Because one political party, currently mostly ruling Florida, has made a core mission out of defunding anything that benefits anyone not already wealthy, not part of a small set of favored programs, or "defense"[1] spending.
People with mental issues don't make political donations, rarely vote, and can't defend themselves. QED.
[1] We can argue about which was really the the last defensive war fought by the US, but by any reasonable measure it is at least almost gone from living memory.
Or perhaps you are choosing to interpret my words in a way that leads to a silly result.
The much more obvious reading starts with noting that the party ruling Florida is the same party that also happens to have policy positions that are of a piece at the local, state and national level positions.
- If you're playing that game where overstating things for political effect because you [...], have fun, but I don't want to play.
- If you actually believe that, either your priorities are so very far removed from mine that we have nothing to say to each other, or you have blinded yourself to a huge array of very real differences with very real effects on very real people. In which case, find someone else to argue with; I prefer to debate politics with people who live in the real world.
I'm pretty sure what's being presented is the opposite situation, where private companies have an industry taken away, rather than handed to them.
That said, I'm not entirely sure how increased regulation makes it impossible to manage as long as the rest of the market is allowed to work. It's fairly obvious that both capitalism and socialism have very real downsides when unfettered. It's a balancing act.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. You astutely point out that just as defunding can cause a move toward privatization (or the belief that only private enterprise can solve a given problem), so too can overregulation lead toward nationalization (or even at state/local levels, the belief that only government can solve it).
Because some people feel that businesses being strangled by regulation is a favorite straw man those in favor of deregulation trot out to protect their interests. The original scenario, at least in the opinions of some people, is a nice summary of the abuses of privatization while the down voted scenario is a right wing bogeyman meant to scare the ignorant into voting against their own interests. (In some people's opinion)
Rick Scott's administration passed a law that said welfare recipients must be drug tested in order to receive benefits. Rick Scott's family has a lot (~68/200 million) invested in some of those facilities.
I hope you don't get voted down, because it's just the way things are. It is really mind boggling how many GOP supporters try and deny this. What has happened in FL since the early 00's is just criminal. How opponents of Rick Scott couldn't get him ejected from office is a mystery to me, if it's not solely "money in politics."
I hope it gets voted down. It was John F. Kennedy that introduced the Community Mental Health act of 1963 to close down and defund mental institions. The idea of cutting spending for mental facilities was put forth by the Democratic party, not GOP. Both parties have continued ever since.
No. This is an old, standard Republican mis-talking point that (as usual) is unsupported by facts.
The Community Mental Health act was fully funded at the time it was passed, to the tune of $330 million, and received almost $2 billion over the next decade. It was an example of an INCREASE in federal funding for mental health, put forth by Democrats, and bitterly opposed by Republicans.
Individual states, with Republican blessing, were the culprits in not continuing to fund local clinics. Then in 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan changed federal mental health funding to make it a block grant, spendable by states any old way they chose. And many chose NOT to spend it on mental health. Not content to turn Californians with mental illness out in the street (which he did as California governor), he decided he'd do that to America at large.
Don't try to blame Dems for standard Republican obstructionism that damaged and continues to damage public health.
The problem, and this applies to both parties and liberals and conservatives, is that politics is rarely evidence based. It's anecdote based, because that's what's easier to get people to relate to. There are plenty of liberal policies that are disasters, just as there are conservative ones, but if you attempt to change them it's an attack on that ideology, regardless of how well the policy is working in practice. The biggest problem with politics isn't that politicians are insular and out for themselves and their own interests/area, it's that they've all got their heads stuck so far into the ground they don't even know whether what they are doing is actually helping or hurting. Confirmation bias at its worst and most harmful.
To be fair we (FL) have had a horrible track record with mental health care for the better part of 5 decades. While I am no fan of Scott and his corruption the state of mental health care in FL has been on a slow roll downhill for a long time and both sides are just as culpable.
>Is Florida going to add more police, social workers, ER doctors and etc deal with the consequences?
no. Like all the others it will add more prisons. Prison guards unions and commercial prison providers are doing exceptionally well financially and the prison guard unions are actually the biggest and most powerful lobbyists, at least in CA.
There is no such thing as decrease of spending, there are only increase and redistribution - benefiting the most powerful of course.
I've never heard of the correctional officers' union (CCPOA) being a top lobbyist. I don't see it anywhere on this list, which puts it out of the top 100.
Edit: I can't find any primary sources regarding lobbying by the CCPOA, but I did find a blog on a site called Union Watch that makes the claim about CCPOA being the largest lobbyist, and then I saw that quotes in Reason, and the a lot of people quoting Reason. So, right-wing echo chamber in action as far as I can tell.
i meant "lobbyist" in the more wide sense than the pure officially reported total sum of receipts of breakfasts with senators. I meant it in the sense of demonstrated ability to steer decisions to their own benefit.
And when it come to right/left wing - while both are unions, teachers union and prison guard union are on the opposite sides, so pigeon-hole accordingly.
So you believe that adding up all election and/or legislation-influencing activities would reveal that CCPOA is the largest actor in California politics, despite the fact that even in above-board registered lobbying the oil industry spent $22 million last year? I think your claim requires some substantiation.
>CCPOA is the largest actor in California politics
it isn't exactly full order, so you kind of right in questioning my statements at their absolute face value. It is more like partial order here - oil industry and the guards have orthogonal interests. Except for the one aspect - guards consume state budget while oil industry is a source of it. And as we know from the business community whining - CA is considered "not business friendly"/"high tax state". Though of course i don't think the guards and oil clash directly here - the guards' politics is more about redistribution of the budget away from the other categories. I.e the oil and the guards have their own big fields to play, and when it comes to their own fields, the guards have much higher success than oil in their respective fields in CA.
And, man, $22 millions is just a rounding error for either of the players - the CA prison budget is $10B.
If you remember the beginning of Schwarzenegger's time, the first thing he did was taking on the biggest problem of the state - the guards union. He failed. No surprise here given the nature of the task. Still my personal great respect to him - he was the only one who even have ever tried to do it.
That's a bizarre interpretation of events. Schwarzenegger went along with the prison industry by vigorously opposing Prop. 66 (reforming the three strikes rule) and generally taking a "tough on crime" stance. Prison population increased every year under his administration until a court (and eventually the US Supreme Court) finally ordered the state to reduce it. Schwarzenegger's solution to overcrowding was to ship inmates to other states, which is shock doctrine privatization, not union busting.
Brown has actually reduced the prison population, notably by reforming sentencing laws and reclassifying many crimes as misdemeanors. The California prison population now stands at a level lower than in 1996, and a per-capita level lower than in 1992.
Is Florida going to add more police, social workers, ER doctors and etc deal with the consequences?