Cynical Nation

I guess the media missed it, because it is so obviously a lie. Nice try though.

"A deficit fable"

ONLY in the strange Alice In Wonderland atmosphere of Washington, D.C., could the simple mathematical equation $250 billion + $177 billion not add up to $427 billion.

That's the total of the federal budget deficit for fiscal 2006 plus the amount the feds siphoned out of the Social Security trust fund, but the Bush Administration trumpets the deficit as only - ta da! - $250 billion.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/OPINION02/610100302

"Poor to pay price of US deficit"

Bush proposes to halve overspend by 2008 with reductions in welfare and education

Sweeping cuts in welfare, education and housing programmes for the poor were the centrepiece of austerity budget proposals announced by George Bush yesterday to meet his campaign pledge of halving the US budget deficit in his second term.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1407852,00.html

Are there even still people who debate that Supply-Side economics works and Keynesianism doesn't?

If so, based on what?!

In every case income tax rate hikes have resulted in lowered tax revenues, as more people with higher incomes defer more of their income, while lowered income tax rates (down to about 22%), actually increase tax revenues as more people with higher incomes take more of their hard-earned money up-front.

Not only has the deficit shrunk, unemployment is down to 4.6%, interest rates remain low, inflation is LOW (2.4%) and about to get lower, GDP growth is high, the Dow is near 12,000.

In short, unemployment and inflation are as low as they were during the best of Clinton's years, interest rates and GDP growth is better, the Dow has passed its previous record and the deficit has been lowered further and faster than ANYONE would've predicted!

Where are those folks who once had the audacity to compare this economy to the failed Carter economy?...Blue?....Blue???

On the border and on social spending Bush has been poor, but on domestic security, confronting Shari-based Islam's war against the West and on the economy, this administration's been very good.

Ahhh, and think of what might have been if Bush and the GOP had not NOT BEEN SUCH BIG SPENDERS!

Also, the unemployment RATE as an economic indicator is going the way of the leading indicators and the prime rate....look instead at jobs created. Quite weak in this recovery.

Well, first of all, if you read the stories, the whole thing is a lie. Bush is stealing from the retirement of poor people to make it look as though the deficit is falling. He must have learned his accounting from his buddy, Kenny-boy Lay.

He has slashed the programs and services that make communities strong, and transferred that money to Halliburton. Pretty much the way Reagan emptied out the insane asylums and put crazy people out on the streets to kill working people, freeze to death, piss and shit on the sidewalks that working people use, and aggravate us to death panhandling.

Wall Street is up because the pockets of the top few percent are bursting with unprecedented profits because of Bush's tax breaks for the rich, and their newfound power to reduce payroll by sending American jobs overseas and moving their corporate headquarters to the Bahamas to evade taxes. They might also be getting a boost by the Bush "Poor people can't file bankruptcy like rich corporations can" legislation -- creating a virtual debtors prison system.

The average, working American is working more, making less, pays the same or more in taxes, FAR more for fuel, and is watching Bush mortgage his children's future by allowing war profiteers like Halliburton to "lose" $9 billion in Iraq.

The standard of living for average, working Americans has gone DOWN under Bush, not up. Corporate profits are up, for sure, since Bush shifted the tax burden onto the middle class.

"Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year."

It was all done on the backs of average working people, that is why nobody but the elites are actually better off.

Bush's game is over. Two years as a lame duck and the Chimp is out.

"ONLY in the strange Alice In Wonderland atmosphere of Washington, D.C., could the simple mathematical equation $250 billion + $177 billion not add up to $427 billion." (BH)
"We couldn't right now, neither the Republicans nor I and the Congress, could produce a balanced budget tomorrow that could pass with, if you said the Social Security funds cannot be counted, if you will, as part of the budget." -- President Clinton at his January 28th press conference
Simply, Social Security is currently running a surplus and is expected to do so for the near term.

Thus, if Social Security is removed from the budget calculations, the deficit will be falsely inflated by hundreds of billions of dollars. For example, if Social Security were to be omitted, the deficit would grow by an additional $465 billion during fiscal years 1998 through 2002 and by another $602 billion during fiscal years 2003-2007, for a total of $1.067 trillion over the 10-year period. This is on top of the very real deficits with which Congress has been struggling for years.

Last year, the President and the Congress each made proposals that would have cut the deficit by about $500 billion for fiscal years 1997 through 2002. $500 billion is a lot of money, but it is less than one-half of the amount that the opponents' proposal would falsely add to the deficit if Social Security is taken out of the balanced budget calculations.

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/BBCA1.htm
“He (Democratic Congressman John Spratt) also said that "If social security receipts are excluded from the calculation, the deficit would be 420 billion dollars.”

They were included in Clinton’s budget deficit calculations, so they must be considered in Bush’s, if only for “continuity’s” sake.

The US federal budget deficit fell to 250 billion dollars in the fiscal year concluded September 30, the Congressional Budget Office estimated.

The preliminary deficit estimate by the nonpartisan budget office in Congress was well below the US administration's estimate of a 296 billion-dollar shortfall in July, and below the CBO's 260 billion dollar estimate in August.

Final figures will be released by the Treasury and White House as early as Wednesday of next week, the CBO said.

