Internet article review and analysis

Criminal Justice Budgetary Cuts in Florida The American economy has chugged into an official state of regression which can be seen with little possible doubt in the sharp decline of individual state revenues. An example of distressing clarity comes to us from an article produced in April of 2008 in which Lloyd Dunkelberger reported on the massive budget cuts which had been written into Florida's budget for the upcoming year. Published in the Gainesville Sun, the article's central purpose is to report that the state's 2008-2009 budget, totaling at $66 billion, is a significant and problematic reduction of the state's overall annual resource allotment and that this will mean losses in important areas of public interest. Along with education, environmental protection and other key public areas of service, the state's criminal justice system will undergo widespread cuts in resource availability that will result in the elimination of jobs and the undermining of the state's criminal justice demands. At the center of Dunkelberger's article is an issue impacting a great many states and localities to day. Namely, economic recession and budgetary shortfall have become commonplace in a struggling American market. This is reflected in budgetary priorities, which demonstrate a serious strain on the state's capacity to fund crucial public agencies and operations. Criminal justice has been high amongst state-programs given the monetary axe, with cuts directly impacting opportunities for flexibility and effectiveness of operation. As the article tells, "hundreds of positions were cut in the criminal justice system, including 199 jobs for probation officers." (Dunkelberger, 1) This is a point of elimination which considerably reduces the state's capacity to attend to the oversight of individuals attempting to rehabilitate or remain free from criminal activity. In short, the eyes of law enforcement have been reduced in their effectiveness by this budgetary decision. According to the article, the underlying problem is the issue of the state's overall reduction in annual revenue, which the article also states can be directly attributed to anemic national economy. Job loss, loss of public programs and reduced consumer spending, underscored by the folding of banks and the general credit crunch all have taken their toll. And in a state which has an inordinate population of seniors, the workforce reduction is meeting a wall of massive healthcare and retirement fund costs that have pressed for cuts in other important places. Therefore, "the 2008- 09 budget, which takes effect July 1, reflects about a $4 billion drop in state spending." (Dunkelberger, 1) While commitments remain strong to matters of healthcare spending, the same cannot be said for the criminal justice system. In addition to the cuts in the probationary department, several hundred public defender and court attorney positions have also been eliminating. It goes without saying that there will be no lesser frequency of courtroom proceedings, particularly given the well-recognized correlation between economic downturn, poverty and crime. Thus, the court systems will increasingly find their personnel burdened by heavy caseloads and low pay rates. This impacts the expedience, efficiency and fairness of courtroom proceedings, resulting in a judicial system that is prejudiced by exhaustion, disinterest and low morale. These conditions impact all aspects of the public. In addition to the diminished availability of public practitioners, Dunkelberger reports that "trial courts will face a $3 million cut." (Dunkelberger, 1) This points to one of the core recommendations available for contending with an essentially negative situation. As the article reports, "some of the court cuts were offset by a legislative agreement to raise about $120 million in court-related fees in the new budget year." (Dunkelberger, 1) This is, of course, a statement of direct reflection on the approach taken by lawmakers to building a lagging budget, which determines to impose heavier fines and fees upon members of the public. Rather than raising taxes, here the economic struggles are in a certain matter only compounded amongst those who have in some manner run aground of local or state law. And as point of fact, the article points to another recommendation which seems to reinforce this tack. As Dunkelberger tells, "one of the few winners in the budget process was the Florida Highway Patrol, where troopers will be in line for a 5 percent pay raise on Oct. 1. Lawmakers approved the raise after hearing the agency was steadily losing personnel to other law enforcement agencies that can pay higher salaries." (Dunkelberger, 1) To say nothing of the fact that this pay raise was a reactionary step designed to prevent a dangerous deficit in personnel in an area where such is absolutely essential, this is a demonstration of the state's heightened commitment to an agency which has the capacity through the intensity of its efforts to actually directly improve overall state revenue. Such is to say that fines and fees accumulated through highway patrol pull-overs, ticketing and court costs can be effected at will according to patrol agency quotas and goals. Again, this is a manner of budgetary improvement which directly taps members of the public to build state coffers. This does nothing to add money to the actual Florida economy. Instead, it further restricts commercial movement by members of the public. Thus, relying to heavily upon this approach and creating a culture of such intention amongst courts and patrol agencies is both questionable with regard to the upkeep of civil liberties and, even more central to the article's discussion points, will likely only further magnify the economic stagnation that is at the root of such budget cuts. The recommendations in Dunkelberger's article precipitate the conclusion that though key areas of the budget have been cut, the state has sought to create a budget that balances key resource losses with a renewed commitment to the most crucial areas of state spending. These recommendations do little to nothing to help improve Florida's condition. In fact, the slashing of public positions and agencies as a means to offsetting the call for higher taxation is a regressive step which caters more directly to political motives than real economic rationality. A more sensible recommendation would be to actually raise the state's budget through a progressive tax which targets the incomes of Florida's wealthiest corporations and citizens as a means to returning revenue to the state. This revenue should be used to create new and more efficient courts and probationary facilities, which will in turn create new positions. New jobs will stimulate a cycle of revenue growth that will ultimately be returned in dividends to the wealthy taxpayers, who stand to gain the most from a re-ascendance into American affluence. These recommendations stem from a recognition that Dunkelberger's article is concerned with the broader set of budget cuts that will be socially disruptive in many ways to Florida citizens. Indeed, the premise above should be seen as commutable to any of the areas where resource cuts have been devastating. Creating new public agencies creates new jobs. Therefore, it is sensible to raise taxes in order to begin a process of healing. The current approach and the upcoming budget suggest that at present, Florida is politically committed to a policy to stagnation.