Wrong again

The headline says; Preventing crime begins at school

Preventing crime does NOT begin at school. It begins at the family planning clinic or failing that, at home. Many, perhaps most, potential criminals are born under easily identifiable circumstances. To a young, particularly very young mother or as a younger sibling of a mother who started having babies early; with an absent father, especially one absent due to being in prison; to a parent dependent on welfare supplemented by black market income; with a parent(s) who has drug/alcohol/gambling abuse/addiction problem; to a parent or wider family member who will abuse especially sexually.

All this is going on before the child even reaches school.

Sadly even those children removed and put into foster care of some sort are still at much higher risk of becoming criminals although the earlier the removal happens, the better.

Putting psychologists into schools is not the answer. We didn't used to have the crime rates we now almost take for granted and we didn't used to have psychologists in schools.

Look, no-one can actively stop the wrong people, or wrong in their current lifestyle, having children. But there is so much more that could be done to discourage them and /or find alternative homes for those children who do arrive. Young men in prison have already fathered more than children than those not in prison. I am willing to accept that the UK research stacks up here. Most of those children will be on welfare. We have to get in there and change the incentives and how we deal with unsupported pregnancies/births where the issue is clearly going to be going home (if you can call it that) to all of the conditions I have described.

Expecting to turn these kids around when they reach school (but still spend most of their time in their shitty homes with their shitty parents) is pie in the sky.

As Oswald said so eloquently yesterday, Are these people mad??

Govt decision to back down on DPB changes - stupid

Media Release

GOVT DECISION TO BACK DOWN ON DPB CHANGES - STUPID

Friday, March 27, 2009

Reacting to news the government has decided to put the re-introduction of DPB work-testing on hold, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell simply said, "Stupid."

"National campaigned on re-introducing DPB work-testing for parents whose youngest child has turned six . Although I criticised the policy as toothless because there is no cap on how many children a recipient can have while on welfare, it nevertheless sends a message that being on the DPB shouldn't be considered a permanent state of affairs. Now that message has gone on hold, apparently because of the recession."

"At a time when unemployment is rising sharply the government needs to be doing all it can to discourage dependence on other benefits. Right now the number of teenagers going on to the DPB is high and growing. That's because the DPB is viewed as a de facto job-for-life. It is imperative that the government reinforces , at all times, that the DPB is a safety net of last resort."

"This move also implies that any jobs available are for the unemployed, more often men. But in a house with growing children, having at least one working parent is enormously important. Having a working parent is probably the most effective way of teaching a work ethic to the next generation."

"And as employers adapt to the recession more part-time jobs, those frequently taken up by mothers with school-age children, are being created. In the last year the part-time workforce grew by nearly 4 percent whereas as the full-time workforce was static."

"National has made a big mistake here. What they should be doing is tightening the rules surrounding eligibility for the DPB - not loosening them."

Dear MSD ...

Dear Ministry of Social Development,

I am aware that you read my blog and you are most welcome.

So, where is the response to my most recent Official Information Request? You sent me a letter, on behalf of Peter Hughes, Chief Executive, on March 18 saying that an extension of time was required to "consult with other parties" and that, "My response will be with you no later than March 24."

I have just returned from a trip to my letterbox empty-handed, again. Are you sure you haven't sent it to someone else? This is not outside the realms of possibility as I have in the past received responses that were intended for another person. Still, your performance is better than the IRD's which, on one occasion, took months to furnish a reply after repeatedly losing my questions. And generally you perform better than the police who are unable to answer questions simply because they do not keep relevant statistics ( eg the number of false rape allegations made or the age and gender of homicide victims). You are certainly doing better than the Children's Commissioner who just makes things up.

Please. I do not want to resort to the Office of the Ombudsman yet again because they take even longer to react.

Sincerely

Lindsay Mitchell

Keeping perspective

From Parliament yesterday;

5. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen about job losses in the current economic climate?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : There has been a sharp increase in the rate of unemployment. There are 35,283 people currently on the unemployment benefit, and that number is up by 15,250 on last year’s number.

Here are the unemployment benefit figures at March 31 for the last 5 years;

(March 25 2009 35,283)

March 31 2008 19,034

March 31 2007 28,845

March 31 2006 38,796

March 31 2005 54,936

March 31 2004 75,164


Considering New Zealand has been in a recession since early last year, a 15,000 jump isn't too bad (apologies to anyone who has lost their job. I can't think of a more diplomatic way to put it). There are year-to-year drops of more than that during earlier periods (bearing in mind of course that they may have been more about WINZ management than the economy).

Bigger year-to-year increases were recorded between 1982 to 83, 86 to 87, 88 to 89 and 91 to 92 when the workforce was considerably smaller.

Name the problem

The front page of the DomPost features an article making the claim that new entrants are increasingly turning up to school lacking reading, writing and life skills.

Foxton's Coley St School principal Richard McMillan said about 80 per cent of this year's new entrants did not know how to hold a pencil, had no letter knowledge, poor book knowledge, and did not know how to look after themselves.

"Some do not even have basic life skills like eating properly and washing hands."

The school provided special remedial support programmes, while other schools used teacher aides.

"There are too many young parents lacking basic parenting skills not reading to their children, not talking to them, teaching them basic hygiene."

He believed the problem was more prevalent in lower socio-economic rural areas.

New Zealand Educational Institute president Frances Nelson said new entrants' readiness varied across the country. Children who had not had early childhood education tended to be less prepared.

"Unfortunately, it's increasingly in [poorer] low-decile areas where access to preschool education is not so easy to come by.

"Hawera Primary School head Neryda Sullivan said new entrants were increasingly not meeting basic benchmarks described in the Education Ministry's Literacy Learning Progressions. Many were missing early indicators, "like reading from the front to the back of a book and realising illustrations relate to text".

Deputy principal Shevaun O'Brien said 19 of 36 of the school's new entrants rated below average last year. "People are under a lot of time pressure everyone is so busy."

Principals Federation president Ernie Buutveld also said access to early childhood education was likely to be a factor. "It may also suggest families need two incomes, and probably there is less time being spent doing some of those things being done in the old times."

But he added that families in which both parents were working were more likely to send their children to pre-school.

So there is a contradiction there. Pre-school helps prepare for school. That is indisputable. The both-parents-work excuse doesn't wash with me. Busy people tend to apply their effort across all endeavours.

Nobody is saying it so I will. Much of the problem - not all of it - stems from welfarism. A laziness and apathy pervades many beneficiary homes. It may be that there are mental problems that need resolving. Then again I think much of the diagnosis of stress and depression is driven by the don't-blame-the-victim mentality.

There are 177 on the DPB in Foxton. That'll represent about 300 children. Not all of them at school of course. Coley St School has a roll of around 270. Another 250 children go to other Foxton Schools. I think it would be safe to estimate one in three Foxton children is from a home where nobody goes out to work. Homes where there should be ample time to spend interacting with the children. Yet studies show that welfare recipients talk less to their children.

But getting back to the comments from those interviewed. If nobody names the problem, how are we ever going to fix it?

Blaming the messenger

Isn't it great. The decision to reduce the subsidy on Losec, a treatment for heartburn and stomach ulcers, was made when Labour was in government. The generic, Dr Reddy's, is fully funded and patients who don't want to pay for Losec are being switched over.

But here is Labour MP, Ross Robertson, doing the only thing he can by way of a response to his constituents. Blaming the pharmacist.

“My point is choice. My constituents tell me pharmacists are switching them to the new variety of Losec without telling them they can still get the old one, albeit at a cost.

