Ask Judge Mathis

Over the years, many, if not most, Republicans have gone on record protesting federal funding of many social programs designed to help Americans in need. With the country hit hard by recession, the need for these types of programs have increased and, you guessed it, conservative politicians and pundits alike have made their displeasure known.

Thankfully, President Obama sits on the right side of this debate and has advocated for and signed into law legislation that increases these public support programs.

If you were lucky enough to not have suffered a lay off or home loss during this recession, it’s easy to overlook just how many have fallen victim to the decline in the economy. According to USA Today, government funded programs designed to reduce poverty have grown during the recession; such programs now one in six Americans – a record. Experts predict those numbers will continue to grow. Currently, close to 10 million Americans receive unemployment benefits, while the Medicaid rolls have grown 17 percent since the recession began. That number, too, will rise as the new health care law is predicted to add another 16 million recipients to the list in the next few years. The number who receive food stamps has grown over the last couple of years as well, nearly 40 million Americans – a 50 percent increase since the start of the recession – currently receive food stamp benefits.

These numbers are sobering. It’s easy for Republicans and others to talk about ‘small government’ and cry that anti-poverty spending jeopardizes the future health of our economy.  The reality is that our present economy is in shambles and we have no real idea of when it will rebound. Americans are suffering and it is the government’s duty to provide for its people until the economy gets to a point where they can then provide for themselves.

We are entering a critical mid-term election period and many offices across the country are up for grabs. As a voter, you can support anti-poverty programs by supporting those lawmakers who not only agree that government should provide economic safety nets but fight to make sure that it does.

After the financial sector’s bad business practices nearly caused a collapse of this country’s economic system, it was bailed out – by taxpayers – to the tune of $700 million in government funds. At the time, many Americans balked at the huge sum. Most, however, came to realize that saving banks was a necessary step in saving the overall economy. Most of us also hoped that, down the road, the banks – and those who lead them – would be in some way punished for their many missteps.

Unfortunately, federal prosecutors are not in sync with the thoughts of the American public; the deals they’re striking with these bad behaving banks amount to little more than slaps on the wrists. Prosecutors aren’t, for the most part, seeking to press criminal charges against banking executives who knowingly hid or misinterpreted information from investors and the public. Instead, they’re agreeing to let the banks publicly admit to wrongdoing and allowing them to walk away with a fine.

Thank God for judges!  A few smart, call it as they see it federal judges are shocked and outraged by the surprisingly lenient penances these banks are being allowed to negotiate. And they’re expressing their displeasure to prosecutors, instructing them to go back to the drawing board and return to court with punishments that somehow reflect the seriousness of the crimes.

These judges are acting as the eyes and ears of the American people, representing our desire to see justice served. They should continue to do just that. The financial sector is the last one that deserves a break. Families and small business owners drive our economy yet they’ve received very few breaks. Instead, they’ve lost their homes and had to close their businesses when it became obvious that the government had not created a bail out plan for them. Thankfully, the judges hearing these cases are able to break away from the tradition of agreeing with whatever deal the prosecutor recommends and, instead, forces justice to be served.