It turns out the Democrats aren’t soft on crime at all
Forget these Soros DAs. Forget “defund the police” – you must have imagined it. Forget the Floyd riots and the open borders.
Forget it all, because of Biden’s proposed new budget:
The plan sent to Congress allocates more than $32 billion to fighting crime, especially violent crime, with $20.6 billion going to the Department of Justice and $3.2 billion in discretionary resources for funding local and state law enforcement, much of it in the form of grants to hire more police officers. About $30 billion in mandatory resources will be funneled to “support law enforcement, crime prevention, and community violence intervention.”
The proposal directs $17.4 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion above the 2021 amount, for DOJ law enforcement. That sum includes $1.7 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to crack-down on gun-trafficking. U.S. Attorneys will be given $72.1 million to prosecute violent crimes.
What could possibly go wrong? Well, for starters, increased federal government involvement for any policing that is done on the local level is worrisome. Federal money equals federal control.
Here’s an indication of the sort of thing going on:
While the budget appears to be aimed at boosting police numbers and resources to tackle crime, it does so while treating national gun proliferation as a primary culprit, promising to “increase regulation of the firearms industry, enhance ATF’s National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, and modernize the National Tracing Center.” The plan also emphasizes police accountability, acquiescing to progressive pressure after the wave of social justice riots during the summer of 2020 that alleged widespread police brutality.
There’s also this little tidbit:
The White House is also requesting funds for the Department of Justice for police reform, prosecuting hate crimes, and enforcing voting rights. The proposal is for $367 million, an increase of $101 million from fiscal 2021.
That would include $18 million for the FBI to investigate civil rights violations, $8 million for the U.S. attorneys’ offices to prosecute civil rights violations, and $1 million for the Criminal Division to expand its investigations of election related crimes, such as voter suppression.
I’d love to hear their definition of “voter suppression.” Could it possibly include things like voter IDs and other requirements the GOP is trying to protect in order to prevent voting fraud? And then there are those hate crimes. “Hate crime” is a category of crime that doesn’t add much to the criminal code except the opportunity to place people in double jeopardy by prosecuting them at the federal level if the state hasn’t managed to convict them.
Local police, yes. DOJ, no.
Progressives have long wanted to federalize the police. They’d love to have a single national police force and do away with all those annoying little state, county, city, town, and village police forces. That way they could centralize all law enforcement under one wonderful top down agency with overwhelming power to do whatever they like to uppity citizens who don’t always do as they’re instructed by their betters in DC.
This is a real Trojan horse. Very, very scary. Obama was talking about this from the early days of his first campaign with his calls for a “National Security Force.”
Very concise and correct Kate.
One of the things that I’ve noticed is that aside from the criminal statutes, the metrics that communities and politicians set up to evaluate police performance and promotions seem to be enormously influential and effective in directing police efforts.
In the Rotherham UK sex grooming scandal, stopping those crimes just didn’t score very high. With the Korean serial killer, Yoo Young-chul, he switched to killing prostitutes, but because the whole area of prostitution was largely ignored by police (because of formal or informal performance metrics) the killings went unnoticed for some time.
Money probably talks the loudest, but it’s not the only influencer which I think the White House and DOJ understands.
It’s just like the Democratic Party. Build patron-client relationships so members of Congress can put nonsense on their campaign brochures (which will be recycled by local media).
The justification for strings-attached grants to state and local government is pretty much nil. There are a few areas for which it might be justified: (1) financing Indian reservations (where live about 0.2% of the population of the United States); (2) disaster relief (on which federal expenditures are surprisingly modest); and (3) indemnities paid to localities for torts resulting from the regulatory process (say, a ruling which requires capital expenditures to upgrade your sewer system, when said system was compliant previously).
Cut a no-strings-attached check to each state and territorial government amounts to be determined by a formula. That will serve as a riser on which the more impecunious states can stand (while affluent jurisdictions like Connecticut, New Jersey, and DC remain entirely self-financed). They then fill out their treasury with their local revenues and decide on their own priorities without federal priming. Grants to state-affiliated public corporations (like state universities) and subsidies to members of the public to make use of their services would be nil.
