For example, in many places a slave today can be bought for about $90, whereas in the 1850s the average price in today’s currency was about $40,000. That means that, among other things, there is far less of an incentive to keep one’s slaves alive today than there was before, because it is so cheap to purchase replacements. For that reason, slaves are often referred to as “disposable people.”
It is hard to imagine how there could there be a more important and non-controversial issue that the world could unite and rally behind, and the United Nations would be the best place to start. How could any civilized society publicly refuse to take part in the total eradication of slavery?
Well, unfortunately, the answer to that question often is money. Imagine how hard some governments around the world are pushing OPEC countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia on this issue, considering at the same time that they desperately need to buy oil from those same countries. In addition, often the enslaved people who are discovered and liberated in various places around the world are so fearful about what may happen to their family members back home if they testify against those who sold them into bondage, or kept them there, that prosecutions are difficult. Therefore, often the traders are simply deported instead of being prosecuted.
But if there is the political will, progress can be made. For example, in direct response to the public outrage that resulted from discovering a farm that was using hundreds of slaves, the government of Brazil began taking action to punish slave trading, and has been successful in freeing thousands of slaves. In addition, Brazil has also taken the action permanently to deprive any company from receiving any government grants or loans if they have been involved in using slaves in their businesses.
Another successful manner of fighting slavery comes from consumers organizing themselves to boycott companies that use slave labor. Traditionally one of the industries that has engaged in this despicable behavior was the cocoa plantations in West Africa. Of course, sometimes it is difficult to determine on a retail level which producer is involved and which is not. Nevertheless, when consumers boycotted the entire industry it was so effective that most of the companies that were using slaves changed their ways. That means that, with a little caring and effort, all of us can do our part to reduce and even eventually eliminate this practice.
For more information about the slavery problem of the 21st century I recommend you read two books. One is Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl L. WuDunn’s “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide” (Borzai Books, 2009), and the other is Kevin Bales’ “Ending Slavery: How We Free Today’s Slaves” (University of California Press, 2007). You can also visit www.freetheslaves.net or www.castla.org (which stands for Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking) to learn more about how you can get involved.
Finally, as fortune would have it, Kevin Bales, who is considered to be one of the foremost authorities in the world about modern day slavery, will be speaking at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles near Los Angeles International Airport at 7:30 p.m. Monday in Hilton Hall, Room 100. I encourage you to attend this sobering and important presentation and then get involved.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, February 21, 2010
‘We have met the enemy, and he is us’ - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, fun is fun, and fair is fair. But our economy is in serious trouble, which, in turn, means our country’s future is at stake. And, as Ayn Rand was quoted as saying, “You can’t fake reality forever.” So this will be a realistic and even blunt assessment of where our economy is, the problems we are facing, and what we should and must do about them. I am sorry to ruin your Sunday breakfast, but realities must be faced.
Just like the government of Greece, our country’s government is virtually bankrupt, which is to say that the federal government spends more than it takes in, and has been doing that for years. As a “short-term remedy,” the government has been using its irresponsible fallback ability literally to “print more money,” but this has simply aggravated the problem by building up huge budget deficits.
In addition, the signs are increasing that China, which holds more of our debt than any other country, is beginning to seek repayment, because their vast holdings are daily decreasing in value. If and when that happens, it will present us with another major economic crisis! So in so many ways our fiscal irresponsibility is inescapably catching up to us fast, and must be faced — now!
Specifically what are we facing? Using figures that come from economist Robert J. Samuelson, the federal government is projected in the next 10 years to spend about $45.8 trillion. But during that same period the government will take in revenues of only about $37.3 trillion, and even that is based upon the fabulously optimistic assumption that we will soon experience a full economic recovery. Thus the deficit is projected for the upcoming decade — in the best-case scenario — to be about $8.5 trillion, which will be about one-fifth of our total spending.
Starkly put, we cannot borrow our way out of debt. So we must now put into practice what we have been preaching for decades to Third World countries, and that is to “tighten our belts,” and act with fiscal prudence.