“The simple courtesy of telling folk that a choice exists is surely not too hard for pharmacists."

If pharmacists don't tell them it is because they are sick of getting flak over decisions that are beyond their control.

“I am taking this issue to the Minister as I believe that choice is a huge issue for older folk, and that the Government is obliged to ensure that vulnerable people know they do have a choice,” he concluded.

And... choice? CHOICE? Don't make me choke. It is the Labour model, the socialist publicly-funded health system that results in one-size-fits-all rationing. Most of the time the introduction of the 'free' generic kills off other alternatives. Choice. Save me.

Criminal inconsistency

A bill currently before select committee reads;

Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill

The purpose of the bill is to allow Police wide powers to collect DNA from persons before being charged or convicted, such as matching DNA profiles against samples from unsolved scenes of crime.

As it stands the law allows forced sampling from people who are judged 'guilty on accusation' (charged) and politicians, under pressure from the police and tough-on-law-and-order advocates, want to extend that to 'guilty on suspicion'.

The government and its support party, however, are able to discern the wrongness of the 'guilty on accusation' presumption in respect of copyright law and have scrapped the proposed changes.

If they were consistent they would also drop this bill. I am very uncomfortable when I read 'wide powers' and 'police' in the same sentence.

Hide - Don't come to me

Good to see Rodney Hide taking an economical approach with his language as well as ratepayer's money. An excerpt from an interview with Hawke's Bay bloggers, BayBuzz;

Your supporters in Hawke’s Bay are pretty conservative with regard to what should be within the circle of core services. But we also have some local elected officials here who are busily promoting so-called infrastructure spending.

(Hide) I understand that. If there’s pork being thrown around, people will want it coming their way.

How are you fending that off?

(Hide) Look, people know that I’m the last person to come to. Very early on in the piece, I was at a meeting of the Auckland area mayors. John Key explained they were going to be spending up on infrastructure. The question was asked: “Who they should approach in Government if they had some good infrastructure projects?” John Key suggested myself. I said “No way, because the answer from me will always be no.” I’m the last person to be approaching about spending more taxpayers’ or ratepayers’ money.

(Hat tip DPF)

Mandatory child abuse reporting

Did I miss something?

In respect of the commerce select committee holding an inquiry into finance company collapse and what might be achieved with law change ...

... Dalziel said the country had made it mandatory to report child abuse. There was an argument for thinking along similar lines in finance.

Say what?

According to the Ministry of Health;

Is it mandatory to report abuse?
In New Zealand, it is not mandatory to report partner and child abuse.

It is surprising that Dalziel could make such a considerable error (if she has been correctly reported.) I hope it is hers and not mine. Mandatory child abuse reporting is a bad idea. More law, more criminalisation, fewer people using their brains.

Welfare Reform in a Recession

A High Priority Promise
23 March 2009
Muriel Newman

In the seventies, the famous writer and philosopher Ayn Rand described the pervasive danger of the welfare state. She could have been writing about New Zealand today. Driven by power-seeking politicians, the welfare safety net has been manipulated over the years to the point where instead of alleviating hardship, it is creating unimaginable harm to some recipients, and widespread damage to society and the economy as a whole.... More >>>

Welfare Reform in a Recession
22 March 2009
Lindsay Mitchell

During a recent radio interview I was asked, is this a bad time to be talking about reforming welfare? No, I replied with little hesitation. There is no bad time to be trying to reform welfare. The period under the last Labour government would have been an ideal time to radically reform welfare because jobs were plentiful (thanks to the 1980s economic reforms, globalisation and a strong world economy). Now, with recessionary unemployment rising, job opportunities are becoming more scarce seeming to thwart the chances of moving people off welfare..... More

Sunday sermon from Sir Johnathan Sacks

I have an argument with a left-leaning friend. She thinks libertarianism is good in theory but doesn't believe people can be trusted to do the right thing voluntarily. So governments have to take charge of wealth redistribution rather than leaving it to a freely functioning labour market. That sort of thing. She has a rather poor opinion of her fellow beings. Increasingly though her estimation is fleshed out. While I hold to the vision (the Thomas Sowell sort of 'vision') that without more individual freedom we will never know what many people are constructively capable of.

The following excerpt pretty much says it all for me. Our current predicament isn't a failure of the market (which was never free anyway). It is a failure of values. And it vindicates for me why honesty and moral principles are the bedrock of any organisation - be it a family or a multi-national conglomerate or a political party.

The market economy has generated more real wealth, eliminated more poverty and liberated more human creativity than any other economic system. The fault is not with the market but with the idea that the market alone is all we need.

Markets don't guarantee equity, responsibility or integrity. They can maximise short-term gain at the cost of long-term sustainability. They don't distribute rewards fairly. They don't guarantee honesty. When it comes to flagrant self-interest, they combine the maximum temptation with the maximum opportunity. Markets need morals, and morals are not made by markets.

They are made by schools, the media, custom, tradition, religious leaders, moral role models and the influence of people. But when religion loses its voice and the media worship success, when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as “judgmental”, when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won't do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us. People will outwit the regulators, as they did by the securitisation of risk so no one knew who owed what to whom.

The big question is: how do we learn to be moral again? Markets were made to serve us; we were not made to serve markets. Economics needs ethics. Markets do not survive by market forces alone. They depend on respect for the people affected by our decisions. Lose that and we lose not just money and jobs but something more significant still: freedom, trust and decency, the things that have a value, not a price.

NZ "liberal and progressive" says Garrett

ACT MP, David Garrett is again reacting to criticism of his three strikes bill (when it might be a better course of action to just ignore detractors).

This morning we learned that Foreign Affairs has advised that the three strikes law could breach UN mandated obligations regarding civil rights. Leave it for the select committee. That's what Simon Power said. I didn't think the issue was worth blogging about. However.....

Garrett has now issued a release saying the claims are 'completely laughable'.

"This is especially so when you consider that a leading member of the UN Human Rights Council is Saudi Arabia - a country notorious for severe oppression of political and religious minorities, homosexuals, and women," Mr Garrett said.

"In Saudi Arabia court-sanctioned amputations and brutal lashings are a common form of punishment for petty crimes; public execution by beheading can be expected for those convicted of armed robbery or homosexuality.

"Meanwhile, homosexuals in nearby Qatar - another Council member - get off quite lightly by receiving only a five-year prison sentence for homosexual sex between consenting adults. Not surprisingly, capital punishment is still common - with the death penalty being handed down to those convicted of abandoning and renouncing Islam.

"On the flipside, New Zealand is a liberal and progressive nation by any measure. Why then, should we be expected to pay any attention whatsoever to covenants set down by barbaric regimes like those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Council members?" Mr Garrett said.

He would know about where the death penalty is still common having researched and written an entire book arguing that New Zealand should re-instate the death penalty.

New Zealand, of course, wouldn't be a 'barbaric regime' for imposing the death penalty because it would only apply to murderers, by Mr Garrett's prescription. We would still be a liberal and progressive nation.

Come to think of it, Mr Garrett is normally heard denigrating 'liberal' and 'progressive' thinking. Perhaps he has had some sort of conversion. I hope so.

John Boscawen - a stalwart and genuine opponent

John Boscawen is the best person I can think of to go head to head with Sue Bradford over amendment of the anti-smacking law. I spent a few hours with John outside a Labour conference last year protesting against the EFA. The way he engaged with Labour MPs and the public, with unfailing politeness and sincerity and passion was impressive. Let's hope his bill is pulled out of the ballot at soonest opportunity.