The states themselves could distribute such grants to county governments and school districts and the counties could distribute such to the municipalities therein. All the blather from liberals of a certain vintage about how states and localities ‘cannot afford’ this or that would be rendered nonsense if you make the grants large enough (3.5% of gross domestic product for the federal-to-state grants would do).
Of course, it will never happen. Only someone fairly outré in the congressional Republican caucus would advocate it. (And most of the fairly outré characters therein might prefer to abolish all federal-to-state grants).
Progressives have long wanted to federalize the police. They’d love to have a single national police force and do away with all those annoying little state, county, city, town, and village police forces.
Disagree. I’ve never heard this advocated by anyone. The left in my lifetime is either indifferent to law enforcement à la Michael Dukakis or favors replacing it with social work.
Local police, yes. DOJ, no.
We might consider at the federal level following the state-and-local pattern and distribute law enforcement among a half-dozen departments with distinct functions. One department would prosecute cases (criminal and civil); one would run the prisons, jails, and specialty detention centers; one would provide security on federal property and extensions thereof (like cyber security and dignitary protection); one would be a largely plainclothes force of roving agents investigating violations of federal law, and one would be a miscellany department containing stationary forces (e.g. point-of-entry inspectorates), consultative services for state police, data collection, U.S. Marshals &c. The armed services (which employ MPs and have auxilliary investigation bureaux run by civilians) and the civil defense services (which include the Coast Guard) would have their hand in.
One thing that should be done is for the federal criminal code to be scarified and the sentencing schedule recalibrated.
Oh they fight crime alright. Remember Kim Potter? Now this: Former nurse found guilty in accidental injection death of 75-year-old patient
This should have been a civil matter, but not it is criminal. The ramifications will be felt just like “defund the police”. Here’s a comment by the DA when the Medical Examiner testified the cause of death was likely not from the error:
“I don’t mean to be facetious,” Strianse said of the medical examiner’s testimony, “but it sort of sounded like some amateur CSI episode — only without the science.”
Get that? The DA thinks a TV show does science and the Medical Examiner does not.
I’ve never heard this advocated by anyone.
Now you have:
Pull quote: Federalizing most local police departments surely would be complicated and messy — but likely not as difficult as creating an entirely new cabinet department in less than two years, as the Federal Government did with the Department of Homeland Security, in response to the September 11 attacks.
Now you have:
That’s one guy on the faculty of Drexel in Philadelphia, writing less than two years ago.
I read the headline that the NYT is calling this budget a move to the middle. Middle of what, who knows. I am afraid that we are not anywhere near the damage that Biden and his crew will inflict on the US, and the World.
but likely not as difficult as creating an entirely new cabinet department in less than two years, as the Federal Government did with the Department of Homeland Security, in response to the September 11 attacks.
He’s either shameless or hopeless. Homeland Security was an assemblage of already existing federal agencies. The only agency created de novo was the Transportation Security Administration, which made local baggage screeners federal employees and added some terminally bored security officers to airline flights. Can I have Prof. Whatshisname’s job? I’m not shameless and I’m only moderately hopeless.
Art, I could provide you more links, but I know you’ll refuse to change your mind. I was simply discrediting you for others. Then again, I’m sure most of us are aware of the Democrat’s police reform bill that failed last year. Per various reports at the time, it failed because enough legislators thought it went too far in federalizing police. I’m sure you’ll claim that supports your statement that “nobody is calling for federalization” despite it being debated in Congress just a year ago.
As for DHS, I agree that it is a useless federal department that put together most, but not all, federal police forces. That was done by a Republican President, who thought among other things that transportation law enforcement needed to be federalized.
How about just not spending the money at all. In a Federal government, which is supposed to be what we have, haha, these are strictly state and local issues. I know, I’m wildly out of step, but still.
Arrest Hunter Biden first.
“The White House is also requesting funds for the Department of Justice for police reform, prosecuting hate crimes, and enforcing voting rights. The proposal is for $367 million, an increase of $101 million from fiscal 2021.”