The CBO said its estimate, based on daily reports from the US Treasury and CBO projections, would leave a deficit amounting to 1.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), down from 2.6 percent in fiscal 2005.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061006/pl_afp/useconomybudget_061006183716

If this is the work of that the nonpartisan budget office in Congress, I'll join you in blaming....the Democrats.

"Pretty much the way Reagan emptied out the insane asylums and put crazy people out on the streets to kill working people, freeze to death, piss and shit on the sidewalks that working people use, and aggravate us to death panhandling." (BH)
"Deinstitutionalization first began in 1955 with the widespread introduction of chlorpromazine, commonly known as Thorazine...In 1955, there were 558,239 severely mentally ill patients in the nation's public psychiatric hospitals. In 1994, this number had been reduced by 486,620 patients, to 71,619..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html
"Bennie Crabtree has been arrested more than 300 times. He is in jail now, convicted of criminal trespassing for camping out inside a building on the University of Cincinnati campus.

"It is a charge he has faced many times during the past 20 years. He usually serves his jail sentence or is hospitalized for mental problems, then he's released to be arrested again.

"Everyone knows Bennie," said Pat Beecher, a mental health worker assigned to the courts.

"Police say they believe Crabtree needs treatment for mental problems and alcohol abuse.

"But to send Crabtree to a hospital or treatment program again, against his will, prosecutors would have to show evidence that he not only suffers from mental illness but is a danger to others. Even though Crabtree does have past convictions for assaulting police officers and menacing, ''recently, he's done nothing to warrant involuntary commitment,'' said Ms. Beecher.

"Up to 16 percent of all inmates in America's state prisons and local jails are mentally ill, according to a recent Justice Department study.

"Far fewer people with mental illness are hospitalized in state facilities now, the result of a push toward deinstitutionalization in the 1970s, say law enforcement and mental health officials.

http://resources.scciowa.edu/oneill/justice%20system.htm

"Bush's game is over. Two years as a lame duck and the Chimp is out." (BH)
(BH)


Well, Bush is definitely out in another two years...then it's on (hopefully) to Giuliani.

Giuliani??? ha ha ha ha...although I wouldn't be opposed. However, the yahoos who vote in primaries in your "not conservative enough" party won't accept a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay guy from the big bad liberal metropolis.

Fred, don't look now, but Rudy is currently the frontrunner among just the "yahoos" you describe.

JMK, as usual, you are simply lying:

"Bush's Plan to Loot
Social Security"
http://www.hermes-press.com/sss1.htm

Wikipedia:
"Reagan promoted the dismantling of the public psychiatric hospital system, proposing that community-based housing and treatment replace involuntary hospitalization. The community replacement facilities have never been adequately funded, either by Reagan or his successors."

Sounds like Chimp. Transfer responsibility, refuse to fund, and then blame the "liberals".

i WILL look now, barry. I believe it, i've seen the polls. Hell, I would gladly back Rudy in '08. But the primaries are 16-17 months away--remember Presidents Romney, Muskie, Cuomo? I just think when we get seriously down to business, the lu-lus who take part in the primaries and caucuses-many of whom go to church 8 days a week and think gays are poisonous and twist themselves into knots about abortion-will cast a very wary look at a guy who lived with a gay couple after unclassily dumping his wife while dating another woman.

But go Rudy! Prove me wrong.

House and Senate Republican leaders stripped $4.5 billion in funds for mass transit security from homeland security legislation, then forced a quick vote on the streamlined bill last month -- leading angry Democrats to accuse Congress of reneging on a promise to protect the nation's commuters from terrorist attacks.

The difference between the conservative and liberal points of view is that the conservatives believe in small government even if it is inefficient and does not do what the majority of Americans wish it to do. Liberals believe that government can be efficient and does not have to be big. You can throw the old paradigms away, boys and girls. This is the new paradigm and we who are liberals intend to see it work. You can crow about a falling deficit, which is largely the product of cooking the books as has been explained above, but you cannot brag about the failing infrastructure, the declining quality of life, the failure to provide security in a dangerous world, or the devastated environment, which are fast becoming the most serious and obvious legacies of conservative government.

Fred, you know I share most of your views about the "lulus" you describe. I do think you give them too much credit for consistency, however. ;-)

> The difference between the conservative and liberal points of view is that the conservatives believe in small government even if it is inefficient and does not do what the majority of Americans wish it to do. Liberals believe that government can be efficient and does not have to be big.

By your (rather loaded) definitions, DBK, I must say I cannot think of a single "liberal" or "conservative" lawmaker on Capitol Hill. The Dems and Repubs in Congress vote according to no such ideology, I'm afraid. I wish they would. Either ideology sounds preferable to our current batch of trough-rutting thieves and weasels.

Don't mix it up with Republicans and Democrats, Barry. You're way beyond that now. You're looking at the new paradigm.

That first article refers to Bush's plan to allow individuals t control 1% of the Social Security funds via "private investments" (mutual funds).

It was a GREAT idea and I supported it and still support it wholeheartedly.

The second statement ignores the FACT that deinstitutionalization began, as I pointed out, in the 1950s and accelerated greatly in the 1970s.

Some of this acceleration was due to court ordered consent decrees that mandated that psychiatric patients who could function normally on medication had to be re-introduced into the community.

In the 1999 L.C. & E.W. v. Olmstead case, the Supreme Court ruled that states are required to provide community-based services for people with mental disabilities if treatment professionals determine that it's appropriate and the affected individuals don't object to such placement."

