Opinion - A presidential grant of clemency worthy of praise
A few days before he left office, President Biden commuted the sentences of about 2,500 drug offenders. The grant of clemency, Biden explained, 'provides relief for individuals who received lengthy sentences based on discredited distinctions between crack and powder cocaine, as well as outdated sentencing enhancements for drug crimes.' Those distinctions in turn created disparities between African Americans and whites throughout the criminal justice system.
A striking contrast to controversial, cringeworthy and contemptible presidential pardons and commutations recently granted to family members, donors, celebrities, political allies and supporters, Biden's action addressed misguided government policies that have persisted for decades. It also highlighted the damage politicians do when they feed and fuel voters' fears of violent crime waves in their communities.
As Biden no doubt recalls, he once boasted that every crime bill passed by Congress since 1976 'has had the name of the Democratic senator from the state of Delaware' on it. He supported the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1986), which imposed a minimum five-year sentence for possession of five grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine, the so-called 100-1 sentencing disparity that led to the incarceration of tens of thousands of Black people.
As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden drafted the Senate version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), which included mandatory minimum sentences and a 'three-strike rule' requiring life imprisonment following the third conviction for a drug related crime.
'Lock the SOBs up,' Biden declared at the time. 'It doesn't matter whether or not they're the victims of society. I don't want to ask, 'What made them do this?' They must be taken off the streets.'
Federal drugs laws, which most states also adopted, accelerated mass incarceration. Between 1980 and 2018, the number of individuals in state and federal prisons for violating drug laws skyrocketed, from 25,000 to 300,000. Between 1988 and 2012, the length of prison terms for drug offenders increased by 153 percent.
By 1992, 91.4 percent of drug offenders in federal prison were African American. By 1995, 32 percent of all young Black men in the U.S. were on probation, in jail or prison. In 2024, African Americans, who make up about 11 percent of the population, constituted 38.9 percent of federal prison inmates. Between 1980 and 2013, spending on federal prisons shot up by almost 600 percent.
All this, even though the rate of violent crime peaked in 1991, crack cocaine use continued to decline and scientists concluded that, contrary to conventional wisdom, crack was not more potent than powder. Researchers found that most cocaine offenses do not involve weapons or bodily injury; the vast majority of those in prison are not drug kingpins, but street dealers and couriers who are rapidly replaced; there is no correlation between drug imprisonment rates in a particular state and rates of drug use; and mandatory minimum sentences are not a deterrent.
In response to these developments, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the 100-1 crack-to-powder ratio to 18-1 and ended mandatory minimum sentencing for simple possession of cocaine. The First Step Act, signed by Trump in 2018, increased opportunities for inmates to earn credit toward early release or pre-release custody in home confinement or a residential reentry center. And the legislation allowed judges to sentence low-level, non-violent offenders with minor criminal records to less than the required mandatory minimum.
Former Attorney General Merrick Garland, noting that still-existing differences in sentencing have 'no basis in science, further no law enforcement purposes and drive unwanted disparities in our criminal justice system,' in 2022 directed prosecutors 'to promote the equivalent treatment in crack and powder cocaine offenses.'
Biden's commutation takes a fully justified next step. He has also announced his opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, private prisons and cash bail requirements, and support for expunging convictions for marijuana offenses.
Perhaps surprisingly, since worries persist about crime even though it has declined significantly over the last couple of years, a substantial majority of Americans favor ending mandatory minimum sentences and investing in probation, parole and substance abuse treatment.
What will President Trump, a tough-on-crime politician if ever there was one, do? Here's a guess: The First Step Act is not likely to be followed by a second step anytime soon. Maybe Trump would consider it in a third term?
Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Poll shows low-profile New York City comptroller race narrowing in the home stretch
NEW YORK — A new poll shows the race for New York City comptroller tightening, with Justin Brannan narrowing the gap in a contest still led by Mark Levine. And with less than two weeks until the Democratic primary, nearly half of New Yorkers remain undecided in the race to be the city's top fiscal watchdog, according to the poll Brannan's team commissioned and shared in full with POLITICO. It was conducted by Public Policy Polling, and queried 573 likely primary voters between June 6 and 7, with a 4.1 percent margin of error. Levine, the Manhattan borough president, led Brannan — the City Council finance committee chair — 30 percent to 19 percent among likely Democratic voters, according to the poll. That same survey showed state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani leapfrogging Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary. The 11-point gap was smaller than a May 27 survey from Honan Strategy Group that had Levine at 38 percent and Brannan at 13 percent, a shift that left the Brooklyn lawmaker's team feeling bullish. Both surveys found 44 percent of likely voters undecided. 'A race that was once considered locked up is now anything but,' Brannan campaign adviser Alyssa Cass wrote in a campaign memo shared with POLITICO. 'As nearly half the electorate remains undecided, Brannan is the candidate with the most room to grow and the clearest path to an upset.' Brannan's team believes the tides will continue to shift in his favor. They cited the smaller gap that came after 10 days of going on air with a television ad along with a niche stat from their poll: Of voters who had seen Brannan's ads, they preferred him 40 percent to 37 percent. Those viewers, however, made up a small slice of the electorate at 23 percent. And it was unclear how many of those people knew of Levine or his campaign. Levine's camp countered that the polls have consistently shown him ahead of Brannan by double digits. And they touted the endorsement Wednesday night of a major municipal labor group. 'Mark has all the momentum in this race. We just earned the endorsement of the United Federation of Teachers, representing hundreds of thousands of NYC public school educators — adding to the 180-plus elected officials, faith leaders, labor unions and community groups backing our campaign,' Campaign Manager Matt Rubin said in a statement. 'Right now, we're focused on connecting with New Yorkers where they are — on the streets, at subway stops and at their doors.' A person on Levine's team also took issue with the survey methodology, suggesting it over sampled Brannan's home borough of Brooklyn — especially with affluent voters — and under sampled Black voters Levine is doing better with. The Public Policy Polling showed few New Yorkers have barely tuned into the contest: More than half of those surveyed had no opinion about the favorability of the two candidates, and around half of the likely Democratic primary voters had not seen an ad for either. Brannan and Levine were the only two comptroller candidates to qualify for a pair of televised debates, which mainly showcased how little they differ on policy. During their first meeting, they engaged in several back-and-forths over President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, but had a conspicuous aversion to talking about Andrew Cuomo, who at the time had been leading the mayoral Democratic primary in every poll.
CBS News
27 minutes ago
- CBS News
Bay Area solar owners could see tax credits slashed under Trump's spending bill
The budget bill being debated in Congress could have serious implications for a lot of industries, but some are saying it could be a disaster for the residential solar industry. Solar companies are already hurting from reductions in government subsidies, but a threat to eliminate the federal solar tax credit could be putting the industry on the verge of collapse. Solar power itself is a proven technology with a lot of benefits to offer as a clean, renewable source of energy. But right now, a lot of energy is going into just keeping the business alive. "I think the industry is going to go through some very hard times," said Severin Borenstein, faculty director at UC Berkeley's Haas Energy Institute. He said rooftop solar has gone through a lot of changes in the last few years, with the State reducing how much solar system owners are credited for the energy they produce. But lately things have been improving. "2024 was back to 2021 levels, so they had really recovered from a drop," said Borenstein. "But now, with what the Trump administration is doing, I think there's a lot of concern. There were already a lot of rooftop solar companies that had pretty tenuous financing and were having a hard time. And I think this is pushing some of them over the edge." He was talking about a Republican effort in the budget bill to eliminate the 30 percent federal tax credit given to people who install solar systems on their homes. That, along with the tariffs being imposed by President Trump, has solar industry insiders calling foul. "It's really sad to see solar energy being caught in partisan crosshairs," said Brad Heavner, executive director of the California Solar and Storage Association. "The sun is not Republican or Democrat. The need for more electricity is not Democrat or Republican. We need more energy in America and Congress has a role to play in making that happen." But right now, the role Congress is playing is to restrict rooftop solar, along with other renewable energies, in favor of older sources like fossil fuels and coal. The effect has already been devastating, with solar companies going bankrupt across the country. On Monday, solar giant Sunnova Energy filed for protection and last week, Solar Mosaic, a major lender in the business, also went belly up. But Gordon Johnson, founder of a research firm studying the industry, said the companies may have brought it on themselves simply by the way they did business. He said some misrepresented their costs to lenders in what he compared to a Ponzi Scheme. "The solar industry in the US is in a state of significant disarray. And it's not something that could not have been predicted," said Johnson. "They perpetually issue debt. These companies are always issuing debt. As soon as they can't issue debt, and they can't plug that hole of the actual cost of the system versus what they show Wall Street, they quickly go bankrupt." Higher interest rates and equipment cost inflation have also figured into the mix. One analysis found that, nationwide, more than $14 billion in clean energy and electric vehicles have been cancelled or delayed as a result. The prospects for the industry aren't good right now, but Joe Osha, an analyst for investment banker Guggenheim Securities, said rooftop solar should not be confused with the overall solar energy market. "In megawatt terms, I can tell you that the residential solar business, as visible as it is, is only a tiny fraction of the solar generation that gets added into this country each year," said Osha. "The vast majority of it are these large utility-scale solar farms. I don't see any scenario under which that utility-scale solar business collapses." That leaves residential solar twisting in the political wind. And experts are saying small companies that have been the backbone of California's solar revolution will have a hard time staying in business.
