home

McCain Snubs Prison Guards Union

Erin Rosa at Colorado Independent reports that the prison guards union sent out a questionnaire to the candidates asking what they would do to address the critical underfunding and understaffing of federal prisons.

The federal Bureau of Prisons is facing a budget crisis, and correctional officers working in the nation's prisons are concerned that understaffing is jeopardizing the safety of inmates and employees. But despite these issues, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain's campaign has so far declined to answer a questionnaire about bureau funding and staffing woes, according to a government employees union.

The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents approximately 15,000 federal correctional officers in Colorado and across the nation, recently sent out a three-question survey to McCain and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama asking for their views on understaffing and funding of prisons.

More...

The candidates were asked:

b) If elected President, what would you do to address the underfunding and understaffing that is endangering America’s federal prison correctional officers?

I'm pleased to see that Obama took the opportunity, even though not directly asked about the subject, to criticize our over-reliance on incarceration and to promise to reduce sentences for non-violent drug offenders. From his answer:

The pressures that have been placed on our nation’s correctional officers have been tremendous. I am committed to addressing the overcrowding of our nation’s prisons – which starts by properly funding the BOP’s budget. The
shortfall in BOP’s budget and the fact that correctional officer staffing hasn’t kept pace with the skyrocketing inmate population makes it harder for correctional officers to perform their jobs, to protect themselves from violence, and to ensure that riots and other violent outbreaks do not take place among inmates.

Moreover, we should also take steps to address the dramatic rise in incarceration that has occurred over the last two decades. It’s time for us to re-examine the wisdom of locking up some first-time, non-violent drug users for decades. These policies are a significant source of the overcrowding of our prison. As president, I will work to reduce the blind and counterproductive warehousing of non-violent
offenders – individuals who often have mental health and substance abuse problems. I will give first-time, non-violent offenders the opportunity to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior. And I will support Department of Justice programs that provide grants to state drug courts that supervise treatment programs, and will replicate those drug courts on the federal level.

By the way, Hillary answered:

b) As President, I will work to make sure that our federal prisons are adequately funded and staffed to ensure the safety and security of the correctional officers and the inmates. I believe that all Americans should be safe where they work and provided with support to fulfill the responsibilities of their job. I know that understaffing and underfunding of in the Federal Bureau of Prisons leaves correctional officers strained and stressed to meet the demands of their jobs. When I am President, I will make sure that the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as well as agencies and departments throughout our government, have properly staffed and funded.

In other words, while she also said during the campaign said we need to incarcerate fewer people and reverse some mandatory minimums, she stuck to the direct question asked. Obama's answer was better because he addressed a principal cause of the understaffing and underfunding problem -- we incarcerate too many people.

While McCain didn't answer the questionnaire, he probably supports more funding for prison guards. But I'm fairly confident he won't be promising to reverse our over-reliance on incarceration.

Advantage Obama, over McCain.

< Is It All Obama Now In The GE? | The Price of Police Misconduct >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    Isn't the prison guards' union generally on the wrong side of most criminal justice issues, from the perspective of TL?  I mean, I assume we all agree that prisons should be adequately staffed, but it goes beyond that.

    For example, a draconian three-strikes law means more people get locked up, which means more prisons get built and more prison staff get hired.  While I generally love unions, it seems to me that the pecuniary interests of the folks who build prisons and the folks who staff prisons are probably not aligned with the liberal perspective on crime issues.

    You'd be surprised (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:58:17 PM EST
    In the mid-90's the president of the Colorado chapter of the local federal prison guards union (she's since retired) offered to testify at a congressional hearing opposing mandatory minimum sentences and the crack powder disparity. Having young men locked up for decades with no release date in sight makes for no incentives not to act out -- you need carrots as well as sticks -- the guards felt very strongly the long sentences were dangerous to them and if not corrected, we'd have trouble in a few years getting people to take the jobs.

    Her testimony got cut from the hearing schedule at the last minute. I think her written testimony went through, although I can't find it now.

    As defense lawyers, we were very grateful to her for sticking her neck out to argue against the long sentences.

    Parent

    Federal, not state (none / 0) (#5)
    by rilkefan on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    Maybe that's the difference?  Here in CA it seems like it's all about building new facilities.

    Parent
    Very interesting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    Sounds like the folks who staff the prisons may be more reasonable than the folks who build them, who I assume care about nothing but incarcerating as many people as possible for as long as possible.

    See, now I'm glad I brought it up!

    Maybe the reason McCain didn't answer is that he can't afford enough staff to fill out all these questionnaires, but I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the Republican fetish for privatization.  The alternative to fully staffing our existing federal prisons is to outsource more of the load to private companies (and, for all I know, their non-union employees).  This is one of those government functions I really hate to see in private hands.

    Parent

    As to this: (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:16:28 PM EST
    While McCain didn't answer the questionnaire, he probably supports more funding for prison guards. But I'm fairly confident he won't be promising to reverse our over-reliance on incarceration.

