www.thecentersquare.com – By Kim Jarrett | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-03-19 14:30:00
(The Center Square) – Butts County Sheriff Gary Long and Norcross Police Chief Bill Logan told a Georgia Senate committee Wednesday they are both concerned about safety around school zones.
But the two veteran law enforcement officers have different opinions about traffic cameras that record speeders.
A Senate Public Safety subcommittee is considering House Bill 225, which would ban the cameras. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Dale Washburn, R-Macon, who has previously called the cameras a “money grab.” The bill passed the House 129-37 earlier this month. The cameras were greenlighted by a bill passed in 2018.
Logan told the committee the cameras reduced traffic accidents from more than 2,000 a year to 1,200 in the 6.2 square-mile city he oversees. The revenue is used in his department for a variety of things, including two full-time mental health clinicians.
Long called the cameras “taxation by citation.”
“Right now it’s just policing for profit,” Long told the committee. “They can get all they want and a private company makes it. It just don’t sit right with me and it doesn’t sit right with my community that I’ve talked to that we have private companies that’s capitalizing on a criminal code section.”
Long has personal experience with tickets from the cameras, he said. His son was cited by one in Henry County. The sheriff said he received notice about a ticket written for a truck he had sold five years prior to the notice.
Washburn said previously he received a ticket because of one of the cameras, but that’s not why he was sponsoring the bill. Macon-Bibb County Government has collected $6.5 million since the implementation of the cameras, resulting in about $1 million for the camera company, according to Washburn.
Sen. Randy Robertson, R-Cataula, said he appreciated the large crowd that attended the three-hour meeting that began at 6 a.m., noting some did not get a chance to testify due to time constraints.
“I think we now have about six hours of testimony on these particular devices,” said Robertson, who is a retired law enforcement officer. “I’ll be completing my report and getting it back to Sen. (John) Albers post haste.”
Albers, R-Roswell, chairs the Senate Public Safety Committee.
SUMMARY: The Education Department announced a simplified process for universities to change college accreditors and plans to add more accreditors after pausing new applications under the Biden administration. College accreditation affects universities’ eligibility for federal student aid, with accreditors evaluating academic and operational standards. The move follows a Trump executive order aimed at reforming accreditation, promoting competition to lower college costs and improve outcomes. Education Secretary Linda McMahon emphasized reducing departmental gatekeeping and micromanagement. The Biden administration had previously implemented stricter rules, causing legal challenges. Trump viewed accreditation as a powerful tool in higher education policy.
SUMMARY: Thousands of protestors are set to gather nationwide on May Day to oppose the Trump administration’s policies, just days after President Trump’s 100th day in office. Demonstrators argue that Trump’s actions, including federal layoffs and cuts under the Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk, harm the working class. The 50501 organization, coordinating rallies across states like Arizona and New York, condemns efforts to erase labor rights, silence immigrant voices, and break unions. Protest focuses include divesting from Musk’s Tesla, protecting diversity programs, and supporting labor unions. Inspired by the 1971 May Day protests, the movement aims to challenge billionaire power and reclaim workers’ rights.
Childhood poverty doesn’t happen by accident – it is found at the intersection of poor public policy, generational poverty, and a lack of access to essential resources.
And while childhood poverty can’t be solved by one policy or organization alone it can be made much worse by removing one. Head Start is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs we have in the United States. Cutting it would have devastating effects on families and communities for generations to come.
At Helping Mamas, a baby supply bank, we see every day what happens when children and families get the support they need and what happens when they don’t.
Head Start is so much more than just a preschool program. It is a family-centered program where parents receive workforce development support, health education and parenting education. Children receive quality early learning instruction closing literacy and school readiness gaps. It is a lifeline where families feel safe, loved and seen.
Like many learning environments, Head Start Programs are often the heart of a community. Through my work with Helping Mamas I see Head Start utilizing our resources for diapers, wipes, car seats and other essential items. They became a place of safety during Hurricane Helene. They partnered with us to make sure that families in rural areas had access to essential items at their most vulnerable moments.
Head Start mobilizes the community to volunteer with children and parents. I know that when parents engage with Head Start they are getting the tools and support they need to break the cycle of generational poverty.
And I have to ask, in a time where the U.S. is consistently falling behind the world in academic achievement – particularly in math where U.S. students currently rank 28th globally – why would we cut a program that has shown to increase a child’s academic success all the way through college?
I believe that good public policy, when paired with adequate funding, has the power to transform lives. It always has.
And when you combine that with strong community partnerships, you’re not just supporting individual children — you’re investing in our future workforce, the long-term health of our communities, and the strength of our economy.
Nonprofits alone cannot and should not continue to be the public safety net for our children. Overcoming educational deficits and poverty takes a combined approach of nonprofits, communities and public policy. Remove even one piece of the foundation and the structure won’t hold – collapsing along with the futures of our children.
Every dollar invested in Head Start generates up to $9 in economic returns through increased earnings, reduced reliance on public assistance and lower involvement with the criminal justice system. It also increases parental employment and reduced child maltreatment rates.
Head Start was created as part of our country’s War on Poverty – because early childhood education, health care, and family support are not luxuries – they are necessities. Cutting Head Start doesn’t just impact our classrooms today – it threatens the future of our workforce, our economy and our country’s ability to compete on the world stage.
So I will ask again: Can we afford the cost of cutting Head Start Programs? I don’t think so. Our children don’t think so. And if our politicians are serious about creating a better future, they shouldn’t think so either.
This is more than a budget item, it is the future of our children and our communities. Let’s send the message that we cannot keep trying to balance a budget on the backs of our youngest most vulnerable citizens.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
SUBSCRIBE
Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Left-Leaning
This content strongly advocates for the preservation of the Head Start program, which is framed as a critical anti-poverty and educational tool for children. The language used emphasizes the benefits of government-funded initiatives and community partnerships, promoting the idea that such programs are essential to societal progress and economic well-being. The tone is persuasive, appealing to values of social equity and the long-term advantages of investing in early childhood education. This focus on the positive impact of government-supported programs and the critique of budget cuts reflects a left-leaning perspective on social welfare and education policy.
