Did a double-take when I read this on The Nerve, the S.C. Policy Council’s online publication that exists to tell us how awful government is:
Although S.C. Senate and House members apparently think nothing of giving their respective chambers a combined $5.4 million budget hike next fiscal year, their fiscal generosity hasn’t extended to victims of domestic violence or drunken driving.
As part of their proposed state budgets for fiscal year 2010-11, which starts July 1, both chambers would eliminate all general funding for prosecution programs for first-offense criminal domestic violence (CDV) and driving-under-the-influence (DUI) cases in the state’s magistrate courts, where most of those cases are heard.
The proposed budget hikes for the House and Senate chambers would more than pay for those programs….
Yep, the S.C. Policy Council is propagating something that at least implies that not spending on a government program is a bad thing.
Even more startling, the piece implies that federal stimulus funds served a useful purpose:
No general funds were appropriated for the programs this fiscal year, though the CDV program received $1.6 million in federal stimulus money, said William Bilton, executive director of the S.C. Commission on Prosecution Coordination, which disperses program money to the state’s 16 judicial circuits. He said his office plans to apply for the same amount of stimulus money for next fiscal year.
“When that runs out, it’s back to square one,” Bilton told The Nerve last week….
I hereby put the area’s animal hospitals on notice: They’re likely to get a rash of cases of dogs coming in with man bites.
Now, to be serious: I agree with the Policy Council that these programs should be funded. Whether it was a bad thing that the House and Senate budgets were increased, I don’t know. The piece, which made the case very well for spending on CDV, didn’t actually explain what the increases in the legislative budgets were for. I assume that if I did know, I’d still agree that the CDV program was a higher priority. But I’m still curious what the case, if any, would be for the legislative spending.
Related Posts
The CDV program initially depended on volunteer lawyers to prosecute cases otherwise prosecuted by police officers. It involved a lot of legwork by the lawyer, often in another county, with unwilling witnesses, to prepare the case, and most lawyers who would consider themselves competent to prosecute such a case (as in, not me) are small practitioners with expensive overhead to cover. It was the best that could be done at the time, but funding is only fair, especially to ensure that adequate care is taken when these cases are prosecuted–it is amazing how many poorly prosecuted cases are the precursor to a murder.
The DUI is another issue entirely, I think. DUI diversion is better than taking what is likely an unwinnable case to trial–our DUI laws are appalling– no one uses the “per se” law–they still use the old weaselly one. Do I wish we really got serious about prosecuting DUI–absolutely. However, I figure, as most prosecutors do, that half a loaf is better than none, and getting a drunk driver’s ticket punched, if only for a diversion program, is better than letting him or her walk scot-free.
Brad, one of the reasons the story doesn’t detail where the proposed budget increases for the House and Senate will go is that neither the House nor the Senate will answer our questions at The Nerve about why they need such big hikes when so many other agencies and programs are hurting.
Thanks for the input, Kevin! Ladies and gentlemen, Kevin Dietrich of the SC Policy Council, formerly of The State.
Thanks, Brad. I’ll be here all week! Try the veal and remember to tip your waitress.