For shock probation to work, a judge has to be selective and really consider the merits of each individual defendant prior to determining whether shock probation is a valid option. Judges already do and should engage in cost-benefit analysis when making sentencing decisions; the scarcity of resources in the criminal justice system dictates that they do so (Branham, 2012)
"The typical amount of time spent in a correctional facility varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and case to case. A typical term of incarceration in a shock probation sentence is 30 days or less" (Broemmel, 2012)
Shock probation began in Ohio in 1965. This pilot program involved 4,014 prisoners who served only the initial 60 to 90 days of their original sentences (Pasquesi, 2012)
S.: Better than CPP and OAS? According to a 2009 poll by the National Academy for Social Insurances, 2/3 of Americans would choose to strengthen the United States' Social Security System over using its revenues to balance the national deficit (Leigh, 2010)
According to that article, Bush and his campaign were planning to open discussion about the "ownership society," which included employees having some control over their retirement finances. Instead of using a budget surplus of the Social Security funds, which was his previous campaign idea, Bush's new idea was to use a more high-stakes approach (Allen, A14)
In February 2004, Bush reiterated his opinion that those near the age of retirement should not have to face any significant changes in the Social Security system. While he again mentioned his belief that the system did need to change, he also stated that Greenspan's mention of raising the retirement age to 67 and cutting benefits for those already over 65 were not ideas he himself had in mind (Andrews, A10)
In February 2004, Bush reiterated his opinion that those near the age of retirement should not have to face any significant changes in the Social Security system. While he again mentioned his belief that the system did need to change, he also stated that Greenspan's mention of raising the retirement age to 67 and cutting benefits for those already over 65 were not ideas he himself had in mind (Andrews, A10)
During the Republican Convention, Bush was quoted as saying "We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away." (Bush, 1) Here, we can again see Bush's verbiage of his ideas as "personal account
At the time, Bush was speaking to a room full of potential donors (Lawrence, B2). Yet days later, a spokesmen for Bush stated, "the president never used the word "privatized" because his plan would not privatize the system" (Chaudhuri, online)
A Los Angeles Business Journal article in July of 2000 discussed Bush's "sketchy" proposal, which at the time was comprised of only the idea to allow people to hold parts of their Social Security taxes to invest in individual retirement accounts. It was presumed by the media at that time that these funds would be invested in stocks and mutual funds (Coombs, Shaffer, 12)
" (Taylor, Comite, 31). Bush also said that while he was interested in reforming the Social Security system, it would "require some additional legwork" to be accomplished (Hunt, online)
Also in June, on the news that many large donors would not support his campaign due to differences of opinion on the Medicare plan and steel tariffs, Bush again pushed his reform for Social Security, on a more broad scale. While avoiding the phrase "privatization," the ideas presented were still in this realm (Kirkpatrick, online)
Instead of using a budget surplus of the Social Security funds, which was his previous campaign idea, Bush's new idea was to use a more high-stakes approach (Allen, A14). The groundwork was laid when Senator Lindsey Graham, after a lengthy discussion with Bush who supported the idea, introduced a proposal to Congress that would keep people above 55 in the Social Security program with no changes, but would allow those under 55 to contribute up to 4% of their payroll taxes into a personal account they would own and control (Lambro, online)
" However, in October, Bush was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article as stating he would "come out strong after [his] swearing-in on fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security" (PR Newswire, online). At the time, Bush was speaking to a room full of potential donors (Lawrence, B2)
However, also in March, Bush spoke to the National Association of Business Economists, and referenced the need for Social Security change, to accommodate the upcoming retirement of the baby boom generation. In this statement, he again appealed for support of the role of personal accounts in Social Security (Mankiw, online)
In that plan, Bush referenced the idea that monies paid to the Social Security Administration during the immigrant's period of employment in the United States could be sent to them when they return to their home country. Bush made no mention at this time of the monies they would have the opportunity to invest and control, but instead only referenced the Social Security Administration's handling of their money (Stevenson and Greenhouse, online)
Based on their estimates, "expenditures for Social Security, fixed and variable pensions and disability payments will burst their respective cupboards in the mid-2020s." (Taylor, Comite, 31)
His plans, laid out in the February budget proposal, again mentioned allowing investors to annually put away after tax funds into retirement accounts that were tax-free. The money in the LSA (lifetime savings account) or RSA (retirement savings account) is money could be withdrawn for college, homes, cars, or anything, similar to an IRA (Wang, 25-26)
2002). The program was designed, though, at a time when most people were not expected to live long enough to collect any benefits (Bolter 2005)
Even more importantly, though, these reports estimate that unless corrective action is taken now, the Social Security program will be insolvent by the year 2030, a range entirely within the retirement years of the baby boom generation. More disturbing for these soon-to-be-retirees, the date at which the Social Security trust fund stops being a net contributor and becomes a net claimant on the federal budget has advanced to the year 2013 in these projections (Diamond et al