Boot camp BS

Tumeke has blogged on Paula Bennett's response to ongoing criticism of boot camps;

The Principals Federation has called on the Government to reject boot camps. The call follows expert advice given at this week's two-day behaviour summit in Wellington.

Youth Affairs Minister Paula Bennett agreed "boot camps haven't worked in the past which is why we're not doing them".

Yet just 2 weeks ago Paula Bennett was saying something quite different;

The army will run boot camps to keep the worst teenage offenders on the straight and narrow under youth justice provisions to go before Parliament tomorrow.

Forty of the most serious repeat offenders each year will undergo three months' military training as part of 18 months' intensive supervision under the plans.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the boot camps would follow six-month residential programmes and be followed by a further nine months' supervision.

National promised the boot camps before the election, but it was not revealed till yesterday that they would be run by the army.

The Defence Force is in discussions with the Social Development Ministry on how the camps will run.

Perhaps the Youth Affairs Minister has a different brief to the Social Development Minister. It will be interesting to see how 'they' reconcile the two.

What is going on with 3 strikes?

As I understand it the 'added crimes' to the three strikes law will only qualify as a strike if the perpetrator is sentenced to prison for 5 or more years for that particular offence.

However, looking at the bill, the crimes added that qualify as a 'serious violent offence' might not constitute violence. Let's take one; sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years. A consensual affair between a 17 year-old step daughter and mother's partner? Does anybody really believe that constitutes serious violence?

There are others like 'kidnapping'. With the prolificity of custody battles today, kidnapping is more common. Again it doesn't necessarily involve violence.

So why were they added?

Mr Power said the list was designed to fulfil National's own parole policy, which would deny parole to those convicted of a violent offence punishable by five years or more if they had committed a similar offence before.

That doesn't answer the question.

Of course a judge can take circumstances into account and sentence the offender to less than 5 years thereby nullifying their qualification as strikes. Perhaps that is why ACT accepted their inclusion. If indeed Simon Power is telling the truth about that.

In related news, I note that earlier this month Hungary voted against three strikes legislation.

Parliament on Monday refused to put on its agenda the Fidesz "three strikes and you're out" motion aimed at tightening the penal code. MPs voted with 199 dissensions, 166 affirmative votes and three abstentions.

The flaw in 'mutual obligation'

Professor David Fergusson, head of the Christchurch Health and Development study, is urging greater parenting education.

The Government is being urged to ... expand a scheme providing parenting courses for parents of bad kids.

This will dovetail nicely with Mr Key's comments yesterday about National's big idea for welfare reform, 'mutual obligation'. And it will mollify National voters quite nicely.

But there is a real danger with this philosophy. As government is constantly in the business of 'sending messages' the one this clearly sends is, 'it's OK to be on welfare so long as you do a, b and c.'

But it's not OK for parents to be on welfare. Not merely by virtue of being parents.

Left liberals don't like that statement. That's why they spent decades successfully attempting to de-stigmatise being on a benefit. Now the centrist conservatives want to jump on the same band wagon.

How many people are on the DPB? Answer - 100,000. Do you want to 'Lock it in', John?

PM believes a cap on the DPB would stop abuse

John Key, as did the PM before him, gives one hour of his time to engage directly with NewstalkZB Wellington listeners each month. Good on him for that.

In response to a question about the DPB, young mothers and child abuse, John Key replied that it is "factually correct" that some young girls, "who lack confidence in a lot of ways and see a pathway forward to have a baby to some random guy because the state will pay them to do that". His answer to that problem is 'mutual obligation'. That is, demanding that these mothers get better parenting skills and lift their capacity to raise their children better.

Which prompted me to call in and ask my own questions.

I said that clearly he understood the problem of young mothers and at-risk children but with respect I didn't think mutual obligation would work as some of these girls have had years of skipping school, being involved in petty crime, etc. In light of that I wanted to put two questions. A broad question for him and a more specific one for National. First, what was wrong with adoption, which would give many of today's at-risk children a better shot and second, why won't National cap the number of children a woman can have on the DPB?

Here are his answers to the first caller and then myself (29:04 and 47:50)

1/ He was familiar with the adoption statistics, seemed regretful that there are so many couples who would love to have the opportunity to adopt and can't; understood the change in attitude to adoption driven by "academics and others" but didn't think that attitude was going to change any time soon (didn't give his own personal view).

2/ He voiced the usual concern about more children in poverty if a cap was applied but then said Bill Clinton had done exactly that in the US and by all accounts it was a successful policy. Then he asked himself a question. In terms of reducing the number of people abusing the system, would it stop it? Yes. It would play a part in that.

So, as people who abuse or misuse welfare are counting on, mouths to feed will continue to win the day. If I had a further opportunity to respond I would have pointed out that if the incentive to have a baby or additional babies was removed the objection he put up may very well cease to exist. You see the discussion about DPB reform always grinds to a halt when someone asks, but what will happen to the vulnerable children?

What vulnerable children? The few that are still produced, despite their mother knowing she couldn't get onto a lifetime of income support with a home of her own? Rather than thousands every year there would be a few hundred whose mothers, by virtue of opting to go ahead without the DPB, would make the most motivated and emotionally well-equipped parents.

Stating the obvious - John Key on ACT

Asked what he thinks about ACT's decision to allow split voting just moments ago, the Prime Minister said ( thereabouts - I will post a link when it becomes available)

It risks sending a very confused message. If three of them are voting one way and two the other, what does ACT actually think or stand for?

Update; Here is the link (22:54). His exact words were "...what is ACT's position actually on something."

Putting the horse before the cart

A number of US state governors are turning down federal money, the 'stimulus' package for enhanced unemployment benefits. They do not want to expand entitlements and risk pushing up local taxes when the federal money dries up. Sound thinking.

Texas is one. Their unemployment rate is only 6.4 percent, well below the US average.

"The governor's main message is Texans who hire Texans drive our state's economic engine, and the last thing we need to do is burden them with higher taxes."

They can see exactly how further government intervention will damage their economy. Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi have already rejected the bail out money.

One silver lining on this dark cloud of recession is that at some future point we will be able to see which states have taken the right road. I will put my money on those who refuse to expand welfare.

'Free' votes and changed minds

Here is a radio interview which features Rodney Hide explaining to Justin du Fresne why ACT MPs should be able to have a 'free' vote and the real reason he changed his mind about the Gang Insignia Bill. (Starts at around 33.40)

'Decriminalisation' of drugs in Portugal

Portugal is predominantly Roman Catholic, has a population of 10 million and ranks 39th in international GDP per capita stakes.

In 2001 Portugal changed the law to allow people to have in their possession up to ten days supply of any drug, including cocaine and heroin, and escape a prison sentence. Under the decriminalisation model employed, regional authorities, made up of health professionals and social workers, focus on 'dissuasion' of drug use. If police discover people in possession of the prescribed amount or less they are referred to one of these boards to appear within 72 hours. According to their individual circumstances a number of things can happen. They can still be fined, although people found to be dependent are not. Professional licences can be revoked. But the main aim is to refer problem users to services and dissuade new users.

Trafficking, supply and cultivation are still crimes and police/court resources are freed up to concentrate more heavily on these.

The results by 2007 were an increase in cannabis use but drop in use of other drugs. Deaths from drugs dropped dramatically.