The reason that most sensible people "blame Liberals" for this problem is, "Recent studies have shown that about half of those who have schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness have markedly impaired insight into their illness. That is, they do not know that they are sick, because their brain disease has affected the frontal lobe circuits that are necessary for complete self-awareness. If they are not sick, they reason, why do they need a cure? Mr. Weston repeatedly told his family that he was not sick and rejected their pleas that he take his medication.

"Individuals like Mr. Weston will take medication only if it is mandated. And this can be done in 37 states under outpatient commitment statutes, or in a few other states under conservatorships or conditional hospital release arrangements. Both Montana and Illinois, the states that should have been treating Mr. Weston, have outpatient commitment laws under which he could have been required to take medication as a condition for living in the community.

However, these laws are difficult to invoke. Lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Washington-based Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law have changed most states’ criteria for outpatient commitment. Individuals must be classified as an imminent danger to themselves or others before they can be involuntarily treated, either in the hospital or in the community; this criterion is strictly applied. Most psychotic individuals, who are merely making threats against others or living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans, are not deemed legally sick enough to qualify for outpatient commitment.

"At the same time as civil liberties lawyers have been making it virtually impossible to treat severely mentally ill individuals involuntarily until they commit some horrific act, state mental health officials have been increasingly abdicating their responsibility for these individuals."

http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/Article2.htm

The important thing to remember is that GRIDLOCK is our only hope.

The true feather in Chimp's cap is his Supreme Court appointments. Wingnuts will probably go crazy when they discover that Roberts is completely serious about following the Constitution.

The Supreme Court bypassed the healthy gridlock of government and legislated disaster after disaster from the bench, the worst of which were busing (violating freedom of association) and affirmative action (enforcing racism).

Although I truly don't think it was his intention, Bush appointed Alito and Roberts to his credit, and I won't take that away from him.

Reagan was a Liberal, eh JMK?

It was REAGAN who made the argument that loony bins must be emptied because the patients RIGHTS WERE BEING VIOLATED as they were being held against their will.

Looks like you are on the wrong side of your hero.

Almost ALL of the state mental hospitals where both psychiatric patients AND the developmentally disabled were shuttered before Reagan came into office.

The "Willowbrook Consent Decree" in 1973 New York led the massive acceleration of those closings.

The U.S. courts (after decades being packed with Liberals) made those decisions.

It was indeed "legislating from the Bench," but those policies were passed by "Warren/Burger" Liberals (the "Warren Court" & "the Burger Court" were the two most radical Left-wing courts in U.S. history.

Though the Willowbrook Consent Decree came down while Nixon was still in office, I still blame Carter...no, not for that one, but for supporting the rapid deinstitutionalization that ratcheted up in the late 1970s.

And YES, Ronald Reagan was a "Classical Liberal" - a Supply-Side, tax cutting anti-communist.

Nice try, Rove. But it was Reagan back then, too.

"In California, during Ronald Reagan’s tenure as governor, the number of mentally ill people in the state hospital system dropped from 26,500 in 1967 to 6,400 in 1974. While many thought that deinstitutionalization represented progress, the truth is that former patients were residing in our parks, on streets and sidewalks, or in doorways of various establishments in numbers that now reach into the thousands."

> The important thing to remember is that GRIDLOCK is our only hope.

God help me, I'm agreeing with Bailey....

Um ... actually, Bailey, you're simply wrong, on two counts.

First, as has been pointed out, the Social Security trust fund receipts -- basically, buying U.S. bonds with surplus from the SS Trust Fund -- has always been included in the calculations, and without it would not have had a balanced budget in the late 90s. You can argue that the deficit is not actually being cut in half now, but that's like saying Clinton never had a balanced budget. Yawn.

Second, this is actually a good thing for Social Security. Saying it is "looting" Social Security makes no sense at all. U.S. bonds are the most reliable currency that exists in this country, backed by the Constitution itself (14th Amendment, Section 4). Saying this is "looting" is in violation the Constitution, because it implies the face value of the bond (what the SS Trust Fund paid, plus interest) will not be paid back.

Indeed, it would be irresponsible of the federal government to not "loot" the Trust Fund in this manner: to just let the money sit there and not grow at all would be a terrible waste, and there is absolutely no risk in this "looting" (unless the entire economy collapses, in which case the money wouldn't have been worth anything anyway).

The one thing you can criticize here is the spending of that money the SS Trust Fund used to buy the bonds. Perhaps it should have been further invested, or used to pay down the debt. But that has nothing significant to do with the discussion here, about balanced budgets and "looting" the trust find.

"Nice try, Rove. But it was Reagan back then, too.

"In California, during Ronald Reagan’s tenure as governor, the number of mentally ill people in the state hospital system dropped from 26,500 in 1967 to 6,400 in 1974." (BH)
WAS indeed a DISASTER, however neither Reagan (whom I liked), nor Carey (the NY's Governor, whom I did not like) were responsible for the deisntitutionalization that occurred when they were Governor's of those states.

Wa nah???

Because the courts mandated that deinstitutionalization, yes "Liberal courts" packed with "activist judges," deciding in favor of plaintiffs represented by groups like the ACLU.

Even Carter, whom I despised and still despise, was powerless to stop a court ordered decree.