    I think it should read, with my edits in bold:

    While McCain didn't answer the questionnaire, he probably supports more funding for prison guards so long as they are not unionized. Thus, he did not deign to answer the union's questions, since in an ideal Republican world there are no unions.  But I'm fairly confident he won't be promising to reverse our over-reliance on incarceration.


    His position (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:35:36 PM EST
    is probably that if you got rid of the union and canned their benefits, I mean they bought there own insurance, they could afford to hire more guards on the current budget.  

    Parent
    I thought we've seen the numbers on this (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:24:19 PM EST
    Moreover, we should also take steps to address the dramatic rise in incarceration that has occurred over the last two decades. It's time for us to re-examine the wisdom of locking up some first-time, non-violent drug users for decades. These policies are a significant source of the overcrowding of our prison.
    many times before here on TL and have all come to understand that first-time, non-violent drug users are absolutely not the reason our prison populations are growing.

    Evidently not all. (none / 0) (#15)
    by JSN on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:47:07 PM EST
    Evidently. (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    Obama was not always so enlightened (3.66 / 3) (#9)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    His track record in IL speaks volumns.

    In an August 19, 2004 entry on Obama's website he bragged about being tough on drugs:
    During 8 years in the state senate, Senator Obama has repeatedly voted for tougher penalties for drug offenders. [HB 3387, 5/13/03; P.A. 93-0546; SB 1793, 3/21/03; P.A. 93-0223; HB 2347, 5/6/99; P.A. 91-0336; HB 3170, 5/7/98; P.A. 90-0674; HB 1278, 5/14/99; P.A. 91-0403; SB 0105, 3/23/99; P.A. 91-0263; HB 2843, 5/20/03; P.A. 93-0596; 93rd GA, SB 2447, 3/25/04; P.A. 93-0884; SB 1578, 3/24/03; P.A. 93-0297; SB1028, 4/2/98; SB 1028, 5/19/98, SC HA1,4; P.A. 90-0775; HB 0070, 5/16/97; P.A. 90-0382; HB 2844, 5/13/03; P.A. 93-0340; HB 3073, 4/4/00; P.A. 91-0802; HB 0252, 5/7/99; P.A. 91-0366; HB 5652, 5/9/02; SB 1332, 2/24/00; P.A. 91-0899; HB 4245, 5/7/02; P.A. 92-0698; SB 0014, 5/20/97, SC HA1; P.A. 90-0397; SB 0003, 4/6/01; HB 2015, 5/9/97; P.A. 90-0164; SB 1011, 4/5/01; SB 1224, 3/24/98; HB 2030, 5/15/97; P.A. 90-0557]

    He also voted "present" for a bill that allowed trying children, age 15, as adults, subjecting them to adult prison.  The vote on the juvenile-justice bill appears to be a case when Obama, who represented a racially mixed district on the South Side of Chicago, faced pressure. It also occurred about six months before he announced an ultimately unsuccessful campaign against a popular black congressman, Bobby L. Rush

    Errata (none / 0) (#11)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    volumes, not volumns. LOL

    Parent
    The financial chickens come home to roost (none / 0) (#8)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:27:45 PM EST
    The party's over.

    The bottles of champagne, those that are left, need to be corked. The 'cup runneth over' attitude of thinking that we could spend enormous (borrowed!)  sums of money to incarcerate our way out of dealing with root causes of social disorder is meeting the reality of a nation teetering on bankruptcy. The fiscal writing is on the wall, painted in red ink in big block letters twenty stories high.

    And what was the primary engine of that that incarceration machine? The DrugWar, that's what. So long as the economy had the (actually, illusory) 'surplus' to engage in something that was not vital to the life of the nation, and could afford to spend upon such things as prisons - as opposed to, say, schools, hospitals, community centers, and yes, addiction treatment centers - it was 'Let the good times roll!'.

    But 'good times' for whom? Certainly not for all those whose lives were ruined, not so much by the drugs themselves, but by contact with the drug laws.

    Certainly not for the taxpayer, who is not only fleeced by special interests (police groups, prosecutors ideological judges, prison construction companies, Big Pharma corps, etc., but whose civil liberties are savaged by the 'drug exceptions' to the Bill of Rights 'needed' in a 'fighting' a war (on inanimate objects?), a war meant to be waged (in perpetuity!), not won.

    The chickens have come home to roost...and they developed a taste for blood, thanks to this 'war'. And they are very, very hungry...

    Prison Guards (none / 0) (#13)
    by tokin librul on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    b) If elected President, what would you do to address the underfunding and understaffing that is endangering America's federal prison correctional officers?

    There's only one responsible answer to that loaded muffin: "I'd decriminalize marijuana, remove mandatory sentencing requirements, and release by parole or otherwise non-violent offenders."