The perceived increase in cannabis use might not be an effect of decriminalisation because it is in line with European trends. Italy and Spain, without decriminalisation have also experienced an increase. Or it might be an effect of decriminalisation simply because people are being more honest when self-reporting about their use - not because of increased use.

The drop in deaths has a lot to do with heroin use and people now being able to get on substitution programmes (which NZ already has but are over-subscribed). Portugal had a big problem with HIV infection from shared needles.

Apparently the law change is still controversial but in place at this time.

(Hat tip to Ruth who alerted me to a forthcoming report by Glenn Greenwald - in association with Cato - about the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal. The above information is from an earlier report from 2007.)

The same-old, same-old futility

You may be aware an international UN conference on drug control has been taking place in Vienna. We sent Peter Dunne who has been talking about New Zealand's means and end approach, the end being 'ultimate abstinence' and 'the elimination of illegal drugs'.

Who is he kidding?

Consider efforts to date;

What has the Drug War done for you lately?

WASHINGTON--A decade ago, the U.N. General Assembly set an objective of "eliminating or significantly reducing" narcotics cultivation and trafficking "by the year 2008." According to the data of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, the effort has been an unmitigated disaster. Opium and cannabis production has doubled, while cocaine has slightly increased. The same proportion of adults--5 percent--consumes drugs today, mostly marijuana, as in 1998.

As officials from around the world gather in Vienna this week to chart the next decade of the anti-drug effort, it may be time to rethink the entire approach.

Echoing the Prohibition era in the United States, illegality has engendered organized crime empires that, in order to supply narcotics, undermine the peace and institutions of many countries. The latest example is Mexico, where President Felipe Calderon has unleashed the wrath of the state against the drug lords. The war between the state and the cartels, and among the mafias themselves, has mostly taken place in northern cities such as Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana and Culiacan. Ten thousand people have been killed and drug-related corruption has been exposed at the highest levels, including the attorney general's office.

The anti-drug budget worldwide is staggering: The United States alone devotes more than $40 billion yearly to the effort. Yet whenever attempts to limit supply manage to raise street prices in one country, prices go down in other countries: In Europe, the price of cocaine has dropped by half since 1990. But the crackdown has reduced the purity of the drug, increasing the harm to people's health. According to the police, in Britain the purity has decreased from 60 percent to 30 percent in a decade.

Not to mention the consequences to individual liberty. Those who banned alcohol in 1920 felt compelled to amend the Constitution before they could pass Prohibition. No such amendment was ever presented to legitimize what Richard Nixon first called the "war on drugs" in 1971. The excesses committed in its name have created all sorts of social stigmas--including the fact that about 30 percent of black males in America spend some time in jail in large part due to drug-related offenses.

Three Latin American former presidents--Brazil's Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Mexico's Ernesto Zedillo and Colombia's Cesar Gaviria--recently put out a report condemning the war on drugs as a counterproductive failure, advocating a public health-based approach instead of repression. In anticipation of the meeting in Vienna, the latest issue of The Economist magazine, the bible of many current and aspiring enforcers of the law, devoted its cover, a survey and an editorial to making the case for legalization. For years, conservative publications such as The Wall Street Journal have run articles expressing the same view, including those by its expert on Latin America, Mary O'Grady. Leaders on the right (Henry Kissinger) and organizations of the center-left (George Soros' Open Society Institute) have also spoken out on the issue.

No one knows exactly how drug use would be impacted by its legalization or its decriminalization. In countries where it is severely punished, consumption is high, which might mean that it would stabilize or even drop. Many European countries--Spain, Portugal, Italy, several Swiss cantons--have extremely lenient drug policies; consumption in those countries (except for Spain) is not very high. But even assuming a moderate increase in consumption, decriminalization or legalization would eliminate or substantially diminish the horrific side effects of the current war.

A movement in favor of legalization has existed in the United States for years. Because it is associated with the cultural war that has raged since the 1960s, its impact has been small. But the debate goes on. In many states the police do not go after personal possession of marijuana, and California is considering a bill that would make it legal. The vestiges of Puritan dogmatism--which H.L. Mencken memorably called the "inferior man's hatred of the man who is having a better time"--have made it difficult to open a serious debate nationwide.

Today we regard the Opium Wars of the 19th century--by which the British retaliated against China for clamping down on opium imports--as crazy. One and a half centuries from now, people will read in total amazement that so much blood and treasure was wasted in the failed pursuit of a private vice that a relatively small percentage of the world population was not ready to give up.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and the editor of Lessons from the Poor.

Victimless crimes and imprisonment

First I reiterate a part of a post from earlier in the week;

"The fact is: if you don't want to be assaulted - or worse - by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime," Mr Garrett said.

My response;

I wonder if Mr Garrett has forgotten that there are people in our prisons who are not violent; people who are guilty only of victimless crimes; people who should properly be in the care of psychiatrists and nursing staff; people who are on remand awaiting trial who may not even be convicted.

Mike E then referred to people imprisoned for "smoking pot" and was challenged by Mr Garrett to produce an example.

They may be unusual but certainly not unheard of.

This is from the 2002 Health Select Committee cannabis inquiry report:

p32: "Of the 9,399 prosecutions for the use of cannabis, 6,761 resulted in convictions, and 52 custodial sentences were imposed."

And from parliamentary questions;

Question 8479 (2004)

Question by Hon Tony Ryall to the Minister of Corrections:
June 14th 2004

How many inmates were imprisoned for possession of drugs but not manufacture or supply of drugs in each of the past five years, detailing how many had previous drug convictions and previous custodial sentences?

Hon Paul Swain (Minister of Corrections) replied:

The total number of inmates imprisoned for possession of drugs but not manufacture or supply of drugs in each of the last five years is as follow:

1999 431 inmates
2000 430 inmates
2001 443 inmates
2002 386 inmates
2003 411 inmates
2004 157 inmates (up to 31 May 2004)

While most sentences would have been for drugs other than cannabis, these substantial numbers represent the victimless crimes alluded to.

(Many thanks to Chris Fowlie of NORML for the speedy provision of information)

Absenteeism

Absenteeism. It's long been the bane of employers.

Lost productivity. The direct and indirect impact on profit.

Paying people to do nothing.

The impaired mental health and motivation of absentees.



Now suddenly it is the saviour. Now it is to be encouraged.

And on the tenth day God ... sorry, government, created a hand-out.

Behind the double-bunking debate

The debate about double-bunking and Greg Newbold's opinion that rapes would increase, being discussed at a number of sites, is certainly revealing some deeply ingrained attitudes. I have just commented on the feminist site, Hand Mirror. Cactus is over there asking this question;

Maia

So would you shed a tear if a man who has violently raped an innocent woman, is then raped in prison?

Honest answer please.

I'll answer it for you Cactus. I wouldn't shed a tear but I wouldn't be cheering either.

I have always accepted the idea of safe and secure preventive detention for the most dangerous criminals. But the tough on law and order brigade are starting to show their true colours. They are retributionists.

Think about where the strong culture of retribution has gotten many a Maori.

Retribution sits at the start of the problem - not the end. As Lucy says, this is eye-for-an-eye stuff. Where is the logical conclusion?

Antagonism for the sake of it

I have a bit of time for criminologist, Greg Newbold. When he shares an opinion I listen. But his latest comments, that double-bunking in prisons will lead to more violence and more rape, have wound up ACT's David Garrett.

Mr Garrett obviously believes that the state has no responsibility to keep people who are sent to prison safe. His latest statement, by way of response to Greg Newbold, is quite bloody-minded.

