steve

Local and State governments are not broke. Show me a town that can't keep its library open, has shut down its schools, and has no money to pay the town council, and I'll show you a town that might need Federal assistance. However, as long as Uncle Sam is willing to take money from one town to give to another, towns and States don't have to make the tough decisions they need to make.

Birmingham Ala., and Harrisburg PA filed for bankrupcty. Vallejo California just emerged from bankruptcy after three years.They cut police forces, fire department, libraries... etc,.
Apparently there are a large number preparing for this step. Over 100.
But I think your right about tough decisions,. Vallejo managed to get into trouble mostly because of crazy large pension obligations..
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16135233

Great chapter on Vallejo in Michael Lewis' book Boomerang. Public safety pensions out of control (as they are nationwide) because during the fat years people behaved as if time would always be good and, even then, would not vote for the taxes but would vote for the (deferred) spending.

The problem is not the one that wrong wingers are currently banging on about - that lefties want to take money from productive citizens and transfer it to unproductive wasters but that citizens of all stripes have long cast their votes for politicians who overpromise and then borrow (or steal?) from the future. Citizens under 18 (not to mention the unborn and unconceived) don't get a vote - but they'll sure pay for our bad judgement.

On topic - the current prices in the horse race

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres12_WTA.cfm

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'. And, if States are cutting back, what is so desperately wrong with helping them to not cut back on one of the essentials of governance - policing and civil protection?

Um, we don't do "national police." It's not in the Constitution, it's not our tradition, and it is way too centralized.

In other words the dogma of Constitutionalism, the dogma of small-c conservatism, and the dogma of, ummm, dogma. Of course, you do have national policing, and it appears to be Constitutional.

Really? What is our "national policing?"

Hint: do some research before you answer so you don't look like a clown.

Perhaps you misread my question, so I'll highlight the bit you appeared to miss...

"Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'.

I guess it's too late. You've put the make-up on and all that.

If the Constitution doesn't specify the Federal government can do something, it can't. We went quite some time without an FBI, an IRS, etc. And, they are limited to specific roles. They are not a "national police force" and no one has seriously proposed one. We have this problem with an overbearing central government--I think it has something to do with redcoats.

Did I say they should fund 100% of policing? Nope. I think there are national, regional and local components. The reality of the modern world is that crime easily crosses parochial borders. Why should we be hidebound in how we pay to fight it?

There is no reason for someone in MA to pay for policemen in IA. None. Iowa can raise its own taxes, determine its own priorities, and hire its own cops. There is no reason for someone in DC to skim off the top before forwarding money to Iowa. The people of Iowa, and every other State, can respond appropriately to their own needs. They don't need Uncle Joe Biden to tell them what they need.

I see no reason why States and local communities cannot be responsible for how and where funds are spent, or for raising a large proportion of the money for their own needs and setting priorities

Again, you've missed the point. States are independent when it comes to powers not granted to the Federal government. This is no more a Federal issue than cleanliness of restaurants. You may love your centralized bureaucracies. We don't.

However, the sheer number of different law enforcement agencies across the USA, with competing jurisdictions and priorities is boggling. Crime is a national problem, and the 'tradition' of parochial policing only serves to help criminals.

Nonsense. Prove it.

FBI, ATF, DEA are all national policing agencies. They certainly qualify as national, being Federally organised and funded with a nationwide jurisdiction.

They are also involved in policing. They investigate crime. They have the powers of arrest and detention. In what way are they not national policing? They may not be a police 'force', but that's not what I was saying and you know it. They have limited powers, as you say, and they are relatively recent, but you cannot deny their existence despite the Constitution, tradition or whatever reason you claim the US just does not 'do' national policing.

By the way, you may not be aware of how the UK is policed. Like the USA there are national agencies, but also like you we have regional police forces (40-odd at last count). Those are administered partly under the Home Office, but also via local police authorities which involve representatives from the local governments the forces' areas cover. They are largely funded by central government, but also through local taxation - with each police authority determining the level on property tax.

So, it's not a 'national bureaucracy'. Personally I think it is still disjointed (but then again I live in a place where three Police Forces other than my local one have jurisdiction within 15 miles of my home. That doen't include national agencies (usually run through the Met).

