<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

      <rss version="2.0">		
        <channel>
          <title>WashingtonWatch.com - Comments for S. 442, The John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007</title>
          <link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills</link>
          <description></description>
          <managingEditor>info@washingtonwatch.com</managingEditor>
          <generator>http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1</generator>
          
<item>
<title>Comment by PD in NJ (August 15, 2008, 16:20:37)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#40286</link>
<description>PD's in NJ are State employees, with salaries oftentimes higher than the county prosecutors.  Low end is $52k, up to $105k.  I'm at $71k right now, less than 5 years....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">40286@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:20:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by rb (August 15, 2008, 13:29:20)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#40267</link>
<description>You know I graduated from law school over a decade ago and I still have $100K in student loans.  Where was the help when I was a new attorney living in a studio apartment and having to defer my loans (and a huge capitalized long-run expense to me) in order to do public interest work.  I still can't afford to buy a house where I live. I've been a renter my entire professional life.  So I make a decent salary now, but you better believe it is fair to give me some student loan relief to make up for the YEARS of financial sacrifice I have put in already.  Unlike the student loan interest tax deduction (which didn't exist for years after I graduated, so I couldn't benefit from it), this law has the promise of maybe making up for some of the monetary hits people like me have been taking for years....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">40267@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:29:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Skip (August 10, 2008, 04:27:52)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#39981</link>
<description>My story:  9 years as attorney, 6 as ADA, make $49k, have not received pay increase in 3 years. $55k in loans.  With inflation at 3-4%, I can afford my job for another 18 months.  If you want the trial for the guy that raped/murdered/assaulted your loved one to be by a brand-new prosecutor, by all means, buy into the &quot;$80K&quot; crap, and don't support the bill.  Just don't come crying to me when the Defendant walks because the prosecutor was not experienced enough to get the conviction....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">39981@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:27:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Furrygoat (June 30, 2008, 09:14:35)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#38512</link>
<description>Are you guys serious with this 80K a year average nonsense???? IN NYC, arguably the busiest area in the nation for crime, the ADA's and Public Defenders do not start anywhere near 80K, nor do most ADAS or Public defenders ever see 80K as their salary. They hardly ever get raises. They start at 50K, and usually hover in that area for 3 or more years. Compare that to working at a firm in NYC where the starting salary could be as high as 165K. Gimme a break. They are by far the lowest paid lawyers in town. This bill helps a lot....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">38512@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:14:35 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Roy Cole (May 30, 2008, 21:14:25)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#36001</link>
<description>As a public defender who makes less than $36,000 per year I applaud this, our director makes about $80,000.00 per year but he has been doing this for thirty years.  We work thirty hours per week for them and then have to work another 30 hours per week to pay the bills.  Chicago is the exception, not the rule for most of us, I have to cover my own health insurance and have NO retirement, a little relief in paying my student loans, exceeding $90,000.00 even after 9 years in practice....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">36001@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 20:14:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by JH (March 21, 2008, 11:12:43)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#31600</link>
<description>With two working adults (prosecutor and teacher) in NJ we are barely making it.  The bill is a MUST....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">31600@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:12:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Mike Randolph (February 25, 2008, 19:27:11)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#30893</link>
<description>Jill,  There is a link to the bill at the top of this page: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#30864