"I am further interested to note Dr Greg Newbold's remarks about homosexual rape – an issue he is on record as saying has never been a major problem in New Zealand prisons. Rape is a crime wherever it occurs, and can be dealt with in the same way as any other offence committed in prison.

"The fact is: if you don't want to be assaulted - or worse - by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime," Mr Garrett said.

I wonder if Mr Garrett has forgotten that there are people in our prisons who are not violent; people who are guilty only of victimless crimes; people who should properly be in the care of psychiatrists and nursing staff; people who are on remand awaiting trial who may not even be convicted.

Note too that he has now gone beyond the idea of prison as a means to keeping the public safe, his overriding rationale for the three strikes policy. It is now a place where you can get a taste of your own medicine, perhaps? Where you get what is coming to you.

Double-bunking may be a necessary and/or temporary last resort but it is a far cry from grudging or regretful acceptance to positively relishing the prospect.

Long-term ACC claimants

Prompted by Monkeys With Typewriters I had a look at the ACC 2008 Annual Report to ascertain how many long-term claimants there are. Here is what I found (and duly related at MWT's blogsite.)

Number of long-term claims

The number of long-term weekly compensation claims (i.e. claims in receipt of weekly compensation for more than 12 months) increased by 827 during the year to 30 June 2008 (compared with 580 during 2006-2007).



The figure of 14,755 has been sort of niggling at me. I had a vague idea that it was more than this from some earlier research. Sure enough in 2007 I found quite a different figure and cited ACC Injury Statistics 2006 (First Edition). So I went to the ACC site only to find the page is no longer available. Fortunately I had filed a hard copy for my records. Here it is;




That shows a total of 47,584 claims have been paying out for a year or more.

That's a big discrepancy. I cannot reconcile the 2 figures and believe the 2008 Annual Report is very misleading.

Very young mothers - a risk factor for criminality

VERY YOUNG MOTHERS - A RISK FACTOR FOR CRIMINALITY
Monday, March 9, 2009

A report recently released by Corrections New Zealand, which explores the "alarming" over-representation of Maori in the criminal justice system, has identified very young parents as a risk factor for potential criminality. Welfare commentator , Lindsay Mitchell, has welcomed the recognition of this fact but asks what government is going to do about the policy that encourages early parenthood.

"According to the report, traditional models of Maori family may well have been better able to support young mothers. This is , in part, a reference to whanau structure before it was undermined by welfare, in particular, the domestic purposes benefit. Along with welfare reliance comes poor educational attainment, exclusion from paid employment and disrupted home environments."

"Also explored are the compounding factors of impaired foetal neurological development which are associated with maternal smoking, alcohol and/or substance abuse, and low birth weight. It points out that Maori experience a higher rate of low-weight births than non-Maori."

"The report goes on to show that the rate of birth to Maori mothers under the age of 18 is five times that of non-Maori. "

"There is no doubt in my mind that the combination of the rising teenage birthrate and subsequent welfare dependence is contributing to the over -representation of Maori in prison or serving community sentences. We can continue to ignore this pattern and forget about reducing crime and the prison population, or, we can look seriously at reforming welfare. The matter becomes more urgent with each passing day."

Property rights abandoned for populism?

A quote from today's DomPost;

"We would be most disappointed if politicians were to encroach upon private property rights."

Sounds exactly like the sort of thing an ACT member would say. Or an ACT MP.

It is in fact the Chairman of Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu responding to ACT Leader, Rodney Hide, who has described their plans to levy fishermen on Lake Ellesmere as "appalling" and setting a bad precedent.

This I just cannot get my head around. Ngai Tahu own the lakebed just as Tuwharetoa own the lakebed of Taupo and have long received recompense from permits to fish.

It's user-pays in operation. The proposed fee, 8 percent, will go towards protection and restoration of the lake which Ngai Tahu currently pays $170,000 towards.

I am not even going to link to the many instances of ACT MPs, past and present, staunchly defending private property rights. It appears that the way Ngai Tahu has gone about imposing the fee has left a lot to be desired and I can understand the anger of long-time commercial fishers. Also there seems to be an ethical problem in that Ngai Tahu apparently assured users at the time of settlement they would not be 'impacted'. If these are the aspects Rodney is objecting to he has a point.

But again we come back to the heart of the matter. The principle. Are property rights only for some? High country farmers for instance?

Marae justice

The latest Ministry of Social Development magazine has a feature about marae justice. While I am all for trying new ways to get youth offenders back on track the process that goes on at a Gisborne marae, serving as a youth court, seems to employ an awful lot of resources.

....That coming together of many agencies and individuals is why with only two offenders before the court today, there is still a gathering of twenty or so people as the powhiri begins and the group makes their way on to the marae. Once inside, kaumatua and the Judge stand and korero, both in Maori and in English.

.... Everyone involved cares about the young people. Lay advocates take the time to get to know the young person and their whakapapa and relay that information back to the kaumatua. After the powhiri, korero and a waiata, the court breaks for a cup of tea and there is again opportunity for connection, for talking, for sharing.

20-odd people - whänau, lay advocates, youth advocates, service providers, kaumatua, social workers and members of the court - for 2 offenders. And the outcome? For the first it's not clear. The other...

... offender stands to leave. She’s been dismissed because since her family group conference she has reoffended, and that means she’s being sent back to the Youth Court held in Gisborne’s District Court.

The irony is the family group conference process was was also created in an attempt to embrace Maori Tikanga. Yet FGCs give youth the message there are few if any consequences of their offending. They have been used for nearly 20 years yet youth offending remains intractable.

In another 20 years I fear I will be writing the same about marae justice.

Cover up those tats

This is an entry from Rodney Hide's blog;

Special laws for Wanganui
Posted on 20 Jul 2006

Ex-Nat, ex-NZ1ster, now Mayor of Wanganui Michael Laws' plan to ban gang patches has hit a hitch but new MP Chester Borrows and the National Party are supporting a Bill to make the wearing of gang patches illegal but only in Wanganui.

I am not making this up.

... National's Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, a former detective sergeant, says his party planned to table a bill in Parliament after police headquarters refused to endorse the bylaw [banning gang regalia in parts of the city]. "The police in Wanganui were happy with the bylaw but the office of the commissioner wanted to have parliamentary sanction. . . . Mr Borrows said the bill, supported by National, would apply only to Wanganui, but it was "a commonsense approach to a problem shared by provincial centres across the country"...

Commonsense is a wonderful guide to sound law making!


And Heather Roy on the same subject;

Real Solutions Needed To Address Gang Issue
Posted on 30 Sep 2008

The move to outlaw gangs, their patches and tattoos is nothing more than a ploy to give the appearance of action - a ploy that will yield no results or benefit to New Zealand society in the long-term struggle to deal with the country's gang problem, ACT Deputy Leader and National Security Spokesman Heather Roy said today.

"Such moves are wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable - hard-line policies to deal with gangs are reeled out by different Parties in the run up to every election," Mrs Roy said.

"Clearly none of these 'flash in a pan' policies have worked - because they focus more on addressing the mayhem that individual gang members cause, rather than on initiatives that will hit gangs hardest and make it harder for them to operate.

"Legislation outlawing gangs and their insignia is just more law - we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have and give police the power to tackle lawlessness where and when it happens.

"Gangs' impact on society is more about their actions than their visibility. Rather than worrying about what gangs wear, we should establish a special IRD unit to audit their incomes and hit them where it hurts the most - in their wallets, rather than their wardrobes.



