Wisconsin’s GPS Priorities
Apparently, Wisconsin can afford to strap GPS units to Golden Eagles but not to child sex predators.
Two different departments but one cheap shot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2009 at 2151 hrs
Not so much of a cheap shot but a true indicator of the Governor’s priorities. He’d rather toy with the safety of our children than be truly tough on those who prey on them. The ACTIVE GPS program has been successful. Just ask the people of West Allis who would have been victimized by the sex offender who, while on active GPS chose to cut off his transmitter and “wander away.” Fortunately, West Allis Police were alert and caught the guy and sent him back to prison where he belongs. The Governor’s plan would have allowed him much more time to wander away permanently.
Forget the eagles. They know where they are and are supposed to be. Actively watch the sex predators. They’re a much greater threat.
The bottom line is that Doyle is soft on crime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2009 at 2248 hrs
The bottom line is that Doyle is soft on crime.
Most criminals are…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 0020 hrs
Okay, we’re comparing the cost of strapping GPS units on a couple dozen birds and monitoring them with existing staff versus a program that needed millions in start-up funds PLUS funding for hundreds of additional FTE positions? Apples, meet oranges.
The fiscal estimate from DOC on the sex offender bill figures that this program is going to end up costing the state of Wisconsin $52MM a year in equipment costs by 2026, in addition to another 260 FTE positions and $13.5MM annually to track all these folks.
And those aren’t even the only costs. There are more costs in both the DOC and DHFS (now DHS) estimate. I’m just cherry-picking the biggest ones. Over $65 million annually - $130 million a biennium - in just 20 years.
Oh, but the bill allows the state to try and recover what costs they can from the offenders. Yeah, because sex offenders with GPS bracelets are such a huge draw for employers. That’ll work great.
Once again, we’ve got so-called fiscal conservatives carping about the death of a program with an exponentially increasing price tag. If they love it so much, here’s a deal. How about they identify a funding source for once that will grow exponentially with the cost of their program?
Radical, I know, asking a conservative to find the money to pay for a program they like. Usually those types of Republicans just like to borrow the money - a real hallmark of responsibility.
It’s so typical of these walking contradictions to pass their “tough on crime” bills with huge price tags and never bother to identify an ongoing funding source.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 01, 2009 at 0032 hrs
RS: $1.75 T deficit. Don’t lecture about borrowing to spend.
I’d argue the cost of monitoring predators is far outweighed by the benefits.
Aren’t Leftys always telling us to “Do it for the Children”? maybe it’s, “Do it TO the Children”. Hard to tell about Leftys these days.
Posted by Steve on March 01, 2009 at 0428 hrs
“If it could save just one life its worth it.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 0900 hrs
Sam, don’t you get it? Eagles are much more important than children.
Posted by Steve on March 01, 2009 at 1003 hrs
RS,
The fiscal note from the bill? Are you kidding me? Doyle never liked this plan and had them jack up the fiscal note - please tell me you are not that naive. Compare the actual costs of the program and it has nowhere near the FTE’s.
In your never ending quest to bash conservatives, maybe you missed the fact that active GPS is the most the cost-effective way to keep people safe from these offenders. All of the people on GPS are child sex offenders. These are not 19 year-olds who slept with their 17 year old girlfriend.
