Judge’s ruling ignores reality
After reading the story about the man who has to pay $95 a week or go to jail, I was rather upset. This period in time has the worst unemployment numbers in our life time and the judge doesn’t live in this world that everyone else does because he is on the government payroll. If he had to go out and find a job, he would know how stupid his ruling was. Many people I know, some who are skilled trades, can’t find work and their unemployment has run out. It cost the city or county approximately $42,000 a year to incarcerate this person. So if the county paid his back support it would save $22,000 a year. If they keep him in jail for 16 years the cost would be $840,000 unless they put him a state facility, which would be much more.
I agree that the man should pay his support, but in bad times there are no jobs out there. The smarter thing to do would be for the judge’s office to find this man a job, and if he got fired or quit, put him in jail for 30 days and get him another job. In this way, both the county and family are helped. If the judge can't find a job for him, then how can he be expected to find a job? It would still be cheaper to just help out the families of many men whose support is behind because of the job problem than send them to jail and fine them.
In times like these, a more progressive program is needed.
Jerry Anderson
Logansport
Letter contains numerous errors
Mike Smith’s recent letter to the editor (Pharos-Tribune, Feb. 7) is filled with a number of errors. First President Bush did not lie to Congress about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the common belief of both Democrats and Republicans at that time based on the then-available intelligence. The British and the Russians also agreed.
Both Democrats and Republicans voted for the military to enter Iraq.
Sixty votes are required to break a filibuster in the Senate. It has been that way for many years. This year the Democrats had a “super majority,” i.e. they had 60 Democratic votes and did not need any Republican to join them in a bipartisan way. As a result they did not consult with or accept any suggestions from the Republicans on the health care reform bill. They were intent on pushing it through Congress without any Republican help or input, this in spite of the fact that 60 percent of the American people were opposed to it. So much for representative government. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts ended that effort.
The only way a 51 to 49 vote for passage of a bill in the Senate is if some Democrats and Republicans agree with the bill enough to not filibuster it and allow a vote, because neither party has the power alone to get the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster. This is the 60 votes that we were talking about. These are the rules now and they were the rules then.
Mr. Smith is entitled to his opinion, but he cannot have his own “facts.”
James D Boyd, Ph.D.
Galveston