And in October last year, during the campaign;

Forget about banning gang patches. We need to focus on the anti-social behaviour that they represent. We already have plenty of laws to deal with that but, as a society, we appear to lack the will to enforce them. That's why the criminals are getting bolder.



This is a report from NewstalkZB today;

Anti-gang patch law moving through Parliament

05/03/2009 5:16:01

The proposal to have gang patches banned in Wanganui now looks certain to pass into law.

MPs have voted 64 to 58 in favour of the Gang Insignia Bill. Labour, which originally supported the idea, backed down and opposed it, however National received the support of ACT to allow the Gang Insignia Bill to pass through. The law would prohibit gang members wearing any patches on the streets of Wanganui.

The bill has two final readings before it comes into effect.

Green MP Metiria Turei is among those to oppose the plan, saying it will not stop gang violence. She says not only will it be ineffective, but it will also be a significant breach of citizens' rights. Ms Turei says ordinary citizens will suffer if the ban goes ahead.

But ACT MP David Garrett says the law will make sure intimidating tattoos are covered up.

I understand that being in government comes at a price. But it's just getting too expensive for this supporter.

Does Three Strikes deter crime?

This post is for my peace of mind. I have previously expressed reservations about the Three Strikes Policy shortly going before select committee. The law of unintended consequences is perhaps the one we ignore, at our peril, the most. So I decided, while I have some free time, I would take a closer look.

Now I know that if I go looking for studies that discredit the US welfare reforms I can find them. I can also find the converse.

So, I expect to find knockers of three strikes and I expect to find fans.

Here is a site dedicated to opposing. Below, a couple of the many reasons it cites;

# Kovandzic, Tomislav V; John J Sloan III, Lynne M Vieraitis. ""STRIKING OUT" AS CRIME REDUCTION POLICY: THE IMPACT OF "THREE STRIKES" LAWS ON CRIME RATES IN U.S. CITIES. " Justice Quarterly : JQ 21.2 (2004): 207-239.

Summarizes several studies showing that homicide rates have declined at a 10-12% slower rate in jurisdictions with 3-Strikes laws.

# Marvell, T., Moody, C. (2001). The lethal effects of three strikes law. Journal of Legal Studies, 30 (1): 89-106.

Finds that Three Strikes laws have had a minimal impact on reducing the levels of crime and through deterrence or incapacitation but that they are associated with 10%-12% more homicides in the short run and 23%-29% more in the long run in almost all 24 states examined with Three Strikes laws.

It was harder to find proponents but here is one from Washington;

Our state's three-strikes law, the nation's first, was designed to nail two kinds of criminals: first, the violent predators and, second, those who commit lesser but far more numerous crimes over and over again. But the law's chief benefit is the amount of crime it deters from felons with one or two strikes already on their record. When a third conviction means life behind bars, many legally-challenged citizens resist the temptation to commit that third offense. Of those who don't shape up, many simply move away. This helps explain that while violent crime rates have plummeted nearly 30 percent since "three strikes" became law in 1993, only about 26 felons "strike out" each year.

Opponents had predicted nearly four times that number would do so. They assumed that changing the law would not change criminal behavior. They were mistaken. Ask any street cop. Their street-level insights are far more valuable and relevant than those of academics and politicians.

So what about some statistics from Washington (State). I looked at murder and rape because these are two of the crimes the introduction of three strikes is targeted at in this country;

Murder
1998 234
1999 171
2000 196
2001 179
2002 184
2003 182
2004 190
2005 205
2006 190
2007 173

Rape
1998 2740
1999 2711
2000 2737
2001 2600
2002 2734
2003 2863
2004 2857
2005 2811
2006 2746
2007 2629

So, taking into account population growth, there has been a slight improvement. Slight.

Let's look next at violent crime in California, which has the toughest three strikes regime;

Murder
1998 2171
1999 2005
2000 2079
2001 2206
2002 2395
2003 2407
2004 2392
2005 2503
2006 2485
2007 2260

Rape
1998 9782
1999 9363
2000 9785
2001 9960
2002 10198
2003 9994
2004 9615
2005 9392
2006 9212
2007 9013

Again the rates have dropped slightly but I am not overwhelmed.

Illinois has no three strikes policy. Their statistics:

Murder
1998 1008
1999 939
2000 891
2001 982
2002 961
2003 895
2004 780
2005 770
2006 780
2007 752

Rape
1998 4095
1999 4297
2000 4090
2001 4010
2002 4370
2003 4189
2004 4220
2005 4313
2006 4078
2007 4103

Same sort of picture. Another three-strike free state, New York, shows a similar pattern.

As fas as I can ascertain just over half have a three strikes policy yet the violent crime rate has declined across the United States (but has stuck over the last couple of years.)

I can't convince myself that the Three Strikes policy will do what I most want it to - deter serious crime. Additionally there appears to be a very real danger that it makes criminals more violent.

The de facto dole

This morning I came across this graph which clearly shows numbers unemployed dropping from around 135,000 in 1999 to around 80,000 by 2008.




Yet the following tables show that in 1999 148,755 people were receiving the unemployment benefit and the number dropped to 23,273 by 2008.



So how are sixty-odd thousand unemployed getting by?

Maybe

1/ Unemployed people in 2008 are largely short-term unemployed and have no need of or do not qualify for the dole.
2/ Unemployed people in 2008 are relying on other forms of income, perhaps an employed partner.
3/ Unemployed people in 2008 are relying on benefits other than the dole i.e. sickness and invalid benefits

I doubt that 1/ is the sole answer because then you would expect those left on the dole to be long-term employed only and that just isn't the case.

2/ may be right but that would require a cultural change.

So let's consider 3/

In September 1999 there were 83,635 people on either a sickness or invalid benefit. By September 2008 the number had climbed to 131,826. 48,000 more. Not far off the number we are looking for.

The Labour government constantly denied that unemployed people were moved onto other benefits. Strictly speaking that may be true. But the beneficiary pool is ever-changing; people come and go and have repeated spells on welfare. When coming onto or back onto a benefit, I would suggest fewer and fewer were put onto the dole.

MSD data shows that 72 percent of the working aged clients granted a sickness benefit in 2006/2007 had received some sort of benefit in the previous four years. And 69% of people granted an invalid benefit had transferred from another benefit or district.

I will repeat how the OECD describes incapacity benefits. They represent the medicalisation of labour market problems.

Thanks, National

What is worse than one Families Commissioner?

Two

(Transcript here of Judith Collins mercilessly attacking the waste of taxpayers money on and by the Families Commission here.)

Change the Bill of Rights ?

Stuck for words myself this morning I will pass on a reaction from my husband. Reading this over my shoulder he said, resign me. Any ACT MP that says change the Bill of Rights shouldn't be an ACT MP. Continuing,

"First they came for the criminals, then they came for the Communists, then they came for the trade unionists and then they came for me and there was no-one left to speak ... it's very dangerous to go changing the Bill of Rights for political popularity. "

He's quite angry.

OK. Now I have some thoughts. There is no way the Bill of Rights should be changed despite the fact that it is quite frequently contravened. How the hell will ACT ever again argue for its observance in any given circumstance. Here is a case in point. And remember too that another new ACT MP repeatedly and rightly invoked the NZ Bill of Rights to fight the Electoral Finance Bill.

In future opponents can simply reply, "We'll change it."

The invisible men

The topic of Tapu Misa's column interests me.

My comment however isn't about the topic but her approach. Read through the first four paragraphs and tell me, do fathers have any relevance as parents in her worldview? You can begin to understand the alienation some are feeling.

