Themis
Registered User
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,284
- Reaction score
- 0
Respectfully, I strongly disagree that this is a "waste" of money. I agree is is a huge cost, but the money is a legitimate government expense for a core government function. One of the "core government functions" is to enforce the laws; especially criminal laws. It is our organic and statutory contract with each other as a society.<snipped> [T]his whole fiasco has become a huge waste of time and money for the state. I bet the state could put hundreds of deserving 22-year-olds through college on the money that Casey and JB have forced the state to throw away.
It is not a core government function to pay for college for any individual. The access to free publically funded education ends at the 12th grade. The government has no legal obligation to fund college; nor do parents. Funding college is an investment a young person makes in their own future. The governments do help fund universities. I know there are certain employment based agreements whereby the government does help fund college. There are certain welfare type programs where the government might help fund college, but these are to help a person become independent and not dependent on taxpayers. So, the purpose for government is not that the particular student gets a college education, but to relieve the taxpayer of an ongoing expense.
One might think, then if not college, maybe "the money" would be better spent on roads, schools, or green projects. Among the priorities of core government spending, the elected politicians must first look to the mandatory, essential functions of government and fund those adequately first. Then, and only then can they look at optional government projects. There is only one pot of money for local governments. It isn't a matter of "share and share alike." It is a matter of funding essential functions adequately, staying within budget and expected revenues and prioritizing essential services. In doing this spending they must comply with the laws and that includes recognizing a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
The language of "waste of government money" is usually a knee-jerk reaction, parroting phrasing that makes a sound bite, but is not well thought out. It goes along the same lines as
[knee-jerk] all government employees are overpaid (even though they are paid prevailing wages so by definition it isn't being overpaid),
[knee-jerk] government pensions cost too much (part of the compensation package and within prevailing wage -- government employees paid their share and these problems usually arise because the government has not fully contributed their share of costs in a timely manner)
[knee-jerk] government employees are lazy and don't work hard (government management does cost and staffing studies routinely and usually understaffs an office -- since government employees at the level working on the cases in the SA's office attorneys are salaried and excepted they don't get overtime -- the media doesn't report that the lights are on in their offices until midnight or later when they are working a major case - for no additional pay.)
So, no. I respectfully disagree. This is not a waste of money.