But, you have never let the facts get in the way before - so why start now???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1021 hrs
Liberals are so predictable. It seems the only time they bitch about the cost of things is if they relate to punishing criminals or protecting this country from outside threats. Let’s give billions to irresponsible people (bad mortgages, welfare bums and cheats, illegal aliens) but protect the general population? We can’t afford it. Puh-lease. You want a permanent funding source? How about forgetting choo-choo trains and try diverting some of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we routinely waste on computer upgrades that never get up and operating? And don’t get me started on the millions that are wasted on “consultants” to advise the bureaucrats the were appointed, and paid a ton of money, because of their alleged expertise. Ther is no shortage of money going to Mad city, just stupid priorities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1055 hrs
I thought the main argument against putting GPS on sex offenders is that there would have been less close monitoring. Yes, local law enforcement would know where they are, but they does little to prevent them from re-offending.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1302 hrs
Nice Owen. The Governor’s bill maintains GPS tracking, it just creates discreation by the departmen of who is on active monitoring versus passive monitoring. Meaning that those evaluated as posing minor risk don’t require the same allocation of resources as high risk repeat offenders. This is actually a highly specialized field, that has an incredibly high success rate of identifying potential re-offenders and those who are unlikely to pose a risk. The politicization of this issue of the last four years prevented the implementation of an efficient and targeted program, it is nice to see Doyle grow the cajones to clean up the mess.
Keith said it right, a cheap shot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1307 hrs
First, I never said it was a bad program. If done in a fiscally responsible way, it’s probably a great idea. I said find a funding source for it. Admittedly, that is one thing that Democrats generally do better than Republicans these days. That’s good in principle, although their instincts to spend more money may not be.
If the fiscal note on the bill is bad, perhaps the conservative authors should talk to one of their think tanks and come up with an alternative estimate? But no, it’s just way easier to ignore the price tag altogether, whatever it might be. So many conservatives care about cost except when it’s the stuff they want. Then, they’re just like every other politician out there who wants his goodies.
At least with most liberals, there’s no hypocrisy. They’re happy to raise your taxes to pay for whatever they want to do.
And Sam is exactly right to lampoon the logic of “oh, if it saves one kid, then it’s worth whatever we have to spend on it.” Bulls@#!. No it’s not. Cold as it is, we have to make these sorts of cost-benefit analyses all the time. I’m sure if it cost a penny a head to rid the world of malaria, we’d do it in a heartbeat. If it cost a million dollars a head, maybe not.
So perhaps that’s a question we can all kick around: how much is it worth to keep one kid from being assaulted? 10 grand? 100 grand? A million dollars? Because the reality is that each and every one of us will set a number, beyond which we’ll say “screw it, that’s too expensive.”
Oh, and by the way, I’m happy to bash choo-choos and the Obama mortgage bailout too.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 01, 2009 at 1331 hrs
When the original bill was introduced about two years ago the DOC revealed that their union contract required that 70 additional workers needed to be hired to provide monitoring. Short of re-opening their contract, there’s little anyone could have done OTHER than contract with an outside vendor at a tremendously reduced price.
But the union contract is what it is… poorly negotiated and designed to kill a gnat with a bazooka.
There are plenty of studies that show that ACTIVE GPS monitoring is far more effective (both in terms of cost and control) than personal supervision and the joke of a system that the state now uses which polls by phone 3 or 4 times per day.
If the Governor truly wanted this program to work he’d make it work. But once again, he’s in the pocket of the employee unions and won’t even push the envelope.
So now the question needs to be asked, if Doyle is scaling back the active GPS program, is he scaling back DOC employees by the same percentage? After all, they needed to hire at least 70 more agents. If they cut the program by half will we hear of 35 DOC employees being laid off?
We all know the answer to that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1421 hrs
This is an old news report (4/2/07) from Channel 4 TV -Milwaukee. At that time, Kansas was tracking 300 offenders on a $1.2M budget. WI needs $6M to do it?
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/6782537.html
WICHITA, Kan. - Tracking sex offenders would be easier if they had to wear GPS monitors. But that can be expensive.
Wisconsin lawmakers have traveled to Kansas to find out about a GPS program there. The I-Team’s John Mercure went with them. He found that Kansas monitors the same amount of offenders we have in Wisconsin with a much smaller budget.
It costs Kansas $1.2 million annually to track 300 sex offenders by GPS. Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle’s office claims it would cost the state $10 million to monitor 300 offenders here. Doyle signed a GPS bill to protect Wisconsin children. Now he’s threatening to gut the bill by cutting the spending and limiting who gets monitored.