Women today demand men be all things to everybody, but um... some subjects still shut them out?

And she won't even be aware of what she has done.

Why the PPTA is loathsome

I hate lies and advocates of state control are full of them. Here's a typical lie ;

Kate Gainsford, head of secondary teachers' union the PPTA, is furious that private schools are turning to the government for help. She says any private schools allowed to integrate will effectively be taking cash from students at state schools. She recently said that schools making such applications are effectively looking for a "bailout for private businesses" and a subsidy for wealthy parents.

In fact these 'wealthy' parents are currently subsidising state pupils through the tax they pay that is not used to educate their own. In effect, they are asking to subsidise state school pupils to a lesser degree than they have been.

I oppose subsidies for private business when an industry is completely privatised. The NZ education industry is, however, almost monopolised by the state.

But this whiner can't get her head around simple economics. If the state refuses to lower the subsidy private school parents pay to the state school system there may be no subsidy at all.

In good economic times her gamble may have paid off. Right now, it may not. Private schools are already closing.

The more private schools close, the more students will flock to state schools. As long as the education budget remains unchanged there will be less cash for each state student. Exactly what this silly cow is railing against.

Straight answers (with wiggle room)

Some straight answers from the Minister for Social Development. For that, at least, she gets a tick.

260 (2009). Sue Bradford to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (10 Feb 2009): Does the Minister intend to abandon the previous Government's proposal to move towards a single core benefit, given the statement in the National Party policy "Reject Labour's planned new benefit terminology which will make the government workers use the term "income support" rather than talk about benefit types."?

Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: Yes

259 (2009). Sue Bradford to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (10 Feb 2009): Does the Minister have any plans to replace the Social Security Act 1964 with redrafted legislation to govern the administration of the social security benefit system; if so what is the proposed timeframe for having any such legislation replacing the Social Security Act replaced?

Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: No.

There will however be amendment bills. One is needed, for instance, to introduce the DPB work testing National promised. In fact, the DPB itself was introduced under an amendment bill. That was a change of enormous significance. So promising not to replace an Act needn't be the disappointment it initially looks like. Especially to those of us who want real reform. Ultimately it will be unavoidable.

Religion - good for something after all

A friend e-mailed me these. I was giving them a cursory look over when I found myself laughing outright.

Church Bulletins

These sentences (with all the BLOOPERS) actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services:

--------------------------


The sermon this morning: 'Jesus Walks on the Water.' The sermon
tonight: 'Searching for Jesus.'

--------------------------

The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new campaign slogan
last Sunday: 'I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours.'


----------------------------

Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at
someone who is hard to love. Say 'Hell' to someone who doesn't care much
about you.

--------------------------

Don't let worry kill you off - let the Church help.

----------------------- ---

Miss Charlene Mason sang 'I will not pass this way again,' giving
obvious pleasure to the congregation.

--------------------------

For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a
nursery downstairs.

--------------------------


Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the
church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.

--------------------------

A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall.
Music will follow.

--------------------------

At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be 'What Is
Hell?' Come early and listen to our choir practice.

------------------------


Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased
person you want remembered.

--------------------------

The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment
and gracious hostility.

--------------------------

Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.

--------------------------

The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They
may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.

--------------------------

This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across
from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.

--------------------------

Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 AM. All
ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B.S. is done.

--------------------------


Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM. Please use
the back door.

--------------------------

The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the
Church basement Friday at 7 PM. The congregation is invited to attend this
tragedy.

Summit 'n' nothing

RNZ report;

Radio New Zealand's political editor who is at the conference says some business delegates wanted to discuss changes that could be made to free up the Employment Relations Act.

They were told bluntly at a closed session that this was not the place to talk about legislation and that Prime Minister John Key was not prepared to have that sort of debate.

Un-bloody-believable

If I wore false teeth, this morning I would have swallowed them.

This individual,

...convicted of 31 sex attacks, abduction and burglary charges, involving four female complainants aged between 11 and 69 and sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum non-parole term of 25 years later cut to 20 years...

...is appealing the legality of his DNA sample because of the way it was taken.

He says...

...he was not treated with humanity and with respect for his dignity.

"Molly"

Updating artist blog. Morning's work. Molly.

America remembers its raison d'être

Hallelujah. Perhaps I had missed this earlier but it is news to me. Great news.

ELEVEN STATES DECLARE SOVEREIGNTY OVER OBAMA'S ACTION

State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the economic "stimulus" plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time, says Human Events.

At least 11 states have decided against an intolerable expansion of the federal government's authority over the states, says Human Events:

• Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas -- have all introduced bills and resolutions reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government.

• These resolutions call on Obama to "cease and desist" from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.

When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama's "stimulus" bill, federal mandates on abortion that violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other things, says Human Events.

These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan. And they must, says Human Events.

Source: A.W.R. Hawkins, "Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama's Action," Human Events, February 23, 2009.
For text:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807

The sky is falling....not

Finding a balance between a realistic attitude to the recession, and running around screaming the sky is falling, is not an easy thing to do. However leaning towards the latter approach runs the very real risk of making matters worse. So when I read the following,

Jobs in construction, retail, hospitality, agriculture, finance and manufacturing have been declining - manufacturing and retail sectors have suffered falls in the number of jobs of more than 20 per cent in the last year....

... I get a little brassed off.

Let's contrast that statement with the latest Household Labour Force Survey - the official source of employment and unemployment data - information.

People employed by industry

Manufacturing December 2007 275,400
December 2008 269,100

Wholesale and retail December 2007 502,000
December 2008 502,000

Did he mean falls in the number of jobs advertised? If so, say so.

A combined loss of 20 percent over the past year would equate to 155,480 jobs. Assuming no re-absorption of workers elsewhere, that's enough to push the unemployment rate higher than it has been since the depression.

Still, if you read it in the newspaper....

National - Still buying into collectivist claptrap

National should have ignored the bollocks about women being particularly vulnerable in a recession; the braying from the Greens, the foremost stalwarts of slavish genderism.

Everybody is vulnerable.

But Pansy Wong, Minister of Women's Affairs, a department any government serious about cutting costs would have obliterated, had to put out a soppy statement reassuring women that their voices would be heard at the job summit. Still buying into all that collectivist claptrap from the left. While you are at it, are there going to be enough Asians in attendance, Pansy?

Round-up from the drug policy conference

Last week a conference about drug policy was held in Wellington. The only MSM news I am aware it generated was sensationalism about a sponsor who backs cannabis decriminalisation. When that was reported the NZ Drug Foundation said this:

Mr Bell said the foundation was "neutral" on the legal status of cannabis. It did not have a secret agenda, nor was it a liberal or pro-drug organisation as its opponents claimed.

But on Thursday the foundation issued this press statement,

Harsh cannabis laws defy good sense.

Drug legislation and policy tend to focus too much on enforcement and tough-talk and too little on evidence about what really works, a visiting expert told the Healthy Drug Law Symposium in Wellington today. The result is often irrational laws that cause considerable harm, he said.

Jeremy Sare is former Head of Drug Classification at the Home Office in Westminster. He has worked as Secretary to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and is currently a policy consultant for the Beckley Foundation’s Cannabis Commission.

Mr Sare said the UK Government’s claim that strong cannabis laws send a strong signal to young people about drug use was ‘nonsense on stilts’.

“Overstating the dangers of cannabis actually undermines the credibility of drug messages. Focus groups show that many young people who smoke cannabis occasionally or even regularly would not consider taking harder drugs. They obviously know there’s a difference.”