An Act of Congress Yes, that would've worked, but Presidential, or more laughgably yet, a Governor's decree - NO.

Moreover, pudge is 100% right on the Social Security surplus.

It has always been counted.

For Dems like John Spratt to now act as though that were NOT the case, “He (Democratic Congressman John Spratt) also said that "If social security receipts are excluded from the calculation, the deficit would be 420 billion dollars,” is way beyond disingenuous...it's dishonest.

They were included in Clinton’s budget deficit calculations, so they must be considered in Bush’s, if only for “continuity’s” sake. In fact, Bill Clinton fought to keep those monies counted - "We couldn't right now, neither the Republicans nor I and the Congress, could produce a balanced budget tomorrow that could pass with, if you said the Social Security funds cannot be counted, if you will, as part of the budget." -- President Clinton at his January 28th press conference.

Suffice to say pudge is right...maybe it'll make more sense coming from him, since we have such a vexing relationship.

Not that I really need to prove that you are a liar again, well, your "Willowbrook Consent Decree" bullshit is pure fiction. It wasn't even a law, it was an agreement. It involved no judicial activism, and did not put any crazies out on the street.

Really JMK, this time your shameless lying has gone too far. Reagan was in no way legally compelled to do what he did, especially not by Willowbrook. What Reagan did, forcing mental patients onto the streets, had NOTHING to do with the Willowbrook Consent Agreement.

You have, in true Rove fashion, mischaracterized the entire event (lied).

Willowbrook Review Panel
Administrative History
Back to table of contents
In 1938, the New York State Legislature authorized the construction of Willowbrook State School on Staten Island as a residential facility for developmentally disabled children and adults. By the time construction was complete, the United States had entered World War II, and the federal government took control of the facility for use as a hospital. The first developmentally disabled residents did not start move in until 1947. Willowbrook was originally intended to house fewer than 3,000 residents, but by 1955 it housed over 3,500 residents. By 1963, 6,000 residents lived in buildings intended to hold only 4,275.[1]

Overcrowding and staff apathy resulted in extremely poor conditions for Willowbrook residents. A New York State legislative committee toured Willowbrook in 1963 and was horrified by what they saw, but the committee's findings were kept confidential. In 1965, Senator Robert Kennedy referred to Willowbrook as a "snake pit" after an unannounced visit to the facility. New York State responded by developing a five-year plan to improve care for the developmentally disabled in all state facilities, but the plan failed to make the necessary improvements.[2]

In 1972, Geraldo Rivera, then a local reporter for TV station WABC in New York, drew national attention to Willowbrook's deplorable conditions through a televised expose. Rivera was contacted on January 6, 1972 by Michael Wilkins, an old friend. Wilkins had been employed as a staff physician at Willowbrook, but was fired for stirring up trouble at the facility after advocating for change in the care of residents. Wilkins still had a key to the Willowbrook buildings, and he offered to provide access to Rivera and a camera crew. The next day, Rivera and his crew filmed footage of conditions in Willowbrook's Building 6. The story aired that night and included shocking images of children lying on floors naked and drinking out of toilet bowls. Public outcry began almost immediately.[3]

On March 17, 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Willowbrook residents by the New York Association for Retarded Citizens and several parents of Willowbrook residents. The lawsuit was prepared by Bruce Ennis of the Mental Health Law Project. Legal counsel was also provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union. On December 18, 1972, a five-day hearing on the issue of preliminary relief was held. Preliminary relief was intended to prevent the condition of Willowbrook residents from deteriorating further while legal proceedings took place. Although preliminary relief was granted by Judge Orrin Judd, the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with its terms. In contrast, the final outcome of the lawsuit - a Consent Decree officially accepted on April 30, 1975 following lengthy negotiations between the two sides - was viewed by the plaintiffs as a major victory for Willowbrook residents.[4] (The Consent Decree is sometimes referred to as the Consent Judgment in the Review Panel's records.)

The Consent Decree was a twenty-nine page document that set new standards for the care of Willowbrook residents. Its stipulations were aimed at improving the physical, social, and educational environment of Willowbrook Developmental Center. Most significantly, it required the state to reduce the population of Willowbrook from 5400 to about 250 by moving residents out of the institution and into small, community-based residences. (Although the Consent Decree stated that this reduction in Willowbrook population was to occur by 1981, this deadline proved unfeasible. The Consent Decree was not fully implemented until 1987.) The guiding principle of the Consent Decree was that all Willowbrook class members were entitled to the "least restrictive" living environment possible. In short, it called for the largest mass deinstitutionalization in the history of the United States.[5]

The Willowbrook Review Panel (WRP), was intended as a temporary arm of the court which would monitor implementation of Consent Decree guidelines at Willowbrook. It consisted of seven members, all experts in the field of mental retardation. The Consent Decree called for three members to be chosen by the plaintiffs, two by the defendants, and two appointed jointly. Plaintiffs selected Linda Glenn, who was experienced with community placement of developmentally disabled individuals in Nebraska; Michael Lottman, an expert in mental health law and an attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; and Murray Schneps, a lawyer and parent of a Willowbrook resident. Defendants selected William Bittner, an assistant commissioner in the state Department of Education; and James Forde, the acting director of Willowbrook. Jointly appointed were James Clements, head of the Georgia Retardation Center; and David Rosen, who headed community programs for the developmentally disabled in Detroit.[6] The Panel held regular meetings twice a month, usually for two days at a time, and issued reports to the court every six months.