“ That would include $18 million for the FBI to investigate civil rights violations, $8 million for the U.S. attorneys’ offices to prosecute civil rights violations, and $1 million for the Criminal Division to expand its investigations of election related crimes, such as voter suppression.”
That’s an awful lot of money to fight cleaning up election fraud. Enforcing voter rights, etc is Dem code speak for enabling ballot fraud by, for example, limiting mail in balloting to people who actually can’t get to the polls, as well as to citizens, residents, etc.
Art, I could provide you more links, but I know you’ll refuse to change your mind. I was simply discrediting you for others.
About what are you attempting to change my mind? And what’s your definition of ‘discredit’? If it actually has been an object of the left to federalize policing (and an object of longstanding), we’d all know about it. You finding six people who’ve advocated it isn’t going to demonstrate nonapod’s point.
As for DHS, I agree that it is a useless federal department that put together most, but not all, federal police forces. That was done by a Republican President, who thought among other things that transportation law enforcement needed to be federalized.
It’s not a useless department unless it be your assessment that its components are useless. It includes the Coast Guard, FEMA, the Secret Service, the Customs inspectorate, and the interior customs and immigration police, so, no they aren’t. Assembling the agencies in this way may be suboptimal, but that’s a different issue.
Shipping and transportation across state lines are legitimate objects of federal policing. It was Democrats in Congress who insisted on making baggage screeners federal employees. (You will recall the Secretary of Transportation was a Democrat, as was a majority of the Senate at that time).
I’m pretty sure that we can depend on the Repubs in Congress to resolutely … do nothing to stop the Dems.
I have always been opposed to hate crime legislation. It is just a legal form of double jeopardy, allowing those in power the means to add extra punishment to those whom they dislike.
Anyone here who dismisses the proposition that the Left intends, when able, to establish a new Gestapo is willfully blind.
Rufus T. Firefly and Geoffrey Britain
Rufus, not many remember that statement of Obama’s. Not long after it along came the BearCats. I was on the planning board in Keene at the time and I voted against the BearCat. They got one anyway. It was “FREE”.
I was not sure what Obama meant when he said it, but it stuck in my head.
Geoffrey, sadly, VERY sadly I believe that your comment is the answer.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
‘Intends, when able, to establish a new Gestapo.’
Well yes, but as always, the devil is in the details, and the enemy of the left has a say in the matter. Now if you have a plan, or some action to propose, that might be useful.
“Now if you have a plan, or some action to propose, that might be useful.” om
I truly hope it does not but despite all we can do, it will come down to “politics by other means”. Simply because they will have it no other way. Evil never stops until it is stopped beyond its ability to recover.
Art Deco said:
Disagree. I’ve never heard this advocated by anyone. The left in my lifetime is either indifferent to law enforcement à la Michael Dukakis or favors replacing it with social work.
The lefties you know, sure. But those in power want federalized police. That’s what BLM was about, to bring down local police and federalize them. Not that this is what street level leftists want, but those in charge.
Also note how under Obama they were working on federal influence on university sex assault rules, “Yes means Yes”.
Art Deco said:
That’s one guy on the faculty of Drexel in Philadelphia, writing less than two years ago.
He was pretty much reiterating Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, an effort to federalize police created in 2014 taking advantage of the Michael Brown riots.
At the federal level the response to BLM has largely been to try to use it to expand federal control of police. They want to micromanage local law enforcement, set federal standards, etc. But the ultimate goal is control.
About what are you attempting to change my mind?
I’m not trying to change your mind, because you are not capable of it. I’m pointing out to others how baseless your arguments are, in case they mistake that you are making an informed argument.
I’m not trying to change your mind, because you are not capable of it. I’m pointing out to others how baseless your arguments are, in case they mistake that you are making an informed argument.
From 1928 to the present, you’ve had 24 Democratic platforms composed and promulgated. In which of them do you find a call for the federal government to assume responsibility for ordinary police services? When did a Democratic member of Congress introduce a bill to do that? How many co-sponsors did it have?