Wisconsin Reps. Joel Kleefish, Jeff Stone and Scott Suder came to Kansas to study its GPS system. The biggest reason GPS is affordable is because Kansas outsources the monitoring. Only nine new state workers had to be hired.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1532 hrs
mht’s post says it all. Doyle is a crook. This is just one example. To stand up for him is to stand up for waste and fraud. Or to be so freekin blinded by party loyalty that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1653 hrs
RS,
You worked in the Capitol and although most of your inside sources are no longer working there, you know full well a fiscal note from the agency cannot be substituted by an outside think tank. How silly.
And for no hypocrisy in liberals, you must never see their campaign literature. Even Mark Radcliffe said that raising taxes is the last thing to do in a recession and his first big vote in the Capitol - yep - raise taxes.
But back to GPS - the program costs less money and is more effective. What more could conservative ask for? Please don’t point to that silly fiscal note again…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1806 hrs
Takes a lot of self convincing to oppose the Governor on this. Love the rationalizing above. I think my favorite is that a fiscal note can’t be changed and has to follow an agency’s estimates, even when that agency has no first hand experience and real projections can be drawn from other states. That is awesome.
But I think the cream of the crop is that Doyle, who wanted a more passive monitoring system (requiring substantially fewer staff) was negotiating on behalf of the union, while the full on active system (which requires significantly more staff) being advocated by the Republicans was somehow on the other side.
Going back to Owen’s assumption that getting rid of the contracting language was a boon for public employees this blog has gone to great lengths to interpret Doyle’s budget as something much different than it is. There is usually more objectivity here once campaign season is over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2009 at 1951 hrs
Well, if you’re going to go that route, why not assign a police officer to watch these sex offenders 24/7? Or maybe we could attach cams to their body! Implant them! (screw the Constitution, right? It only applies to the right to carry a gun!) I think that’s a rockin idea! Or maybe, if you’re serious instead of just snarky, you get rid of the hypocritical marijuana laws and stop imprisoning people for nonviolent offenses and PUT THE REAL CRIMINALS IN JAIL, ya know, these child molesters. You wouldn’t have to put these sick people out on the street ever again, if you got rid of the of these BS crimes (and this BS “War on Drugs”) that don’t harm anyone, but that do feed the prison system. Oh wait, Governor Doyle IS planning on doing that! He’s planning on letting out nonviolent offenders to control the budget and overcrowding. Republican response? “State Republican leaders are criticizing the plan, saying it would sacrifice public safety just to save some money.” THOSE LET OUT ARE NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS! Of course the Republican Party of Wisconsin is the party of No! No answers, No solutions, and No plan. It’s the party of no logic. Where tax cuts=more services (more police on the street, less crime, better schools). It would be wonderful if you posted something that actually had actual merit instead of just tired, snarky rhetoric, libbies like me might actually want debate you on issues instead of trading snark.
Femtasticly yours,
MarthaPosted by Rabid Yellow Dog on March 02, 2009 at 1212 hrs
That’s funny. We’ve had many many many lengthy debates on this blog for years. You must be new around here.
Posted by Owen on March 02, 2009 at 1216 hrs
How about GPS units for neither?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1217 hrs
I love the logic above regarding funding.
Personally - I’d never let child predators out of prison - ever. I’m of the “If you willfully, forcefully take away the rights of someone else - especially a child - you have voluntarily given up your own rights” camp.
But since the leftys think that prison is too harsh, active GPS seems to be the best, even if it is still inadequate, alternative. As to the funding. I’m sure that there are more than a couple departments that could find some useless programs to cut to fund this. Cutting regional transit/trains/KRM and useless, overpriced, never going to get implemented anyway IT projects (as mentioned previously), cutting the number of DNR agents (aren’t there over 2700 of them/38 per county - yikes!), and on and on.