Then I checked out their website to see what else they had reported on. This is from a UN official who attended;

“There has been considerable reduction over recent decades in the consumption of opiates, the most problematic of drugs, and opium cultivation and production has been limited to just one or two countries in the main.”

However he said containment does not mean the problem has been solved and that the way the drug control system has been applied has led to other problems.

“An unintended consequence has been the huge criminal black market that now thrives in order to get prohibited substances from producers to consumers. This has led to a second problem – the displacement of resources away from public health and into law enforcement.


“It also appears we have created a system where those who fall into the web of addiction find themselves excluded and marginalised, tainted with a moral stigma, and often unable to find treatment even when they want it.”


And from another British expert;

“There is a growing consensus worldwide that health and law enforcement officials should work in partnership in order to meet drug policy objectives, which are essentially the same for both agencies – to reduce drug use and availability, and protect society from the most harmful elements of the street drug market,” he said.

“In the UK, for example, the police have specialist advisers who identify people needing treatment for drug or alcohol dependence, and refer them to health and social services. The result is that health and social services can reach marginalised groups, and police are happy with the reduction in crime that comes from successful treatment.


An American expert;

Drug control in the form of prohibition or a ‘War on Drugs’ has been a spectacular failure, a visiting American expert told a symposium in Wellington today.



An Australian;

Mr Trimingham, founder and Director of Family Drug Support in Sydney, Australia, is attending the Healthy Drug Law Symposium in Wellington. He told delegates today that communities need to wake up to drug issues and stop seeing them as purely a criminal matter.


And finally from another Australian expert;

Mr Vumbaca says in Australia it is now costs up to $73,000 a year for a prisoner to be in jail, while it only costs around $30,000 a year for treatment in a residential rehabilitation centre.


Prompting Mr Bell to conclude;

“The Misuse of Drugs Act was drafted in 1975 when the prevailing view was that we could punish drugs out of existence. We've been jailing the same drug users over and over again the last 30 years and it hasn't made a scrap of difference."

It seems to me that the Drug Foundation cannot be "neutral" about decriminalisation of cannabis (at least) and challenging the status quo simultaneously. Every report they made from the conference featured 'experts' advocating increasing a health approach to the drug problem. Good on them.

What's the answer?

Numerical reasoning

Question;

5/3 is to 1/5 as 5 is to ?


Leave a reply even if it matches someone else.

What Kim Workman has overlooked

Yesterday Kim Workman made some estimates regarding the cost of the 'three strikes' policy. He claims that if it had been implemented in 1980 14,000 more people would now be in prison and that would have cost the taxpayer an extra $7.5 billion.

Completely overlooked is that when many prisoners are out in the community they are still costing the taxpayer through the following;

Social security benefits - using Mr Workman's 25 year time frame at today's money, around 3,000 realeased prisoners each year go on a benefit. At a cost of around $20,000 each that produces $1.5 billion.

Fathering more welfare dependents (and potential criminals) - let's assume each of the 14,000 produces just one child who is dependent on the taxpayer for 18 years. I will use $150 per week to cover their upkeep, health and education. That produces almost $2 billion.

Methadone programmes - one of the main aims of the methadone programme is to keep people out of prison. It costs around $30 million or $750 million over 25 years.

Then other things I am not equipped to put an estimate on;

Creating more insurance claims and hence, increased premiums.

The victims of their crime's loss of productivity and in many case loss of life costs taxpayers through the welfare and health systems.

I stress my counter-costings are not scientific or conclusive but they do put Mr Workman's estimate into some sort of perspective.

He also says;

If this legislation was introduced 25 years ago, we would now be faced with an influx of ex-prisoners being released into law abiding communities, each of whom will have served around 25 years in prison, and hopelessly institutionalised. They will emerge, scared, violent, without any ability to cope with an ever-changing world, and most likely without friends or adequate support. That would in turn have a significant impact on public safety and the crime rate.

By the time anyome is released from a three strike progression they are likely to be middle-aged to old. This is the group from which the least violent crime hails.

I guess the bottom line for me is protecting innocent people. My main reservation now is will the three strikes policy actually make criminals more dangerous when they are free but approaching their final strike?

The awful welfare bind NZ is in

The DomPost reports that nearly 800 families are claiming the Restart benefit. Given entitlement was backdated to November 8, I believe this is quite a low number. Especially over a period where unemployment traditionally rises anyway. Of course, for context, what we need to know is how many applications have been denied.

I suspect that many of those claiming will be people returning to the DPB from working 20 or more hours per week and qualifying for the In Work payment. (It's a surprise that the Child Poverty Action Group haven't been carping about the inequity of this situation as they go on endlessly about the unfairness of the In Work payment and how it discriminates against children of beneficiaries. Now children of beneficiaries whose parent has been in work are getting more than those whose parents haven't.)

The article goes on to mention the Jobs Summit. My input/suggestion would be a radical overhaul of social security. As they say, ad nauseam, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. It should have been done when the economy was strong. But now the matter is even more urgent.

Here's the awful reality. We can't treat individual benefits in isolation. Some say, get rid of the DPB! But because, unlike other countries, NZ pays unemployment benefits as of universal right, from general taxation, denied the DPB, most of these individuals will gravitate to the dole. The US was able to reform their DPB equivalent because unemployment insurance wasn't automatically available to all. It is impossible to extract a positive effect from abolishing the DPB without reforming the unemployment benefit (and sickness and invalid benefits for that matter).

When social security came into being it was funded primarily through a special and additional tax. Only contributors reaped the benefits. That changed in the 1960s when it was decided that social security would be paid wholly from the consolidated account. What a mistake. How we are going to pay, are already paying, for the utopian ideal of a fair income for every citizen regardless of their input.

S92A PROTEST

Following the advice of Kiwiblog (who seemed to have trouble following it himself),

Don’t worry too much if parts of your site are still accessible. The main thing is not to put any fresh content up (except S92A material) on Monday morning, so that anyone checking the blogs out on Monday morning will find nothing but black banners protesting S92A.


Comments disabled

Update; Normal service resumed

Basis for unemployment prediction of 11.2 percent

According to a NewstalkZB report the NZ Institute has "dropped a bombshell" warning unemployment may reach 11.2 percent. I always wonder how they make these predictions. Here's the answer;

The eminent American economist Kenneth Rogoff and co-author Carmen Reinhart released research showing that recessions originating in financial crises such as the current global recession are
generally protracted affairs associated with profound declines in output and employment. On average, real house prices decline 35 percent stretched out over six years, while the downturn in equity markets lasts for at least three and a half years. Unemployment rises, on average, by seven percentage points. The decline in economic activity is steep – an average decline of over nine percent –although output recovers more quickly than employment with recovery starting after two years.

Applied to the New Zealand context, for example, this points to a worrying possibility that unemployment could rise from a historical low of 4.2% to a rate of 11.2% over the next two years – a rate exceeding the most pessimistic forecasts at the present time. This simple extrapolation may be misleading, however. The Rogoff/Reinhart study included all major postwar banking crises, and two major pre-war crises. Labour markets in advanced economies such as New Zealand have become more flexible over time, meaning that the unemployment impact may be less extreme today than predicted on the basis of historical averages. On the other hand, the present crisis is arguably more severe than any earlier banking crisis given its global scope, whereas earlier crises were more confined to one or more countries.

The point about the flexibility of labour markets is important and confirms that government moves to increase flexibility even further are well-advised.