    Such an answer, while a sure prescription to alleviate the complaints of the Guards, would be guaranteed to earn their enmity, because those measures reduce prison populations, and reduce the rate of incarceration, and otherwise reduce the need for prison guards.

    McCain is anti-union. (none / 0) (#14)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    Sen. McCain represents a right-to-work state.
    From Pacific Views (link)----
    "Our economy is in crisis after years of failed Bush Administration policies that Sen. McCain has adopted as his own," says Karen Ackerman, AFL-CIO political director. McCain, says Steve Smith, AFL-CIO senior media outreach specialist, "assails working families from worker health care and safety to trade policies." McCain, in agreement with Bush, has voted against protecting overtime pay and for trade deals that consistently send American jobs off-shore, often to countries where sweat shop labor is common. McCain has also voted against health insurance for children and worker safety and health. American labor also opposes his votes to privatize Social Security. McCain, who has cultivated a media image as a straight-shooting maverick, during the past seven years supported Bush 89 percent of the time, with a record high of 95 percent support last year, according to data published in the Congressional Quarterly. The only reason McCain "has some appeal to working class voters," says Smith, "is because they haven't had a chance to learn about his policies."

    And from The Guardian UK (link)----

    McCain has voted to restrict union rights across the US, has backed cuts in health provision for the elderly, supports the burden of health insurance being taken away from employers and put on the shoulders of individuals, and would see social security privatised in the form of private accounts. In April, he skipped a Senate vote on giving women equal pay for equal work, arguing that it would encourage litigation. He has opposed every attempt to raise the minimum wage since it was last increased in 1997.

    Sen. McCain's best choice is no answer because almost any guess would not be as awful as his factual responses.

    McCain's non-answer on this (none / 0) (#16)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    and a lot of other questionaires could be due to the fact he plans to split with the current administration if he becomes President.  Personally, I think McCain is going to be a much more moderate President than Bush ever was.  

    On the issue of first timers incarcerated with long sentences, aren't some of them gang members?  I know the police often have use whatever tactics they can to get some of these people off the streets.  

    Seriously Doubt It (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:31:23 PM EST
    The GOP are like the Borg, they march in lockstep and dream of permanent rule. Have you not learned anything from the last 7 years.

    Of course McCain's only chance to get elected is to convince people like you that he is going to be a nice Republican nothing like Bush was.

    Parent

    When it comes to crim defendants and inmates (none / 0) (#18)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:37:46 PM EST
    NOONE in politics is really nice.  It is too unpopular, whether that person is a Dem. or Repub.  

    Parent
    Too True (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:40:12 PM EST
    Although in particular, I was responding to Grace's fantasy:

    I think McCain is going to be a much more moderate President than Bush ever was.  



    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:35:44 PM EST
    the fact of the matter is it wouldn't be too hard to be more moderate than Bush would it?

    Parent
    Not Too Hard (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    To be McSame. That means the same as Bush, not any more moderate. You forget that the GOP controls the Prez not the other way around.

    Parent
    I prefer to (none / 0) (#27)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:47:32 AM EST
    have an open mind on the candidates and give McCain the benefit of the doubt on this.  

    I'm not totally sold on McCain though I'm not finding any good reasons to vote for Obama either.  

    Hmmmm.  What's a girl to do?  Keep looking at all aspects of the candidates I presume.  

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    Either you are really blinded by the emotional pain of losing Hillary, or you tend towards GOP anyway. For anyone who has been following this mess (GOP), voting for Obama is a no brainer if your values are even close to those of the Democratic Party. He is a mainstream Dem. McCain is a mainstream Republican, not a Democratic bone in his body.

    Or if you are the type to suspend your disbelief over Politicians, iow get all googoo eyed over them, maybe you have a thing for old men, or that particular old man, or military men, birds with broken wings, or some entirely emotional apolitical quality.

    Go for it, it is a sort of a free country for now.

    Parent

    And we (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:34:58 PM EST
    have a candidate that wants to assimilate with that borg.

    Parent
    Still Shilling? (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    Is it for McCain now? Besides Both Hllary and Obama believe in bipartisanship, and have made public statements regarding that. But I guess the cultists miss those subtleties and see their deity as pure.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:05:08 PM EST
    I'm stating facts. Obama wants what BTD calls "high broderism". When a candidate calls the GOP the "party of ideas" it really makes me mad. There was no excuse for such pandering in my book. I want a fighting Dem not a kumbaya dem. Obama is the nominee and nothing is going to change that. Pointing out who is he is not shilling for another candidate.

    What is wrong with Obama supporters? Sincerely I haven't seen such angry winners since Bush won reelection in 3004.

    Parent

    Stating Facts (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:58:40 PM EST
    Hardly, you have said that Obama is a Republican.

    And we have a candidate that wants to assimilate with that borg.

    You failed to read Jeralyn's post above and must have missed this article about Hillary and this one.

    Be mad all you want but Hillary who I voted for is no less of a bipartisan than Obama, that is a fact.

    Parent