The terms of the Consent Decree also provided for professional staff members, paid by New York State, to support the Panel's activities. These staff members included several Program Associates and an Executive Director. Jennifer Howse was the Panel's first Executive Director. In 1978, she left the Review Panel to become head of the Metropolitan Placement Unit, the state agency responsible for developing community residences for Willowbrook class members. Kathy Schwaninger replaced Howse as the Executive Director. Panel staff members worked out of an office located in the World Trade Center.

According to the Consent Decree, the role of the Panel was simple: to investigate the state's progress towards implementing the Consent Decree and to report to the court on the State's progress. Little was said, however, about how the Panel should accomplish this goal. The Panel took an extremely proactive approach, developing a complex system of standards and audit instruments against which to measure New York's progress toward improving conditions at Willowbrook.

The influence of the Review Panel also extended far beyond Willowbrook itself. The terms of the Consent Decree applied to all who resided at Willowbrook as of March 17, 1972, the date that the class action lawsuit was filed. This group, called the Willowbrook Class of 1972, included many people who had subsequently been transferred out of Willowbrook and into other state residential facilities. Many residents were transferred out of Willowbrook by the state between the initial filing of the class action lawsuit and the issuing of the Consent Decree. This was seen as a deliberate attempt by the state to improve its image by voluntarily reducing the Willowbrook population. The Review Panel monitored conditions in these related facilities, and the related facilities were held to the same exacting standards as Willowbrook. The Panel also took an avid interest in the placement of Willowbrook class members in community residences. The Panel closely followed the activities of the Metropolitan Placement Unit, a New York State Agency established to create acceptable, non-institutional living situations for class members.

The Panel was disbanded in 1980 for political reasons. Some in state government saw the Panel as a waste of money, and the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities had long resented that an instrument of the Federal court had been given such influence over the office. Because of these political pressures, the New York State Legislature failed to fund the Review Panel for the 1981-1982 fiscal years. District Court Judge John Bartels, who took over the Willowbrook case following the death of Judge Orrin Judd in 1976, ordered the Governor and the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities to fund the Panel or be found in contempt of court. The state appealed, and Bartels' order was overturned by a higher court.[7]

For a detailed discussion of the Review Panel's activities, as well as discussion of the Consent Decree's importance for the care of the developmentally disabled, see The Willowbrook Wars by David J. Rothman and Sheila M. Rothman. The Rothmans, both social science researchers, used the Consent Decree as a case study of deinstitutionalization and community placement. The Review Panel gave the Rothmans extensive access to their meetings and files during the period 1978-1981. A copy of their original research proposal is located in Series 9, Box 5, Folder 5.

ALL of the dseinstitutionalization nationwide was ordered by the courts.

And again, ONLY an Act of Congress could've impeded that.

No Governor at that time had the power to stop that process.

That is a fact.

THIS from the article you posted, "On March 17, 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Willowbrook residents by the New York Association for Retarded Citizens and several parents of Willowbrook residents. The lawsuit was prepared by Bruce Ennis of the Mental Health Law Project. Legal counsel was also provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union. On December 18, 1972, a five-day hearing on the issue of preliminary relief was held. Preliminary relief was intended to prevent the condition of Willowbrook residents from deteriorating further while legal proceedings took place. Although preliminary relief was granted by Judge Orrin Judd, the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with its terms. In contrast, the final outcome of the lawsuit - a Consent Decree officially accepted on April 30, 1975 following lengthy negotiations between the two sides - was viewed by the plaintiffs as a major victory for Willowbrook residents," is not only quite correct, but makes clear that the Consent Decree signed in 1975 came about through an earlier Class Action lawsuit.

The lives of tens of thousands of developmentally disabled people was changed for the better through such Consent Decrees.
"The Willowbrook Consent Decree, issued in 1975, focused upon New York State's then largest institution for the mentally retarded. In signing the decree, the State pledged to correct deplorable conditions and inadequate treatment services, as well as deficient medication practices, which subjected residents to some immediate harm, as well as long-term irreversible side effects from inadequately monitored drugs."

http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/publications/pubmeddc.htm
25 Years After Legal Landmark, Developmentally Disabled Still Face Prejudice

By MICHAEL J. PAQUETTE
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1b050400.html

Twenty-five years after the signing of the Willowbrook Consent Decree on April 30, 1975, lives have changed for the developmentally disabled. Named for the infamous Staten Island institution that once warehoused the disabled, the landmark Willowbrook legislation laid the groundwork for national reforms in the care, education and housing of people with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities.

Thirty years ago, nearly 187,000 developmentally disabled Americans were warehoused in places like Willowbrook. Today, fewer than 50,000 remain institutionalized, according to "State of the States in Developmental Disabilities," a recent publication by the Department of Disability and Human Development at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

But the push is on to move them -- as well as thousands of others now living with aging parents -- into the wider community."

You are clearly and obviously a liar, because NO COURT forced Reagan to empty out the nut houses.

Reagan championed this movement, himself, as a way of cutting services. He implemented half of the Willow Consent Decree by removing the disabled from State Care ... he just didn't bother with the community programs to shelter them, and let them become dangerous homeless crazies for the average working person to deal with on the streets.

No Governor MADE any such decision.