What are both our president and Congress doing to respond to this genuine crisis? Almost to a person, they are expressly ducking the hard questions, and are instead continuing to pander to us. How can they live with themselves by doing this while facing such economic peril? Because that is what we tell them we want them to do!
In today’s world, voters nationwide are expressing flagrant contradictions — all at the same time. On the one hand, more than a majority of voters are saying that they favor the so-called stimulus plan and want government to fix our economic problems, while on the other hand they are also saying that the government is too big and costly and spending much too much money, and that taxes are too high.
So what Pogo, the Walt Kelly comic strip character, was quoted years ago as observing is once again true: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” We are the ones who are vehemently saying that we want our entitlements, while at the same time saying that we do not want to pay for them. So our elected representatives have been listening to us, catering to those perceived wishes, and faking reality for years — and they still continue to do so. So it is we who must change!
The truth is that fiscal balance can only be achieved, and our economic future secured, either by increasing government revenues by further increasing taxes, or by reducing government spending, or by a combination of both. In that regard, simple mathematics tells us that we could probably balance our budget by increasing all federal taxes by about 50%.
But that would probably not actually happen because that approach would, of course, be actively resisted by the people who would be called upon to pay those taxes. With time, those people would simply move their companies and assets out of the government’s reach, which would inflict further enormous harm upon our economy. In fact, we have experienced that phenomenon already, and would be well advised to lower the taxes we have today to entice those companies and assets back.
That leaves us to look at an appreciable reduction in governmental spending as the only remaining path to fiscal responsibility. So what should we look at? Well, as has been written several times in this column, we can start by passing sunset laws for our federal agencies that will inevitably reduce the size and cost of government. We can also repeal things like subsidies for farmers to grow and not grow various crops. Those things would be a start, but in themselves they would not be nearly enough at this point to bring us to fiscal stability.
No, what we are facing is much more serious. About $20 trillion of the projected $45.8 trillion in government spending will go for three programs: Medicare, which is health insurance for those who are 65 or older; Medicaid, which is health insurance for the poor; and Social Security. At present the average federal subsidy for each person who is 65 or older is $11,000 for Medicare, and $14,000 for Social Security, for a total of $25,000 per year. Obviously that is a lot of money, and, even speaking as a person who just qualified for Medicare last week, we can no longer afford it.
So we are going to be forced to change the Social Security system to take into account the wealth of the recipient, and reduce the benefits paid to those people. That is really a hard thing to say, because this was supposed to be our money that was being held for us in trust for our retirement. But in truth, the Social Security system was never set up that way. Instead Social Security was always a “pay as you go” program that paid money to today’s retirees that was taken from today’s workers. That means that there were no savings of money in trust for anybody. In other words, Social Security was a legalized Ponzi Scheme, and now reality is exposing that fraud.
Fiscal responsibility also virtually demands that our Social Security age must be pushed back from 65 to 70. Most mortality tables say that people who are now 65 can, on the average, look forward to another 18 years of life. That is much longer than when the Medicare and Social Security programs were originally put into effect, and the program never took that eventuality into account. This will certainly not be popular with people at that age, but the solvency of our country and our way of life simply require that result!
The counties in our state are in much the same position, but their problems to a large degree are caused by the vested benefits they owe to their public employees. These consist mostly of health and retirement entitlements. Think about it, the various county supervisors are almost always elected and re-elected with the financial help of government employees’ unions. Why are the unions so involved in these elections? Because the unions’ members are highly affected by how those supervisors vote.
So after the elections are over, there exists a definite conflict of interest when the supervisors are called upon to decide upon the various financial benefits for the public employees. If they do not vote for benefits that are lucrative enough, they will arouse the anger of their biggest contributors, and this will probably result in their losing their next election. So often the supervisors go to great lengths with county funds to please the unions. But with this scenario, no one looks out for the solvency of the counties. As a result, probably every city and county in California is financially insolvent, because they have more projected obligations than revenues.