Of course, the FBI and federal involvement derive from the Constitutional decision in Wabash (1887) which cited the Fourteenth Amendment, which only came in in 1868. The point being that the Constitution of 1789 is not static, and neither is reality (local and State policing were very different 200 years ago). Oh, and national policing going back to the FBI's predecessor the BOI is over 100 years old, and constitutes the majority of the time since the relevent Constitutional Amendment.



edit: Interestingly, the history of Statewide policing is not much older. Massachusetts has the oldest statewide police agency, the MSP, which was founded in 1865. It was pretty small, only expanding to 50 officers in 1921 when it was decided to use it to cover holes in local policing in rural areas.

'we didn't do it before' is not reason alone to not change, or States would not have their own police / highway patrol services.

Oh!

I was forgetting the US Marshals, who were set up in 1789 with the primary function of law enforcement, although they have had many other tasks in their past.

They had the power to form posses, they pursued counterfeiters until 1865, they enforced the 1798 Sedition Act, they enforced the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, they were famously active in law enforcement in the 'Old West' in the late 19th Century, they assisted Internal Revenue agents in enforcing the 1872 whiskey taxes (because they had the power of arrest and the IR agents did not), they were ther principle enforcers of Prohibition laws, they provided protection during the Civil Rights disputes...

source: http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/timeline.html

Then there's the US Parks Police (1791) and the US Mint Police (1792). Are you going to contend that they were not national, Federal policing organisations too?

As for the numbers of seperate police agencies, it really is boggling to me. There are tens of thousands of different police forces. You have municipal departments, county departments, city departments, state forces and federal bureaus. The main issue with such a mulitplicity is sharing of information. Great strides have been made recently, such as COPLINK, but they will only be effective when all agencies are sharing, and the more different bodies involved the greater the likelihood of error and leaks.

While police departments operate within arbitrary political boundaries, both geographical and in terms of authority, it's patently obvious that crime and criminals can operate across those jurisdictions. With so many organisations potentially involved you will have the problems of overlap (inefficient duplication of effort or time wasted on debates over who has precedence) or gaps. Who benefits from gaps between policing agencies?

Also, the training requirements for police officers varies wildly. Local sheriffs are elected usually, and so are not necessarily trained as a city Captain would be. Again, this ought to be concern, as no matter the locality or the role, there really should be consistent standards for police officers. Inadequate training, different protocols, etc can provide criminals with loopholes and freedom to operate.

Crime, like legal enterprise, is not just less and less local, it's becoming more than just national... it's more and more an international phenomenon. Crimes in one area can and do affect other areas. A classic example is the drugs trade, which involves cross-border smuggling - an international issue and certainly a federal one - but also feeds all the way down to being a leading cause of petty thefts at local levels.

Getting back to Danivon's original question:

Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'. And, if States are cutting back, what is so desperately wrong with helping them to not cut back on one of the essentials of governance - policing and civil protection?

For me it is a question of why the states found themselves with a shortfall and how much debt should the feds incur to fund this. The vast majority of us agree that public safety and education are important. However, if the states are broke because they made promises that they could not keep, to pay for unusually generous pensions which they never accounted for, then is the right answer to bail them out or is the right answer to fix the underlying problem. If you overlay our massive federal deficits into the equation, then I think that the states have to first learn fiscal responsibility.

Of course, the problem is that if you do all you can to avoid the moral hazard of bailing out states in financial difficulty in a time of recession and high debts, how do you know they will make the right decisions on what to cut when taking responsibility? Pensions may be tough, but they tend to be contractual so you can't just slice through them, only renegotiate the terms going forward.

Of course you could try to impose both fiscal repsonsibility and a requirement to fully fund essential services first, but that would presumably offend those who oppose centralised diktats. But, if a state (or city, or county, or town) is cutting police numbers as part of an effort to balance the books, and the only 'control' is a future election that may perhaps punish the administration, what do the people affected by crime do in the meantime?

And if a Stae or city does fail, who would end up having to pick up the pieces? Is a bailout now that much worse than a bailout following a collapse? Is waiting for a desperate need for Federal Aid really much better in terms of practicalities or principle?

I know this may be piling on but ....

The Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) is a United States federal law enforcement agency under the supervision of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Air Marshal Service is meant to promote confidence in civil aviation by effectively deploying federal air marshals (FAMs) to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting the United States.

Because of the nature of their occupation, federal air marshals (FAMs) travel often. They rank among those Federal law enforcement officers that hold the highest standard for handgun accuracy.[2] A FAM's job is to blend in with other passengers on board aircraft and rely heavily on their training, including investigative techniques, criminal terrorist behavior recognition, firearms proficiency, aircraft specific tactics, and close quarters self-defense measures to protect the flying public.[2]

danivon wrote:Of course, the problem is that if you do all you can to avoid the moral hazard of bailing out states in financial difficulty in a time of recession and high debts, how do you know they will make the right decisions on what to cut when taking responsibility? Pensions may be tough, but they tend to be contractual so you can't just slice through them, only renegotiate the terms going forward.

