I have noticed that when people want to implement a new Government program it is often "for the children."
Tom Henry's latest Press Release discusses a "safe house" plan he wants to implement:
Over on the local blog Fort Wayne Left I pointed out that there is no cost listed for program implementation or continuing operation of this new Government program Tom Henry is proposing. Instead, his press release promises the program will require "minimal city funding."
What does "minimal city funding" mean?
Heck there are people who think that Harrison Square has "minimal city funding." Harrison Square will cost the taxpayers an unspecified amount of money, approximately 65 million if the city's estimates are correct.
John Good, local Democratic blogger, stated the following about my comment that I wanted to know what "minimal city funding" meant.
"Mike - So, for the record, you are pro-predator and anti-children? We can't ensure our children's safety because we might have to pay for it?"
Basically what John Good is saying is that anyone who wants to know the cost of a program that will SUPPOSEDLY protect children is pro-predator and anti-children.
Give me a break. I want to know what the program will cost. I want to know why it will help protect children.
I have decided to post some ideas here that Democratic Mayoral candidate Tom Henry, local blogger John Good, and anyone else who wants to "Protect the children" should consider before starting another "touchy-feely" program to "protect the children."
1. Sexual predators spend too little time in prison for crimes they have committed. I suggest you spend your energy changing the laws to require sexual predators to spend more time in prison. There is a cost to the taxpayers to forcing convicted "real sexual predators" to spend longer in prison. I am willing to pay that cost.
2. I would be willing to pass laws limiting where any "real sexual predator" can live. If you want to protect children then don't let convicted "real sexual predators" live in Fort Wayne.
My definition of a "real sexual predator" is a person who has been convicted of real sexual crimes; for example, a sexual predator is NOT an 18 year old boy having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl. SO this suggestion would require changing the definition of a sexual predator.
3. If you want to protect children please ensure that "Child Protective Services" do their job correctly. I have heard a large number of horror stories about "Child Protective Services." They always claim they are overwhelmed and they do not have enough people to monitor their case load. Maybe you should spend more money on "Child Protective Services." I am not sure if I would be willing to spend more money on this; however, I think that this would be more likely to protect children then establishing "safe houses." Depending on the specifics I might support it.
4. It is a statistically proven fact that children in homes that subsist on Government programs like Welfare are at a significantly higher risk then children in homes that are not on the Government dole." Maybe our "entitlement" programs should be modified to "protect the children." For example, maybe you should have to have a home inspection from "Child Protective Services" once a year if you want to continue receiving Government assistance. I might be able to support something like this; this would actually have a chance of protecting children who are at risk the most.
I could list countless more and so can anyone who thinks about it.
In my opinion we need to stop creating more and more Government programs to protect everyone. We already have a large number of Government Programs that have NO EFFECTIVENESS per the Governmental Accountability Office.
We do not need more.
I do everything I can to protect my kids and I will protect other people's kids as well.
Just last week I stopped my car and got a three year old girl out of the street. I went and rang the doorbell at her house and had a "conversation" with her mother.