Those are the realities. Discussions like this are certainly not fun, but eventually reality must be faced. In fact, our children demand it. Mostly, you and I will be fine, but our financial security and comfort are being paid for by mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. And I hope you agree with me that this is too high a cost to pay!
In a democracy our “leaders” are governed by only one universal principle: They will follow where the votes are. That means in this case that they will tell us the truth at their peril. Furthermore, as long as financial ruin does not happen while they are still in office, reality can be postponed until someone else’s term. So in effect, all of them have simply been doing our bidding since they were voted into office, and they will continue to do so. Therefore, it is not the “rascals” we elect to office that are to blame. The rascals are us.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Just like the government of Greece, our country’s government is virtually bankrupt, which is to say that the federal government spends more than it takes in, and has been doing that for years. As a “short-term remedy,” the government has been using its irresponsible fallback ability literally to “print more money,” but this has simply aggravated the problem by building up huge budget deficits.
In addition, the signs are increasing that China, which holds more of our debt than any other country, is beginning to seek repayment, because their vast holdings are daily decreasing in value. If and when that happens, it will present us with another major economic crisis! So in so many ways our fiscal irresponsibility is inescapably catching up to us fast, and must be faced — now!
Specifically what are we facing? Using figures that come from economist Robert J. Samuelson, the federal government is projected in the next 10 years to spend about $45.8 trillion. But during that same period the government will take in revenues of only about $37.3 trillion, and even that is based upon the fabulously optimistic assumption that we will soon experience a full economic recovery. Thus the deficit is projected for the upcoming decade — in the best-case scenario — to be about $8.5 trillion, which will be about one-fifth of our total spending.
Starkly put, we cannot borrow our way out of debt. So we must now put into practice what we have been preaching for decades to Third World countries, and that is to “tighten our belts,” and act with fiscal prudence.
What are both our president and Congress doing to respond to this genuine crisis? Almost to a person, they are expressly ducking the hard questions, and are instead continuing to pander to us. How can they live with themselves by doing this while facing such economic peril? Because that is what we tell them we want them to do!
In today’s world, voters nationwide are expressing flagrant contradictions — all at the same time. On the one hand, more than a majority of voters are saying that they favor the so-called stimulus plan and want government to fix our economic problems, while on the other hand they are also saying that the government is too big and costly and spending much too much money, and that taxes are too high.
So what Pogo, the Walt Kelly comic strip character, was quoted years ago as observing is once again true: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” We are the ones who are vehemently saying that we want our entitlements, while at the same time saying that we do not want to pay for them. So our elected representatives have been listening to us, catering to those perceived wishes, and faking reality for years — and they still continue to do so. So it is we who must change!
The truth is that fiscal balance can only be achieved, and our economic future secured, either by increasing government revenues by further increasing taxes, or by reducing government spending, or by a combination of both. In that regard, simple mathematics tells us that we could probably balance our budget by increasing all federal taxes by about 50%.
But that would probably not actually happen because that approach would, of course, be actively resisted by the people who would be called upon to pay those taxes. With time, those people would simply move their companies and assets out of the government’s reach, which would inflict further enormous harm upon our economy. In fact, we have experienced that phenomenon already, and would be well advised to lower the taxes we have today to entice those companies and assets back.
That leaves us to look at an appreciable reduction in governmental spending as the only remaining path to fiscal responsibility. So what should we look at? Well, as has been written several times in this column, we can start by passing sunset laws for our federal agencies that will inevitably reduce the size and cost of government. We can also repeal things like subsidies for farmers to grow and not grow various crops. Those things would be a start, but in themselves they would not be nearly enough at this point to bring us to fiscal stability.
