Saturday, July 30, 2005
An editorial from today’s Iowa City Press-Citizen takes a swipe at Speaker Rants concerning his comments about action the Iowa House may or may not take on felon enfranchisement. It’s the standard rhetoric – the we know better…
If someone commits a crime, he or she should do the time. But once that time is served, that individual is paid up.
The Press-Citizen believes that felons deserve their constitutional right to vote restored immediately after walking out the prison door, once again forgetting about the importance of restitution. A completed sentence does not equate to an individual being paid up for the crimes committed.
This is an issue that gets ugly on both sides. But at least the Republicans are up front about the politics, while Democrats paste on the good government rhetoric to cover up their glee at the possibility of rounding up a few more votes.
It is dishonest that the Democrats keep hiding behind this shell of moral correctness when talking about felons as voters. Everybody knows it’s about the votes. And if Gronstal and crew are smart, as stated before, they’ll all play nice enough so they can horse trade on this issue and get some good stuff, like tighter regulations on predatory loans.*
Really, do the Democrats want to go into 06 knowing that they’ll be clubbed around the head and shoulders with the fact that they’re not tough on crime? And, in fact, coddle criminals by returning voting rights before these folks have made at least a good faith effort to pay back what they owe?
It is not smart politics. There is no way Iowa Democrats are going to be able to find all of their potential felon voters, and get them to the polls in time to counteract the swing voters who’re going to think they’re nuts for letting these bums off the hook.
|SF 217||Maximum finance charge allowed for consumer loan secured by m.v. title. SF 217 - similar to SF 409 (sales tax on farm equipment).|
|SF 277||Home loan protection Act, restrictions on high-cost loans. SF 277.|