Lefty - as far as the “passive” system touted by you and Doyle. I hope they live in your neighborhood.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1217 hrs
@JJ, I’m about as liberal as they come. That being said, I’m all for locking up child sexual predators for life. IMO, people who prey on children have major societal defects and the damage they cause is almost akin to murder. Many of the children they hurt are damaged for the rest of their lives, in ways that are unmeasurable. To me, the crime of molestation of children should be filed right below murder.
There are three answers to this problem. Raise taxes to build even bigger prisons, let out non-violent offenders and make room for sex offenders, or have more of these surveillance type of programs for sex offenders. I’d rather imprison them. It’s the safest way to make sure they never violate another child again.
As far as logic, it’s called a budget. The Governor is facing a huge deficit and you can’t do as the national Republican Party has done and spend into oblivion, loosen business regulations, and cut taxes and hope that the economy will keep chugging along. In your own home, if you can’t afford cable internet, you get rid of it or find a cheaper solution. If you want the government to do the same thing…live within their budget, then start providing workable solutions. There’s no way in H that you can build bigger prisons without raising funds for the project. You mock Lefty, without addressing their point (that Doyle supports the more cost effective solution).
@Owen yes, I’m new in these parts even though I’ve been surveilling this blog for a while. My point wasn’t on this blog as a whole, but this post (and Republicans/Conservatives in general). It’s pure snark. Put snark in, get snark out.
@Recess Supervisor You’re dead on about the financial cost and making the tough, realistic choices. That’s what irritates me the most about blogging and blogs in general is that a lot of it is just mindless complaining, with no action or thought put into it. It’s why I’m more into the politics/activism side of things these days more than the blogging.
Obama hugs and kisses,
MarthaPosted by Marti Abernathey on March 02, 2009 at 1327 hrs
Martha - I am mostly in agreement with you. Where you and I come to our impasse is when you say we should raise taxes to build more prisons. I think there is plenty of crappolla in the budget that can be cut to make room for things that we really need - like prison space to lock up child predators for life.
But honest question for you…. you criticize the Republicans for “spend [ing] into oblivion” and I agree with you on that. How can you not be criticizing the Democrats for doing the same? I mean, seriously, the D’s have doubled-down the spending in just the past couple of months (or years for Doyle). How can doing the same thing, but in bigger quantities get a different result? Doyle himself ran on a message that Wisconsin didn’t have a revenue problem, but a spending problem. But that was just to get elected I guess, ‘cuz he sure isn’t walking the talk. I wouldn’t take a scalpel to the budgets to save money, I’d take an axe to them. Its time to prioritize the needs over the wants.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1547 hrs
Lefty - as far as the “passive” system touted by you and Doyle. I hope they live in your neighborhood.
Do you know how the passive system works? You know that the movements of someone wearing a GPS monitor under a passive system are reviewed every day?
In the rush to demonize it might be nice if people understood the differences in the two systems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1627 hrs
“Reviewed every day.” Now there’s a concept.
“Hey Jim, it looks like Morford took off at about 8:00am yesterday morning. I wonder where he went? Also, eagle number xyz1520 just flew across the river, should we tell the DNR?”
What’s very, very sad is that liberals actually think this isn’t serious business!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1647 hrs
Yeah Steve O, you’re right. They’d never be able to find someone who made a run for it. It isn’t like they are wearing a GPS monitor or anything.
Let’s make this simple. There is a whole slew of classifications for sexually abusing a child, with penalties ranging from Class A misdemeanors to Class A felonies. If we don’t treat each crime the same in terms of fines and jail time in the statutes, and make variances for the severity of the crime, then why wouldn’t we be able to make distinctions in terms of who should be on what type of GPS monitoring upon release?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2009 at 1718 hrs
I have a great idea, take the money stolen from the real id program and fund the gps program for sex offenders. We are not going to see that money anyway and before it disappears into MPS or some other rabbit hole, it could be put to good use. I would rather see either real id or my money back but that is not going to happen as long as Doyle is in office so make it useful.
Posted by fishaddict on March 05, 2009 at 1150 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 97
Total anonymous users: 3
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:49 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).