Of course you could try to impose both fiscal repsonsibility and a requirement to fully fund essential services first, but that would presumably offend those who oppose centralised diktats. But, if a state (or city, or county, or town) is cutting police numbers as part of an effort to balance the books, and the only 'control' is a future election that may perhaps punish the administration, what do the people affected by crime do in the meantime?

And if a Stae or city does fail, who would end up having to pick up the pieces? Is a bailout now that much worse than a bailout following a collapse? Is waiting for a desperate need for Federal Aid really much better in terms of practicalities or principle?

Perhaps in many instances the State has the resources that they need, but they won't do what they have to do unless someone enforces budgetary discipline. If you can easily get a bail out you may not look hard enough for an alternative solution.

A basic unwillingness or inability to tax and spend in order to balance a budget comes about because politiicians are always in campaign mode. Making unrealistic promises. Moreover, the implications of citizens referendums on tax rates (like in California) seems to end up with the desire for a level of service but the unwillingness to tax at the level required to deliver the service.

One of the things that happen when states go into austerity programs, is they often stop spending on two of the things that contribute most to a strong and healthy economy.

In 1990, the economist David ­Aschauer calculated that 57 percent of the loss of productivity in the U.S. economy since 1970 had to do with the decline in investment in infrastructure. Subsequent research showed that spending on education also has a big multiplier effect. R&D spending has helped create the innovation for which the U.S. economy is famous. And yet, such spending has declined significantly the past few decades. We think that government has grown over this period, but really it is transfer payments — Social Security and Medicare — that have ballooned. Government investment in education, science and infrastructure has declined as a share of the economy since the 1970s

Washington Post : Zakkaria

Since the Whiskey Rebellion theres always been a faction of Americans railling about over taxation. But most of the modern attitude goes back to the Conservative use of the Laffer Curve to try and justify enormous tax cuts by Reagan. Ron was responsible enough to realize that the equation wasn't working and raised taxes 11 times after his big cut ...but somehow the myth lived on that it was possible to generate revenue without taxing as much....
When deficits don't mattter, politically, at the highest level, (Reagan being a consummate politiican and sales man) that eventually transfers down to a similarly irresponsible attitude at State and Municipal levels....
Grover Norquists "pledges" are the kind of simplistic nonsense that ends debate, when a far ranging debate is required. Part of which has to be a realization of the historical importance of public spending to the growth of prosperity in the US. And a realization that debt is created not just by over spending but also by unrealistic expectations about taxation.
Examples: We can't keep increasing military spending without increased taxation. What would happen then, to demands for increased military spending?
Examples: We can't provide Medicare to retirees without increases in taxation. What then?
Unfortunately a reasoned debate about the appropriate balance between taxes and expenditures always gets weighed down by simplistic ideology - the hard decisions get kicked down the road - and debt grows. At every level of government.

I don't think they really have been 'easy', and most states have a balanced budget amendment (BBA) anyway, yet some still end up imperfect. I think Vermont and Indiana are exceptional in not having to balance their budgets.

So, if States are asking / needing / being forced to be bailed out even with a BBA, and coincidentally during and just after a deep recession which puts great fiscal pressures on (notwithstanding any long term commitments) due to reduced tax income and increased demand for services, perhaps fiscal responsibility is not actually the be-all and end-all.

There seems to be a cause-and-effect dissonace going around. Public debt did not cause the recession (it was private debt that did that) but public debt will be seriously worsened by a recession. You don't cure the disease by only thinking about one symptom, you have to go to the root.

and if everyone, private and public, is cutting back, where will economic growth come from? The UK has just re-entered recession and yet before Austerity became the policy of the new government we were in recovery. The effect of that recession will be further fiscal pressure. Conservatives will say we need more cuts, when some of us think the speed and extent of cuts is what caused our 'stagflation' of the past year or so.

Our government cut policing budgets. Crime and the perception of crime is going up. I would not wish that on your country for the sake of avoiding 'moral hazard', frankly.

danivon

The UK has just re-entered recession and yet before Austerity became the policy of the new government we were in recovery

Austerity from government in a recession is reminescent of the old medical practice of "bleeding".

Tell it to George Osborne and David Cameron. The sheer waste of it all is what annoys me most.