No, what we are facing is much more serious. About $20 trillion of the projected $45.8 trillion in government spending will go for three programs: Medicare, which is health insurance for those who are 65 or older; Medicaid, which is health insurance for the poor; and Social Security. At present the average federal subsidy for each person who is 65 or older is $11,000 for Medicare, and $14,000 for Social Security, for a total of $25,000 per year. Obviously that is a lot of money, and, even speaking as a person who just qualified for Medicare last week, we can no longer afford it.
So we are going to be forced to change the Social Security system to take into account the wealth of the recipient, and reduce the benefits paid to those people. That is really a hard thing to say, because this was supposed to be our money that was being held for us in trust for our retirement. But in truth, the Social Security system was never set up that way. Instead Social Security was always a “pay as you go” program that paid money to today’s retirees that was taken from today’s workers. That means that there were no savings of money in trust for anybody. In other words, Social Security was a legalized Ponzi Scheme, and now reality is exposing that fraud.
Fiscal responsibility also virtually demands that our Social Security age must be pushed back from 65 to 70. Most mortality tables say that people who are now 65 can, on the average, look forward to another 18 years of life. That is much longer than when the Medicare and Social Security programs were originally put into effect, and the program never took that eventuality into account. This will certainly not be popular with people at that age, but the solvency of our country and our way of life simply require that result!
The counties in our state are in much the same position, but their problems to a large degree are caused by the vested benefits they owe to their public employees. These consist mostly of health and retirement entitlements. Think about it, the various county supervisors are almost always elected and re-elected with the financial help of government employees’ unions. Why are the unions so involved in these elections? Because the unions’ members are highly affected by how those supervisors vote.
So after the elections are over, there exists a definite conflict of interest when the supervisors are called upon to decide upon the various financial benefits for the public employees. If they do not vote for benefits that are lucrative enough, they will arouse the anger of their biggest contributors, and this will probably result in their losing their next election. So often the supervisors go to great lengths with county funds to please the unions. But with this scenario, no one looks out for the solvency of the counties. As a result, probably every city and county in California is financially insolvent, because they have more projected obligations than revenues.
Those are the realities. Discussions like this are certainly not fun, but eventually reality must be faced. In fact, our children demand it. Mostly, you and I will be fine, but our financial security and comfort are being paid for by mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. And I hope you agree with me that this is too high a cost to pay!
In a democracy our “leaders” are governed by only one universal principle: They will follow where the votes are. That means in this case that they will tell us the truth at their peril. Furthermore, as long as financial ruin does not happen while they are still in office, reality can be postponed until someone else’s term. So in effect, all of them have simply been doing our bidding since they were voted into office, and they will continue to do so. Therefore, it is not the “rascals” we elect to office that are to blame. The rascals are us.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Sunday, February 7, 2010
VIP Mentors: a truly wonderful project - by Judge Jim Gray
One thing I learned from my extended involvement with the criminal justice system is that each case is different, and, although it sounds silly to have to say it, each case involves an individual human. So many times with prosecutors and judges, there can be a tendency to categorize each case simply as a burglary case, a hand-to-hand drug sale case, or tax fraud case, etc. But since I had been a criminal defense attorney in the Navy JAG Corps, I had learned to understand that each case involved a real human, and that experience helped me quite a bit as a judge.
Of course, just because each case had a unique human face did not at all mean that the defendants would not be held responsible for their actions. In fact, my experiences often guided me to look directly at the defendants at time of sentencing and tell them that I understood them, and that it made me feel good to be a spokesman for society and sentence them to jail or prison.
Nevertheless, once people have served their time in custody, it is only appropriate to assist them to live productive lives if at all possible, if only to reduce future crimes, victimization and expenses to the taxpayer. And, of course, everyone must recognize that some people have a better chance to succeed in being productive members of society than others.
But all of this brings me to the topic of today's column, which is the Volunteers in Parole Mentoring Program. This is a group of volunteer attorneys who, since 1972, have been serving as mentors and a support system for recently paroled prisoners. Think about it, lots of people who have been in prison for years want to live productive lives, but many have been virtually rendered unemployable by their felony convictions, have never had a positive support system, and actually are scared to be out on their own again.
