Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumCrime or Punishment: How a 1990s Hysteria Forced A Difficult Choice on the Clinton White House
Long Article...
So the Clinton administration acted. In 1994 then Senator Joe Biden of Delaware helped to write a 356-page bill called the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, later to be called the Crime Bill. Among the highlights were funding for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons, and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs. There was also a federal assault weapons ban, an expanded federal death penalty, new statutes for immigration law, hate crimes, sex crimes, and gang-related crimes, and even the authority to create a registry for sex offenders. It was the largest crime bill ever written up to that point and it initially seemed as if it would address the nationwide concern over what Americans were seeing as increased violence in their everyday lives. In fact, the Crime Bill even had the support of African-American leaders in Congress, many of whom admitted the bill was imperfect, but knew that something had to be done to protect their communities. In describing his motivation behind signing the bill, President Clinton said, "Gangs and drugs have taken over our streets and undermined our schools...Every day, we read about somebody else who has literally gotten away with murder."
more in between....
They chose to address the crime and are still feeling the political punishment twenty-two years later.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/4/8/crime-or-punishment-how-a-1990s-hysteria-forced-a-difficult-choice-on-the-clinton-white-house
2naSalit
(86,604 posts)high crime areas when it was getting bad back then, I recall that there were few viable solutions offered... and we had sNewt for Speaker who wrote that contract on America which has been largely successful in trashing the middle class and exacerbating all issues.
Yeah, the current generation of new voters aren't observing some fundamental realities of our governing system. You can't just throw out everything and start anew with everything. This is one of the results of eliminating civics education and education in general. Sad and hard to get people to actually learn the process and how we arrive at policy, according to our agreed upon social contract. Sure it always needs adjustment but that's because everything changes over time and our social contract should reflect some of those changes as long as they benefit the lives of all.
MBS
(9,688 posts)That's a good part of the problem in our politics these days. It's been a problem for awhile, but especially now.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)You know, used to be, you were required to take BOTH civics and government. Government to learn the structure, primarily, and quite a bit of the history. Civics to understand how it all WORKS.
2naSalit
(86,604 posts)fundamental imperatives that saw the ax early on, it was a contrived plan for mass disenfranchisement, and that is one of the reasons we have such an ugly election this year and in several past election cycles.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)teacher approached this when she a senior, some years ago. Because govt was required, and civics was not, he covered all the salient points of govt class that they needed to test on to graduate, and THEN turned his govt class into a civics class. That's creative teaching!