I proved to you that the Willowbrook Consent Decree of 1975 was the result of a bitterly contested Class Action lawsuit (brought by activist groups and signed onto by activist judges).

Once again, the article that YOU yourself posted asserts the same thing, ""On March 17, 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Willowbrook residents by the New York Association for Retarded Citizens and several parents of Willowbrook residents. The lawsuit was prepared by Bruce Ennis of the Mental Health Law Project. Legal counsel was also provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union. On December 18, 1972, a five-day hearing on the issue of preliminary relief was held. Preliminary relief was intended to prevent the condition of Willowbrook residents from deteriorating further while legal proceedings took place. Although preliminary relief was granted by Judge Orrin Judd, the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with its terms. In contrast, the final outcome of the lawsuit - a Consent Decree officially accepted on April 30, 1975 following lengthy negotiations between the two sides - was viewed by the plaintiffs as a major victory for Willowbrook residents."

Once again, I thank you for proving my points, though it leaves me wondering, given your assertion that my statements are "lies," if you even bother to read the very things you post.

Once again, activist groups like the ACLU and the Mental Health Law Project filed Class Action lawsuits on behalf of those who were institutionalized and activist judges sided with their fellow activists.

There was no sitting President who ever had the power to over-ride such a legal decision from the WH.

Only an act of Congress could have stopped the tidal wave of deinstitutionalization.

Given that the President of the United States couldn't over-ride these legal rulings, it's more than obvious that no Governor could either.

The difference between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter?

This is really all you need to know about that subject - Reagan was a GREAT man, and one America's best Presidents, while Carter was a weak man and one of America's worst Presidents.

Good God, idiot, stop lying. This was not a ruling, it was an agreement, and it in NO WAY bound Reagan to empty the nuts into the streets in CALIFORNIA.

Rove taught you well, though. I must give you credit for constantly trying to confuse the issue with distractions, irrelevant and false information, and outright lies.

Once again, the Willowbrook Consent Decree was NOT voluntary in any way, as it resulted from a Class Action lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Mental Health Law Project.

NO State Governor made any decisions about "emptying out" mental institutions.

In case you didn't notice, I used your own article to prove my point, which of course, it did.

Let me condense it down so you have to read even less of what YOU yourself posted; "On March 17, 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Willowbrook residents by the New York Association for Retarded Citizens and several parents of Willowbrook residents. The lawsuit was prepared by Bruce Ennis of the Mental Health Law Project. Legal counsel was also provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union....In contrast, the final outcome of the lawsuit - a Consent Decree officially accepted on April 30, 1975 following lengthy negotiations between the two sides - was viewed by the plaintiffs as a major victory for Willowbrook residents."

Again, no Governor had the power to either over-ride those legal decisions, nor the power to peremptorily engage in any deinstitutionalization without court approval.

Barely, you've been proven wrong on virtually every issue I've engaged you on, from H-1B visas, to tax cuts, to the social security surplus having always been counted in the budget, now onto deinstitutionalization.

For my part, I'm happy to have the opportunity to correct some of your misconceptions.

You certainly don't make it easy, what with your having about all the charm of a rodent and all, but I can't help wanting to clear things up when someone spouts some of the misguided things you put out there.

it in NO WAY bound Reagan to empty the nuts into the streets in CALIFORNIA

it in NO WAY bound Reagan to empty the nuts into the streets in CALIFORNIA.

it in NO WAY bound Reagan to empty the nuts into the streets in CALIFORNIA.

it in NO WAY bound Reagan to empty the nuts into the streets in CALIFORNIA.

it in NO WAY bound Reagan to empty the nuts into the streets in CALIFORNIA.

You have lost every single exchange, JMK. Creating your straw man arguments and knocking them down is just childish, because you merely mischaracterize what I said, like your lying father, Rove.

Everything I have said has been backed up exactly. I have been caught in ZERO lies, you have been caught in dozens.

You know, I'm starting to feel positively jovial that brainwashed lemmings like you will soon be muttering curses as the Democrats take both houses and stop Bush from destroying America.

Your ridiculous lies just aren't working anymore. You have all been exposed.

From here on out, I will merely show up to laugh at you and taunt you as your beloved party crashes and burns.

I've given you the facts Barely - no State Governor could engage in deinstitionalization ("emptying the nuthouses" as you so poorly worded it).

The courts ORDERED that deinstitionalization...ALL of it, and neither Reagan, nor Carey, nor ANY other State Governor could either stop it, nor engage in peremptory deinstitutionalization on their own.

I haven't accused you of "lying," I've merely proven you wrong - about H-1B Visas, tax policy, the social security surplus ALWAYS being counted when calculating the budget deficit numbers...and now this topic.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong Barely, only with not acknoledging it when you're proven so.

You erroneously claimed that a Consent Decree, "wasn't even a law, it was an agreement. It involved no judicial activism," and I've patiently shown you, using the article that YOU posted that you are wrong on that, just as you were shown to be wrong about all the other topics I mentioned.

See? Somehow you think I'm trying to hurt you, but I'm really trying to help you by exposing some of your basic misconceptions.

Liar. Reagan SIGNED LEGISLATION to empty out California mental hospitals and provided no budget for community programs:

"In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing.