I think the cap is $10,000 per year with a total cap of $60,000...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30893@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:27:11 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by AC (February 25, 2008, 13:05:34)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#30864</link>
<description>Being a second year law student who will have over 85 grand in loans upon graduation, the passing of this bill will be critical to my decision to go into the public sector.  If it passes I would love to take a job as a prosecutor, if it doesn't pass I honestly don't see myself taking the job as the starting salary in Georgia will be less than $40,000.  The passage of this bill will allow less privileged law students to consider entering the public sector.  I just don't think it's fair to see so many young lawyers struggle to make ends meet while working for the government. Speaking from first hand experience, the majority of students who consider taking jobs in the public sector are those on scholarship or those who have someone else paying for law school and this just shouldn't be the case....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30864@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:05:34 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Jill Ziegler (February 4, 2008, 20:12:13)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#30147</link>
<description>According to &quot;Steve&quot; who posted a commnet on the Washington Watch 
page regarding the college cost reduction act, there is a cap of
$65,000.00.  Can anyone verify this....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30147@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:12:13 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Ted Watson (February 4, 2008, 17:16:40)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#30139</link>
<description>Check the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is a $40,000 gap between the average salary for assistant public defenders and assistant tate's attorneys, and the lowest paid assistant state's attorneys and assistant public defenders. There is no doubt that in Alabama and Georgia the average salary for these attorneys is not close the average nationwide salary.  
My question is why include the relatively higher paid attorneys with the lower paid attorneys when providing Federal aid?  It does not help the lower paid folks to give a higher paid attorneys the break as well, and could hurt the goal of encouraging attorneys to practice in areas where attorneys have not been paid so much (because the pay gap remains the same since the $10,000 yearly break applies everywhere). And--in regions where public defenders and state's attorneys are alread well paid,  i only encourages people who have no care or concern about public service to obtain or keep these jobs....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30139@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:16:40 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Mike Randolph (January 31, 2008, 08:04:51)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#30032</link>
<description>Ted, could you please tell us where you get your figures from?  I don't know whether they are right or wrong for the country as a whole but I do know the average PD salary in Georgia is nowhere near $80,000....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30032@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:04:51 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Ted Watson (January 30, 2008, 20:46:55)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#30015</link>
<description>If this bill is not pre election special interest spending, I don't understand the reason behind this bill.  Why are all public defenders and state's attorneys, with their $80,000 average salary, which is about double what the average American earns, and a greater average salary than the typical career  private attorney, being given a $10,000.00 break. It seems this bill could only damage the public interest by adding to the deficit without any public benefit. What ever happened to ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. This bill reaks of trickel down economics which doesn't work....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30015@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:46:55 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Mike Randolph (December 30, 2007, 19:05:04)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#25880</link>
<description>Pete, Is there any reason DOJ, who is administering the money if I remember correctly, couldn't implement needs testing?  I had always assumed that is what they would do since $25 million at $10k per person would only cover 2,500 attorneys....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">25880@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:05:04 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Pete Vohrst (December 30, 2007, 17:36:24)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#25873</link>
<description>The problem with this bill is that unlike similar bills for teachers, firefighters, and attorneys who are not asas and assitant pds is that there is no needs requirement in this bill.  There are many people in all profession who are in similar situation as TPD above who will not receive any aid, while many asa's and assitatn pd's earn high salaries relative both to the rest of America and to the legal profession and will receive the extra $60k. If the politicians cared to be senible they would craft a bill to benefit folks based on need. Its seems that a terrible precedent is now set 
and aid is based on lobby efforts alone....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">25873@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:36:24 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by John Connelly (December 26, 2007, 13:55:47)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#25457</link>
<description>I think the point is that assistant public defenders and states attorneys already earn on average $10,000.00 per year more than attorneys in the private sector.  The loan problem is not unique to these higher paid attorneys.  Meanwhile, there a people who legitamately need government aid.  I think either the bill has not been signed by GWB yet, or it has just been signed as part of an umnibus Christmas spending package where GWB gets his pork war dollars and congress gets its pork spending all at the expense of the general public....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">25457@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:55:47 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Mike Randolph (December 17, 2007, 23:32:35)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#24849</link>
<description>It passed in the house on 5-15-07.  Check out the following link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-916

It was attached as an Amendment to S. 1642 (The Higher Education Amendments of 2007) and was passed on 7-24-07.  Check out the following two links for that:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1642

