T he United States, the world’s leading manufacturer of prisoners, has an incarceration problem. A rapid rise in incarceration rates has crippled the U.S. over the past three decades. During these years, the number of inmates in U.S. prisons has risen 500 percent. As a result, the United States pays $80 billion annually in incarceration costs. $80 billion. That’s money that could go toward keeping Social Security solvent, supporting climate change research or rebuilding infrastructure. But in the United States, we spend it on putting citizens behind bars. American imprisonment habits are not normal, by the way. The U.S. has a prison population of nearly 2.2 million people, compared with China’s 1.5 million (despite the fact that, in 2011, China’s population was four times as large) and Great Britain’s mere 80,000. Are Americans just more dangerous? What’s going on? In truth, there isn’t a problem with Americans. There is, however, a problem with American laws. Federal mandatory minimum-sentence laws cause the economic and cultural disaster known as mass incarceration. Current law dictates that judges must hand down minimum sentences for a variety of crimes, ranging from immigration offenses to illegal food stamp activity to bank robbery. Mandatory minimums are fiscally and socially destructive; they create one-size-fits-all sentences that lengthen jail time for undeserving criminals and cost taxpayers money. The incarceration process is unfair and we can’t afford it anymore. The fix is simple: stop locking so many people up. To do this, we need a safety valve — exceptions to minimums that provide ways in which judges can avoid handing down harsh punishments that too often have unjust, unintended results. For example, statutory laws might force a judge to sentence someone to 10 years in prison for selling pot. If, however, the judge sees the person he’s sentencing has no criminal history and no history of violence, he can adjust the verdict to something less life-altering by way of the safety valve. Safety valves can be incredibly powerful in fighting the mass incarceration crisis; this is why U.S. law already dictates one. The current safety valve is described in § 3553(f) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Under the provision, federal judges are to hand down sentences “without regard to any statutory minimum sentence” when five requirements are met. Good news, right? There’s an issue: The aforementioned safety valve applies only to first-time, nonviolent drug offenders in cases not involving guns. This is a ridiculously narrow offering. Since the provision applies only to first-time offenders, even the most minor misconduct has disqualifying power. So, too, does possession of a gun, even one that is registered. The safety valve must expand across the board for all federal crimes. The existing one-size-fits-all system of judicial sentencing leads to too many unwarranted punishments, which, in turn, have drastic negative effects on the economy. More money is spent keeping prisons running, while fewer able- bodied Americans can supply the workforce. The country’s social atmosphere also takes a hit, as high incarceration rates break up families and induce this crushing statistic: In 2010, 1 in 28 American children had a parent behind bars. Having a parent in jail can be detrimental to a child’s well-being. A report from the Urban Institute found these kids are more likely to experience chronic sleeplessness, difficulties concentrating and restlessness. They also are more likely to have problems with depression, anxiety or aggression. Put it all together and we’re left with a vicious cycle that not only damages the U.S. economy, but also leaves kids parentless and, often, emotionally scarred. The Justice Safety Valve Act proposes a broad policy that applies to all federal crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences. The bill requires nothing of federal judges, since they would still be able to sentence at or beyond the mandatory minimum. The plan would simply give judges more flexibility. It’s safe to assume that U.S. incarceration rates would shrink if this bill is passed. Taxpayer money could flow back toward rebuilding highways and revamping our education system, and parents would spend less time behind bars and more time watching their children grow up. Unfortunately, the Justice Safety Valve Act was introduced last May in the Senate and hasn’t been touched since. Lawmakers don’t seem to realize the positive economic and cultural effects that would come out of its passage. In essence, it’s a common- sense idea: Judges should have a high degree of flexibility when making their decisions. Of course, the far-reaching issue of mass incarceration won’t be solved with the passage of one law. But attacking the problem will take time and effort. Why not start with a piece of legislation that saves taxpayers money and gives our federal judges a little more flexibility? I opened my computer last Monday night and saw so many posts with #MeToo. Curious about what it was all about, I turned to Google. On Oct. 15, actress Alyssa Milano tweeted, “Suggested by a friend: If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.” I kept scrolling and scrolling through the posts, shocked to see my peers, teachers and family members post openly about their sexual abuse and harassment stories. I couldn’t believe the number of posts there