hblask, on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, 2:26 PM, said:
Their financial interest can only be realized if government is too big and doing too much. So once again, the so-called problems of leftist big-government agenda are being blamed on free markets.Basically, he was going by his experience in NM, where it worked perfectly. Now, admittedly, he was an exceptionally good governor, so under someone incompetent, e.g. Obama, it's possible it wouldn't work as well. Which brings us back to Johnson's philosophy: let the govt do as little as possible so that after people like Johnson leave office, people like Obama can't destroy the country.There are two problems with this complaint against him: first, this is such a tiny part of his total policy picture that it would be like picking on Obama for the color of his tie. Second, he's the guy who would immediately cut the prison population in half, so complaining that in certain circumstances, where corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude, you could end up with a few extra prisoners, seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
I'd be interested in you going into more detail on this. I don't venture into this forum much, but people seem to respect you. And this posts seems crazy, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.1) I assume the private prisons would receive their revenue from government funding. If not, just a quick explanation on how they get funded will answer this question. If not - as Cane points out, the prisons will be incentivized to keep prisoners in for as long as possible. More time = more funding. I have no idea how that interest can only be realized if the government is too big. Almost the opposite - a 'bigger' government would have more supervising of the prison stays, meaning the length of stays would be more closely aligned with the law, and not financial interest. Unless you mean a 'big' government in terms of smaller police forces...? I hope you're not pretending it would require "corrupt legislators, prisons, and judges collude" to lengthen prison stays. It's the free market. Stays would get longer if the people who were profiting from longer stays were a significant part of the decision. How much they would get longer is a fair question, but there's no doubt they would.2) How would he cut the prison population in half? This may have been discussed elsewhere, but my time is just slightly too valuable to read Mercury's political posts. For this one, a quick answer will amend my ignorance. I can raise any further questions if I have them.
Long signatures are really annoying.