Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Monday, September 10, 2007
No Jail Tax PAC says, “No Federal Prisoners in County Jail; Invest in People, Not Jails”
Posted by Media Release
No Jail Tax PAC, the grassroots citizens’ political action committee that led the fight to defeat the jail tax proposed on the ballot last November, will oppose the jail tax again in this coming election, according to spokesman Suhith Wickrema, a social worker who lives in Cincinnati.
Wickrema said that No Jail Tax PAC opposes using the Hamilton County Jail to house Federal prisoners. “We need to change our policies and improve administration of the current jail facility,” said Wickrema. “We do not need a new jail if we stop housing Federal prisoners, create a night court, take measures to help those who cannot afford even $100 bail, and stop sending people with mental health and substance abuse problems to jail. We ask the Commissioners not to capitulate to the pressure of Simon Leis by ratifying the policy of housing federal prisoners in our county jail.”
No Jail Tax PAC has announced that it will enter the fight against the jail tax proposed by County Sheriff Simon Leis, and County Commissions David Pepper and Todd Portune with the slogan “Invest in people, not jails.” Wickrema said, “Our slogans are ‘Schools, Not Jails’ and ‘Mental Health, Not Jails’ and ‘Senior Care not Jails.’ We believe that we need to invest in the physical and social infrastructure to improve our community and to prevent crime.”
No Jail Tax PAC has argued that Leis, Pepper and Portune are proposing a jail that is not necessary to be financed by a tax that is regressive and falls most heavily on those with low incomes. “Leis, Pepper and Portune have altered the proposal put forward last year by County Commissioner Phil Heimlich,” said Wickrema, “but they have not substantially improved it. They would put more mental health and substance abuse programs in our jails when we need them in our communities to keep people out of jail.”
Dan La Botz, a professor at a local university and a spokesman for Cincinnati Progressive Action, argues that building a new Hamilton County Jail makes no sense. “We have a city and a county with a declining population,” says La Botz, “so why do we need to increase the number of jail beds by hundreds? We need to be putting the emphasis in Cincinnati and Hamilton County on improving the educational system, lowering our high school dropout rate, and creating jobs with living wages.”
Cincinnati Progressive Action (CPA) was the moving force in the establishment of the No Jail Tax PAC.
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
10 Sep 2007 at 09:19 pm | #
Didn’t COAST train you all? Give credit where credit’s due. Tom Brinkman was at the forefront.
10 Sep 2007 at 10:38 pm | #
Cincysue often tries to rewrite history on this point. The No Jail Tax PAC was formed last year to oppose the previous jail tax on the ballot. COAST was silent then on this issue. That jail tax was defeated last November by 57% to 43%.
11 Sep 2007 at 09:33 am | #
The success and prosperity of our taxpayers provides the means to do a lot of good things in our community. However, Portune and Pepper need to be reminded to shear the sheep, not slaughter it.
Their plan bleeds every last drop of tax revenue out of the county and hoards it for their “law & order” projects. That’s fine if you happen to be on their list, but what about things like the schools, and the mental health levy, and the senior services levy. Their needs are very pressing too, and they are just as vital to our community.
But the pool of available tax dollars is not endless. Two taxes are applied at the county level, property and sales. Out of 88 counties in Ohio, only one has higher property taxes than we do, and only one has a higher sales tax (now that the Portune/Pepper tax has been unilaterally enacted). That means we are pretty well maxed-out on taxation.
Just like a credit card that has reached its limit, this is a very uncomfortable and unforgiving position to be in. Any new need or unplanned expense requires that we first cut something we were counting on, and then rejuggle the whole budget. And that’s exactly the position we find ourselves in. “Levy fatigue” is being cited by schools and social service agencies who are forced to cut programs rather than ask for the funds they need.
Pepper and Portune’s plan is so expensive it aproaches the magnitude of the stadium deal. And for what? Will it solve the crime problem…or just exacerbate racial tensions? Either way it hinders the competitiveness of Hamilton County businesses, making it harder to keep jobs here. Their plan erodes our tax base, threatening all those who depend on public services.
We demand a better plan.