A mental patient could be held for 72 hours only if he or she engaged in an act of serious violence or demonstrated a likelihood of suicide or an inability to provide their own food, shelter or clothing due to mental illness. But 72 hours was rarely enough time to stabilize someone with medication. Only in extreme cases could someone be held another two weeks for evaluation and treatment.

As a practical matter, involuntary commitment was no longer a plausible option.

As one psychiatrist in a Bay Area hospital observed, 'By the time someone's been pumped full of Thorazine for 14 days, if they still seem dangerous to a judge, they have to be really dangerous.'

The LPS Act emptied out the state's mental hospitals but resulted in an explosion of homelessness. Legislators never provided enough money for community-based programs to provide treatment and shelter. Even the most modest programs encountered local resistance.

'No neighborhood wanted the mentally ill living among them,' recalled former state Sen. Tom Bates.

Lanterman later expressed regret at the way the law was carried out. 'I wanted the law to help the mentally ill,' he said. 'I never meant for it to prevent those who need care from receiving it.'"

Liar. Reagan SIGNED LEGISLATION to gut federal mental health programs and provided no budget for state or community programs:

"The Reagan administration passed a Budget Reconciliation Act, which repealed most of the provisions of the Mental Health Systems Act. New legislation reduced federal funding for treating the mentally ill. And mental health advocates complained that Reagan's policies were worse than Nixon's and reversed almost three decades of federal involvement and leadership."

You said "no legislation" ... LIE.

You said "court ordered" ... LIE.

How can this not be clear? You are a liar.

I see your problem here.

You're mistaking the landmark reform legislation known as Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that, among other things, banned the practice of "judicial institutionalization," except in criminal cases.

"The LPS Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing."

" The LPS Act cited seven articles of intent:

• To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

• To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

• To guarantee and protect public safety;

• To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

• To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

• To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

• To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing (e.g. convicted sexual offenders). It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds."

One of the things it DID NOT DO was to de-instituionalize the mentally handicapped and mentally ill.

The LPS was a reform measure that made it impossible for vindictive people to seek judicial confinement for people they wanted "out of the way."

The LPS was a great reform measure and was in no way part of the activist movement of the late 1970s that indeed "empied the nuthouses" (as you'd say), arguing that society had no right to isolate and segregate the mentally ill and emotionally disturbed.

Two different issues, two different movements.

Wake up Barely!

I said Reagan put the nuts out on the streets. FACT.

Rove the issue all you want, liar.

You have to put FACT in bold-faced type to have it accepted as FACT.

JMK started it with all the caps and bolding.

I don't blame you for misunderstanding the issues Barely (that's mere ignorance), I DO blame you for your stubborn adherance to stupidity.

The LPS Act was a brilliant piece of Reform Legislation that effectively ended the age old practice of judicial confinement by "expanding the evaluative powers of psychiatrists and creating provisions and criteria for holds."

It also "provided individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons."

ALL good stuff...and NONE of it simply set mentally & emotionally disturbed people out on the street.

The LPS Act was not a part of the larger process called de-institutionalization. It was a specific act desigend to reform the often poor (warehousing) treatment of both the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.

Again, the process of de-institutionalization was initiated by a series of judicial rulings; " "On March 17, 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Willowbrook residents by the New York Association for Retarded Citizens and several parents of Willowbrook residents...In contrast, the final outcome of the lawsuit - a Consent Decree officially accepted on April 30, 1975 following lengthy negotiations between the two sides - was viewed by the plaintiffs as a major victory for Willowbrook residents."

Who initiated these class action lawsuits that accelerated the destructive process called de-institutionalization?

In the case of the Willowbrook lawsuit, like most of the others, it was liberal activists, "The lawsuit was prepared by Bruce Ennis of the Mental Health Law Project. Legal counsel was also provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union."

By the way, BOTH those quotes come from the article that YOU posted.

Again, thanks for proving my point and please, read the things you post more closely.

This is about the fifth time you've posted things that prove your own contentions wrong.

Blah, blah, blah.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Anyone who can read sees that you lost again.

The facts are there.

Your not accepting them doesn't change them.

The LPS Act legislated:

• An end to inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

I support that! Any reasonable person would.

• To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

I also support that.

• To guarantee and protect public safety;

I also fully support THAT.

• To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

Yes, I support that too.

• To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

Yup, support that as well.

• To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

Again, I fully support that.

• To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

Of course! Who wouldn't support that?

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing (e.g. convicted sexual offenders). It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds."

And, yes, I support that too!

What I've always opposed were those nefarious class actions lawsuits brought on by various Liberal activist groups like the Mental Health Law Project, the NYCLU and the ACLU. Suits that brought about a plague called de-institutionalization that swamped the outpatient treatment centers and made used "community living" standards as weapons against communities of God-fearing, America-loving homeowners.

The LPS Act sought to rehab a mental health profession in bad need of reform. The activist groups I mentioned wanted nothing more than to undermine truth, justice and the "American way" (private property, individual rights, etc).

My guess is that's why Carter, as President supported those radical activists and reagan opposed them.

You erroneously claimed that a Consent Decree, "wasn't even a law, it was an agreement. It involved no judicial activism," well; (1) It was a judicial/legal decision (“a law”), and the result of a Class Action lawsuit; "On March 17, 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Willowbrook residents by the New York Association for Retarded Citizens and several parents of Willowbrook residents,” and (2) indeed it DID involve “judicial activism;" “The lawsuit was prepared by Bruce Ennis of the Mental Health Law Project. Legal counsel was also provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union....In contrast, the final outcome of the lawsuit - a Consent Decree officially accepted on April 30, 1975 following lengthy negotiations between the two sides - was viewed by the plaintiffs as a major victory for Willowbrook residents."