How would you feel to be released after 10 years in prison with one set of new clothes, about $200 in cash, and a bus ticket to your former place of residence? Probably your spouse has long-since divorced you, and you wouldn’t have any positive family or social connections. And, of course, you would be told that you had lots of reporting requirements to your parole officer, and if you missed any of them you would likely be sent back to the joint. What would you think? What would you do? For most people, the situation quickly seems to be hopeless.
So now comes the VIP Mentors, whose motto is “Partners in Success.” With this program, parolees are first interviewed and screened by a parole officer, and then by VIP Mentors itself. Then if there seems to be a fit, and if there is room for them, the ex-felons will be given the name and phone number of the local director, and a date for an interview in their home town.
Once they get back to their place of residence, they will be assisted in the re-integration process into the community by being assigned an attorney-mentor with whom they are able to develop a one-on-one relationship.
What does that mean? The mentor will be available for telephone calls, hanging out, going to the mall, or going to movies or ball games. In other words, the mentor will be there — just like a family member — to offer these people in need friendship, emotional and social support, and practical problem solving. Specifically, that sometimes translates into guidance about how to interview for and keep a job, obtain a driver’s license, live on a budget, and work through the various inevitable crises that surely will come their way.
When asked about his experience with the VIP Mentors, one of the younger clients said: “I went into Youth Correctional Facility when I was 14. I came out when I was 19. I couldn’t go home, because that was where my trouble started. I really just didn’t know where to go.”
But with his mentor, this young man said he had not only received the first positive male role model of his life, he also received some essential ingredients for success that he had always been lacking, which were motivation and self-confidence. Thus almost all of the ex-felons who have been matched with mentors say that if they hadn’t been involved in this program, they probably would have been sent back to prison. And this is probably true.
But if the human side of the story does not get your attention, taxpayers should understand that a full 70% of parolees in California end up being re-arrested, and that it costs taxpayers about $35,000 per year to keep just one person in prison. So you will be pleased to hear that in fiscal year 2008, VIP matched 321 parolees with a mentor, and of those, only 57 were returned to custody. That is a return rate of 17.8%.
Using those statistics, VIP saved California taxpayers more than $3.5 million in that year alone! And the return rate for juvenile offenders is almost as good.
VIP Mentors began as a program sponsored by the State Bar of California, and, up until recently, was primarily funded by the state. But with the state’s budgetary problems, all state funding for the program has been taken away — and that was 75% of their operating budget! So, where two years ago they had 15 paid staff members, now they have three. Where the state director used to earn a modest $75,000 per year, that has been reduced by a third. Equally painful reductions have been placed upon the other two remaining on-site directors.
Just when the need for help for the parolees is greatest, when the job market is really tough, and the number of people on parole are increasing, the opportunity to help these people stay out of prison has been severely diminished.
Fortunately, all of the surviving four programs happen to be here in Southern California, but without some extra help, that may be lost as well.
The first sentence in the introduction of my recent book about judging said that the best decision I ever made in my life was choosing my parents. And, of course, I have been a life-long beneficiary of that choice. But I think that also gives me a moral obligation to help those who did not “choose quite so well.” In fact, a high percentage of people who have ended up in prison have never had any positive parental leadership or support. What better way to assist them than to support groups like the VIP Mentors.
If you agree, contact VIP Mentors at (877) 484-2139 www.VIPMentors.org. You will receive a great deal of gratification by supporting this wonderful and successful program.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Of course, just because each case had a unique human face did not at all mean that the defendants would not be held responsible for their actions. In fact, my experiences often guided me to look directly at the defendants at time of sentencing and tell them that I understood them, and that it made me feel good to be a spokesman for society and sentence them to jail or prison.
Nevertheless, once people have served their time in custody, it is only appropriate to assist them to live productive lives if at all possible, if only to reduce future crimes, victimization and expenses to the taxpayer. And, of course, everyone must recognize that some people have a better chance to succeed in being productive members of society than others.