were, and I felt comforted by the number of allies I had to relate to and share my experiences with. I, too, could have posted #MeToo, but I didn’t. While I respect and understand how survivors could feel personally supported in posting this, I also found it oversaturated social media and resulted in a less impactful message. I couldn’t help but think about the large audience who would be viewing these posts: men. While 1 in 6 men are sexually abused or assaulted, the rates for women are much higher. Don’t get me wrong: I want to raise awareness about this movement. I am also a victim of systematic sexism and want to create change for myself and others. Women should be treated with respect in all facets of their lives, and their experiences of hurt and trauma should not be brushed under the rug. But in that moment, I thought I didn’t have to share my story because so many others did. I have always felt my experience was not as traumatic as others, which is why I didn’t post about it. I felt I would have exaggerated my experiences by posting about it. But when I thought about this idea in the context of voting in an election, I realized the invalidity of my claim. Every vote counts, and in this situation, every person who has experienced sexual assault in any capacity counts. Even though I don’t like to plaster my opinion all over the internet, I still see the value in #MeToo. I know that I am not alone in feeling hesitation to share a controversial opinion via the internet. A lot of the time, young women are afraid to spark controversy in fear of the backlash we will receive from others. Men hold so much power within our society that women’s voices can often be overshadowed or disregarded. Women are conditioned to believe that their opinion is inferior to that of men. Women who were assaulted by Harvey Weinstein were afraid to speak out about their experiences in fear of losing their jobs, social status and reputation. The power men hold in society has been around for centuries, and though women have come so far in the struggle for gender equality, like gaining the right to vote and equal minimum wage for men and women, we still have a long way to go. This was the first time I noticed women’s voices elevated over men’s. This made me realize how powerful we can be and that we need to move beyond speaking out only when something bad happens. We need to take proactive action and talk about these hardships even when they aren’t trending in pop culture. The stories of hurt and abuse through #MeToo are very powerful, and I have respect for those brave enough to share their experiences. Though I did not post, I had many intelligent conversations with men and women who were deeply shocked by what had happened and are ready to raise awareness and advocate for change. I am not expecting sexual assault to evaporate from society overnight, but it is the small conversations in coffee shops or dorm rooms that allow us to confide in one another to create change. Whether these conversations planted seeds in the minds of others or a conversation gave new perspective about these issues, the way we discuss with those around us has potential for stepping one step closer to equality. In order to make change, we should share our knowledge and experiences with others all the time — not just when a hashtag is trending. Opinion The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4A — Thursday, October 26, 2017 REBECCA LERNER Managing Editor 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. EMMA KINERY Editor in Chief ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY and REBECCA TARNOPOL Editorial Page Editors Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Breaking the silence MICHELLE PHILLIPS | COLUMN Solving our prison problem BILLY STAMPFL | COLUMN Carolyn Ayaub Megan Burns Samantha Goldstein Caitlin Heenan Jeremy Kaplan Sarah Khan Anurima Kumar Max Lubell Lucas Maiman Alexis Megdanoff Madeline Nowicki Anna Polumbo-Levy Jason Rowland Anu Roy-Chaudhury Ali Safawi Sarah Salman Kevin Sweitzer Rebecca Tarnopol Stephanie Trierweiler Ashley Zhang Billy Stampfl can be reached at bstampfl@umich.edu. JOE IOVINO | JOE CAN BE REACHED AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU Hawkishness and hypocrisy BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN I f you’ve been following the developing story about the Trump administration’s response to the deaths of four American soldiers in Niger earlier this month, chances are you have some questions. After brushing up on your geography, you might ask, for instance, what were U.S. armed forces doing there in the first place? You wouldn’t be alone in wondering this. In fact, you would be in the company of at least two U.S. senators. Last Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who sits on the Committee on Armed Services, admitted on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he was not even aware of a U.S. presence in Niger. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., echoed a similar sentiment in another interview on the same day. Beyond the eye-catching headlines about a feud between the commander in chief and members of Gold Star families — and a circus of punditry about indecency that should no longer be shocking to anyone anymore — the timing of such a display of ignorance reflects something frightening. This country’s military spending is out of control, and the only people who can rein it in are either too scared or too oblivious to even bring it up for debate. Last Thursday night, the Senate passed its budget resolution for the fiscal year 2018 by a vote of 51-49. Though this vote may not have been surrounded by as much media coverage as the health care vote was in July, it was equally dramatic. Perennial nonconformist Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., broke ranks with his party to oppose the measure, eliciting an avalanche of criticism from his Republican colleagues. His opposition was based primarily in $43 billion of increased military spending that would use a loophole to exceed limits set in 2011. Not one of his 51 fellow members of the GOP, all of whom no doubt campaign on that phrase conservatives so like to use — “balancing the budget” — seemed to agree. In doing so, Paul solidified his position as one of the few members of Congress who has not rolled over in the face of President Trump’s massive hikes in military spending. In September, he was one of only eight senators to vote against the administration’s $700 billion defense policy bill, which included increased funding nearly across the board, shelling out billions at a time. This group included five (yes, only five) Democrats. The rest of the so-called liberal opposition party took out their rubber stamps and issued bland statements about how proud they were to be supporting the brave men and women of our military. I’d like to pause here for a minute and make clear that I, too, respect these brave men and women. I appreciate their service and all that they do to make this country, and in many cases the world, a safer place. Furthermore, I’m neither an isolationist nor a pacifist. I understand the importance of a global U.S. presence, and I’m not advocating for an end to defense spending. But a few things need to be established. First of all, the Republicans who champion these hikes should no longer be permitted to brand themselves as champions of fiscal conservatism. Writing checks for billions of dollars at a time to expand a sector that already accounts for such an enormous portion of the national budget and claiming prudence are mutually exclusive actions. Defense spending was only just projected to be returning to peacetime levels thanks to de-escalation in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these developments show that it is poised to climb back up. These are the same officials who target funding for National Public Radio and the National Endowment for the Arts in their efforts to rein in spending, which is a bit like buying a Rolls Royce and then complaining that the $3 air freshener you bought to hang from the rearview mirror is what broke the bank. Second of all, Democrats must be made to answer for these votes in the future. With the exception of the five aforementioned senators — Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.; Kirstin Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Ron Wyden, D-Ore. — all 43 others, many of whom have hopes for 2020, need to explain how approving this runaway train works toward a more progressive future with better jobs, better health care and better education. Democratic primary voters should remember this vote in three years as they evaluate names like Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; and Cory Booker, D-N.J. In a broader sense, is the party really so inept that it cannot formulate an argument that says simply, “We respect the military as much as the next guy, but sometimes the more patriotic thing to do is to spend that dollar in a classroom and not researching self-driving tanks?” Finally, the shocking lack of oversight is unsustainable. There’s not much to say here other than if the military expects nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to be at its disposal on an annual basis, it’s not too much to ask for senators on the Committee of Armed Services to know where that money and those troops are going. In the Declaration of Independence, in between grievances about taxation and representation, one of the most severe charges against King George III was that he had “render(ed) the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” This foundational skepticism played a pivotal role in the formation of the executive branch and the status of the president as a civilian commander in chief. Essential to American democracy is the idea that the military reports to us. Today, I cannot even write an article questioning an increase in defense spending without feeling as if I need to include a paragraph qualifying my respect for the troops. Hawkish politicians funnel money into the armed services at historic levels, nearly without a second thought. Our military is romanticized, idealized and elevated to the point that its entitlement to nearly 20 percent of the national budget is a given and to question it would be considered unpatriotic. The Senate just approved more money for military action its members don’t even know is taking place. That skepticism is gone. We need it back. Brett Graham can be reached at btgraham@umich.edu. BRETT GRAHAM MICHELLE PHILLIPS Michelle Phillips can be reached at mphi@umich.edu. SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and its corresponding personal, academic and legal implications. Submission information can be found at https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.