Wrong on BOTH counts Barely!

And the article that YOU yourself posted makes that crystal clear!

Then you compound the error by wrongly associating a law, passed by the CA Legislature to reform the mental health field with the pernicious push by Left-wing “social activists” to use de-institutionalization to undermine property rights and attack America’s economic values and social mores.

Stupid. Just shut up.

Reagan signed that legislation. Reagan did not fund the alternative programs, and dangerous kooks have roamed the streets ever since.

The Consent Decree was NOT LEGISLATED FROM THE BENCH, you stupid ass, it was a SETTLEMENT agreed upon by both parties. It did not make Reagan close down mental hospitals in CA, and it did not make Reagan end federal support of mental health.

You are just one damned determined lying sack of shit, but you can't Newt/Rove your way past facts.

YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG, TARD.

I proved to you that the LPS Act was a GOOD and necessary reform act, designed to stop some of the blatant abuses of that era's mental health field.

I even posted the act and showed you why any rational person would agree with all of that Act's provisions.
erroneously claiming that a Consent Decree, "wasn't even a law, it was an agreement. It involved no judicial activism," well; (1) It was a judicial/legal decision (“a law”), and the result of a Class Action lawsuit; "On March 17, 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Willowbrook residents by the New York Association for Retarded Citizens and several parents of Willowbrook residents,” and (2) indeed it DID involve “judicial activism;" “The lawsuit was prepared by Bruce Ennis of the Mental Health Law Project. Legal counsel was also provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union....In contrast, the final outcome of the lawsuit - a Consent Decree officially accepted on April 30, 1975 following lengthy negotiations between the two sides - was viewed by the plaintiffs as a major victory for Willowbrook residents."

Again, you were proven wrong on BOTH counts Barely!

You're also wrong about the LPS Act having anything to do with the ill-conceived, court-ordered accelerated de-institutionalization of the mid to late 1970s.

I know you're disappointed to see your attempts at argument fall apart so easily and I feel bad about that, but you really don't make decent arguments for your case at all.

Every time you mis-state the facts I'm going to correct you with the facts, so get used to disappointment.

What? Lawsuits create laws? Are you sure?

So when two sides agree on a settlement, the settlement becomes a law. The judge didn't hand down a decision. No jury reached a verdict, but in your pea sized brain a binding law was written into the books, right?

No, of course not, stupid. The legal decision in now way effected Ronald Reagan, Governor of California. He signed real legislation from the state legislature designed to put homeless people out on the streets to cut a social program.

Don't be a child. Don't petulently insist that you weren't bitchslapped right out of your socks, as always.

President Reagan, later on, was again in no way compelled to put homeless people on the street by cutting off funding. He did it to cut a social program, thus freeing up more money to distribute to obscenely overpriced weapons.

Legal decisdions CREATE laws.

And yes, that's how that works.

In fact, that's what the judiciary was designed to do, (1) strike down unconstitutional laws passed by legislatures and (2) use legal precedent to "define and expand the scope of the law," when necessary.

So, yeah, the Class Action lawsuits brought about the opportunity for some judges to exercise some judical fiat and ordered the accelerated de-institutionalization witnessed during the 1970s, by "finding" that even severely mentally capacitated people had the "right" to refuse treatmentand confinement.

"Consent Decrees" are not "agreements," so much as "binding arbitration" presided over by a judge.

The same judge had already ruled against the States, the "Consent Decree" merely spelled out the terms, it wasn't any kind of compromise or agreement...once again, as the article YOU posted made clear...and it was right in that regard.

There was no decision, there was an agreement. The agreement produced no laws.

You are retarded.

A Consent Decree is a legally binding ARBITRATION.

Let me try and explain, as your probably unfamiliar with that word and that process.

The judge (Orin Judd) had already had RULED in favor of the plaintiffs and against WIllowbrook (in the Consent Decree in question).

"On December 18, 1972, a five-day hearing on the issue of preliminary relief was held. Preliminary relief was intended to prevent the condition of Willowbrook residents from deteriorating further while legal proceedings took place. Although preliminary relief was granted by Judge Orrin Judd, the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with its terms."

As a result Judge Judd resorted to what is called "binding arbitration," (a mandated hearing, with a final award) where both sides show why the ruling puts an unfair burden on them. The Judge not only has the final say...he has the ONLY say in the outcome of that Decree.

As the article you posted correctly asserts, "In contrast, the final outcome of the lawsuit - a Consent Decree officially accepted on April 30, 1975 following lengthy negotiations between the two sides - was viewed by the plaintiffs as a major victory for Willowbrook residents."

Willowbrook was ruled AGAINST and was subject to "binding arbitration" and forced to sign onto the final "Consent Decree."

De-institutionalization was completely driven by radical activist lawyers like those from Mental Health Law Project, the NYCLU and the ACLU.

Carter should've encouraged Congress to block the rulings with new legislation, but never made that attempt.

Neither Carey (then Governor of NY) nor Reagan (than Governor of CA) had any impact on de-isntitutionalization.