and

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amp;amdt=s2377

The whole legislative process give me somewhat of a headache but I think this means that it has passed and needs only to be funded.  Of course, I could be wrong....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">24849@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:32:35 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by tpb (December 17, 2007, 17:43:13)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#24811</link>
<description>Has anyone heard the latest status of the bill?  The last I heard was May 16, 2007: Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 149.  With every passing month, it looks less likely this will pass.  I am an ADA in Alabama and an heard a rumor that it would not be reached.  Personally, I have been with the DA's office six years and make 49k a year.  My student loans are over $800 a month.  I've been unable to afford buying a home and drive the same car from college barely able to afford repairs.  My wife, kids and I had to make it through all last week with $20 in the bank account until payday.  I love my job and this bill gave me hope that I would be able to remain.  Does someone have any new information on the status of the bill?...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">24811@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:43:13 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Michael A. Caves (November 24, 2007, 14:07:11)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#23643</link>
<description>There is intrinsic value in having competent DA’s/PD’s, and we must pay them accordingly. What is the value to the general public in having one more private law firm? Whatever the value, certainly it isn’t so great that government funds should go to private firms instead of government prosecutors/defenders. If a firm cannot pay you what you need, that firm is failing and the market can deal with it. If a firm can (but won’t) pay you what you need, why should the government subsidize that business practice? 
Government attorneys do not bill by the hour the way that private firms do. It takes legislative action for us to get a pay raise. We can’t just charge our clients more or change our business plan. Private firms should not be given federal aid just because they can’t compete. These are businesses; let the market deal with it. 
Finally, if the pay at these private firms is so low, leave! Come work for the government, since we are paid so well already!...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">23643@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:07:11 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Michael A. Caves (November 24, 2007, 14:05:30)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#23642</link>
<description>I fully support this bill, and the claim that small private firms need this aid more than prosecutors/PD’s is absurd. Private firms participate in a market; if new lawyers are not satisfied with their small firm pay, they can go to another firm, or go solo. There is no comparable market for government work; you can’t be a “solo” prosecutor/PD, and there usually are not competing prosecutor’s offices within the same jurisdiction. Private firms are profit-driven, and if a private firm isn’t paying you what you are worth, you switch to a private firm that can pay you what you need. In contrast, lawyers committed to government service as DA’s/PD’s but who need more money, can switch counties (but they will likely face the same problem) or go private. Meanwhile, the public suffers....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">23642@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:05:30 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by assistant pros ohio (October 30, 2007, 06:20:24)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#22605</link>
<description>this bill would be a life saver for me. Federal Prosecutors already have this perk, and our Senator Voinovich has intro'd a bill that would make this perk for Federal Prosecutors not be counted as 'taxable' income. what really needs to happen folks, is major reforms for student lending. Sallie Mae is way out of control...student loans are virtually never dischargable in bankruptcy, and collectors are not bound by the same rules as other lenders....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">22605@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:20:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Heads up (September 24, 2007, 13:58:32)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#21737</link>
<description>Maynard Saxby has it wrong.  The National Republicans have decided not put much funding in the 2008 race against Durbin.  If your from Illinois, against this bill and Dick Durbin's approach to student loan reform, and want to Dump Durbin in 2008 the best way may be to vote against Durbin in the Democratic primary....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">21737@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:58:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Dave (September 24, 2007, 13:54:21)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#21736</link>
<description>It is interesting that according to Dick Durbin's website, only 60 percent of all public defenders and states attorneys feel there is a need for this bill. This is curious because the public defenders and state's attorneys would only have a bias for this bill....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">21736@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:54:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Jack Ryan Toomey (September 17, 2007, 18:45:02)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#21484</link>
<description>Looks like this bill is going to be law soon. Interesting tidbit--The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports in its lead September 14, 2007 story that small firm attorneys earn on average $68,000.00--so there is already some dispartiy between public and private sector wages, with most private sector attorneys earning far less than public sector attorneys--this bill then only would widen the gap....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">21484@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:45:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by PG (September 13, 2007, 14:35:10)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#21304</link>
<description>BW--Congrats on your anticipated aid.  Maybe you use some of the  savings to buy me a beer and we can debate further....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">21304@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:35:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Maynard Saxby (September 13, 2007, 14:31:52)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_442.html#21303</link>
<description>BW is right. Instead of seeking to have the bill passed on its own, the Senate leaders opted to include the bill with the Higher Education Act which was approved.  This meathod is sneaky and helps get pork through, (but it also streamlines Senate procedure and saves taxpayer money that way.)  
There was more debate here than in the Senate. People should realize that the bill is very small by Federal Standards. Very few politicians care about $25 million spending and $.75 adds up very quickly, the last one may have been the Democrat Paul Tsongas who tragically died too soon.  Few pol's realize that creating 
special status often has unintended bad results.  Maybe George &quot;in his wisdom&quot; will veto the bill, so a more reasoned bill to help public defenders could be passed....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">21303@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:31:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
        </channel>
      </rss>
  		