But all of this brings me to the topic of today's column, which is the Volunteers in Parole Mentoring Program. This is a group of volunteer attorneys who, since 1972, have been serving as mentors and a support system for recently paroled prisoners. Think about it, lots of people who have been in prison for years want to live productive lives, but many have been virtually rendered unemployable by their felony convictions, have never had a positive support system, and actually are scared to be out on their own again.
How would you feel to be released after 10 years in prison with one set of new clothes, about $200 in cash, and a bus ticket to your former place of residence? Probably your spouse has long-since divorced you, and you wouldn’t have any positive family or social connections. And, of course, you would be told that you had lots of reporting requirements to your parole officer, and if you missed any of them you would likely be sent back to the joint. What would you think? What would you do? For most people, the situation quickly seems to be hopeless.
So now comes the VIP Mentors, whose motto is “Partners in Success.” With this program, parolees are first interviewed and screened by a parole officer, and then by VIP Mentors itself. Then if there seems to be a fit, and if there is room for them, the ex-felons will be given the name and phone number of the local director, and a date for an interview in their home town.
Once they get back to their place of residence, they will be assisted in the re-integration process into the community by being assigned an attorney-mentor with whom they are able to develop a one-on-one relationship.
What does that mean? The mentor will be available for telephone calls, hanging out, going to the mall, or going to movies or ball games. In other words, the mentor will be there — just like a family member — to offer these people in need friendship, emotional and social support, and practical problem solving. Specifically, that sometimes translates into guidance about how to interview for and keep a job, obtain a driver’s license, live on a budget, and work through the various inevitable crises that surely will come their way.
When asked about his experience with the VIP Mentors, one of the younger clients said: “I went into Youth Correctional Facility when I was 14. I came out when I was 19. I couldn’t go home, because that was where my trouble started. I really just didn’t know where to go.”
But with his mentor, this young man said he had not only received the first positive male role model of his life, he also received some essential ingredients for success that he had always been lacking, which were motivation and self-confidence. Thus almost all of the ex-felons who have been matched with mentors say that if they hadn’t been involved in this program, they probably would have been sent back to prison. And this is probably true.
But if the human side of the story does not get your attention, taxpayers should understand that a full 70% of parolees in California end up being re-arrested, and that it costs taxpayers about $35,000 per year to keep just one person in prison. So you will be pleased to hear that in fiscal year 2008, VIP matched 321 parolees with a mentor, and of those, only 57 were returned to custody. That is a return rate of 17.8%.
Using those statistics, VIP saved California taxpayers more than $3.5 million in that year alone! And the return rate for juvenile offenders is almost as good.
VIP Mentors began as a program sponsored by the State Bar of California, and, up until recently, was primarily funded by the state. But with the state’s budgetary problems, all state funding for the program has been taken away — and that was 75% of their operating budget! So, where two years ago they had 15 paid staff members, now they have three. Where the state director used to earn a modest $75,000 per year, that has been reduced by a third. Equally painful reductions have been placed upon the other two remaining on-site directors.
Just when the need for help for the parolees is greatest, when the job market is really tough, and the number of people on parole are increasing, the opportunity to help these people stay out of prison has been severely diminished.
Fortunately, all of the surviving four programs happen to be here in Southern California, but without some extra help, that may be lost as well.
The first sentence in the introduction of my recent book about judging said that the best decision I ever made in my life was choosing my parents. And, of course, I have been a life-long beneficiary of that choice. But I think that also gives me a moral obligation to help those who did not “choose quite so well.” In fact, a high percentage of people who have ended up in prison have never had any positive parental leadership or support. What better way to assist them than to support groups like the VIP Mentors.
If you agree, contact VIP Mentors at (877) 484-2139 www.VIPMentors.org. You will receive a great deal of gratification by supporting this wonderful and successful program.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+a.jpg)