14 Sep 2007 at 04:55 am | #
The notion that the jail tax is in opposition to the panoply of social welfare programs groups like “No Jail Tax PAC” promote, is a textbook example of purposeful flawed logic.
And worse ...
Flawed logic meant to deceive voters.
Consider the following definition of “propaganda”:
“No Jail Tax PAC” (PAC) engages in propaganda. The jail tax and the social welfare programs PAC promotes are not mutually exclusive, yet PAC would have the public believe—“If you vote for the jail tax, you’re voting against ‘people, schools, seniors, mental health.’”
Textbook propaganda.
That’s all it is. Straw man arguments and other willfully flawed logic presented to produce an emotional rather than rational response.
Even supposed expert Dan La Botz stoops to the tactics of the propagandist when he says,
Of course La Botz realizes that a decrease in population doesn’t necessarily mean a decrease in crime, but he presents his argument that it does as a golden rule after which he goes on to reinforce PAC’s propaganda that a vote for the jail tax is a vote against, education, jobs, living wages, etc.
Readers, this may come as a shock, but these supposed well-meaning people are engaging in tactics no different than Josef Goebbels used. They are manipulating your thinking by manipulating fact.
The question of the jail tax is simply this: Is a new jail needed?
The question IS NOT should we choose a new jail over new schools, living wages, jobs, etc.
That is NOT the question and anyone who tells you it is—be it “No Jail Tax PAC,” Dan La Botz, or any of the Beacon backed clowns running for Council seat—is insulting your intelligence when they tell you it is.
ricland
14 Sep 2007 at 06:06 am | #
Suppose a new jail actually is needed. The idea is not entirely ridiculous. At some point in time the need will arise. Is it right now? five years from now? 10-20 years from now?
Can we at least agree that there comes a time when a new jail is needed—and if we can agree with that, can we agree further that this need will come when all the current reasons given to not build a new jail still exist?
There will never come a time when education, community health issues, social welfare issues are not also in need of funding. There has never been a time when this was so. Therefore, the notion that we settle all our social welfare problems before we build a new jail is unrealistic.
This means none of these other things should be on the table when we discuss the need for a new jail, otherwise, why stop at social welfare and new schools? Why not add to the list more police, fireman, Tall Stacks, and all the other things that need more funding?
As I understand it, Leis has wanted the new jail for over 20 years. I would like to think he’s wanted this new jail because it will improve the quality of life for both prisoners and prison guards. And if you have no empathy for the prisoner living in a substandard jail, consider having some for the prison guard who is locked in jail with the prisoner.
But again, if we know jails get old and have to be replaced, why do we present an argument that never allows us to replace a jail?
Why do we say, we won’t replace the jail until all our social welfare and educational problems are resolved first?
ricland
14 Sep 2007 at 07:40 am | #
A decrease in population does not mean a decrease in crime, but it might. It is speculative, just like your point. Which is interesting, since you are trying (ineffectively) to discuss logic.
Because the Commissioners never put together a real “comprehensive” plan. They just called it that in an Orwellian / George W. Bush inspired naming game.
From the beginning, Portune and Pepper did not seek to inform the voters, they sought to circumvent them: first, there was the March election; they couldn’t get that, so they tried to change state law for an August election; they couldn’t do that, so the implemented it to avoid a November election; and now that they are forced to finally talk about the issue, they are just now starting some of the work that should have been done a year ago.
This is not just a new jail. This is a nearly billion dollar pet project the specifics of which have not been fully fleshed out. There are some real questions about what they propose to do. But people like you don’t care. More jails and more jails and more jails—to hell with thoughtfulness, rational analysis, public information, etc. You just want to jump into a billion dollar jail bed because Todd Portune and Si Leis said so.
You act like you can’t “solve” social welfare problems before building a jail. That’s true. But does that mean you spend a billion dollars to move treatment programs out of communities and into jails? What are the priorities here? Getting people out of jail, or putting them in there?
14 Sep 2007 at 03:56 pm | #
What about prison guards?
A new jail will improve their quality of life immensely.
Has anyone bothered to ask them if they think a new jail is needed?
ricland