Thanks Don for bringing up Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. I had a few links, but I figured it would be dismissed because it was worded as “trying to set new standards”. 2021 HR 1 was also just trying to set new standards for elections. Fortunately, most people read it and saw it for what it is.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf#page=1&zoom=90,-111,800
He was pretty much reiterating Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, an effort to federalize police created in 2014 taking advantage of the Michael Brown riots.
That’s the link to the report. It’s 116 pages long. You tell me where it says in there that ordinary police services should be assumed by federal agencies. I wouldn’t doubt there are little turds in that report and calls for avenues for federal agencies and federal courts to harass local police, but that’s nothing novel.
Here’s another dashing Dem. anti-crime crusader:
“Mayor Lightfoot Assigned 70 Chicago Cops To Personal Security Detail Created In 2020”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mayor-lightfoot-assigns-70-chicago-cops-new-security-detail
(Just can’t keep count of ’em…)
From 1928 to the present, you’ve had 24 Democratic platforms composed and promulgated. In which of them do you find a call for the federal government to assume responsibility for ordinary police services? When did a Democratic member of Congress introduce a bill to do that? How many co-sponsors did it have?
Why would it be in the platform? It is obvious what they are trying to do based upon what they do when they can. It doesn’t move forward as “federal government to assume responsibility for ordinary police services”. It comes about by exerting control by federal funding while applying federal requirements and oversight on local law enforcement.
The goal of Democrats is to federalize EVERYTHING. And put themselves in charge of the federal government. They do pivot back toward limiting federal government control in the case someone like Trump is elected, but pivot back as soon as he’s gone. Centralized control is what they want.
That’s the link to the report. It’s 116 pages long. You tell me where it says in there that ordinary police services should be assumed by federal agencies. I wouldn’t doubt there are little turds in that report and calls for avenues for federal agencies and federal courts to harass local police, but that’s nothing novel.
It came out of the first BLM riots, when Obama partnered with BLM to push an agenda. The agenda is to exert federal control over local police. That starts with a mix of funding, federal oversight and federal requirements. It is foremost about establishing federal control, which does not require local law enforcement will be assumed by the feds, but it will move in that direction.
This isn’t that much different then the redefinition of sexual assault Obama pushed on colleges and universities (“Yes means yes”) and also the assault on suburbs that was centered in placing public housing in the ‘burbs. These are done on the quiet by establishment Democrats when they can.
As far as the redefinition of sexual assault, this is part of the federalization of law enforcement in that it attempts to redefine the law (per Obama’s federal push) at certain locations (universities) where Obama had more influence (in part because universities were prone to go along), and this influence would spread as indoctrinated students entered the workplace (as we have seen with things “woke”).
The goal isn’t to immediately make all law enforcement federal. That would fail at this point. The goal is to increase federal control of law enforcement. Then, when that is accomplished the next goal will be to increase it again. Their solution will only flow in one direction, backing off on centralized control isn’t on their menu.
Don, you’ve just made use of 400 words without actually addressing the missing pieces. Leland just makes accusations contra my person.
Art, you appear to be intentionally obtuse.
Art, you appear to be intentionally obtuse.
Adding an insult to your 400 words of evasion does not demonstrate your point. At least Leland can point to Prof. Whatshisname at Drexel.
There are no “missing pieces”. It’s irrelevant that it isn’t part of their official policy.
Obama was pushing federal control of police after his party had lost Congress so he used “a pen and a phone”. He started after the Tryvon Martin shooting, meeting with BLM and pressing the legal system in FL to charge Zimmerman. He went after officer Wilson after the Michael Brown shooting. That’s what led to the task force mentioned earlier; it was an attempt to get more federal control of local police.
Obama was simply using a crisis (BLM) to justify more federal “oversight” for law enforcement. The end point is full federal control. The left’s end goal is to centralize everything, including law enforcement.
It’s irrelevant that it isn’t part of their official policy.
1. You said that, not me.
2. You referred everyone to the commission report, then refuse to offer any salient quotation from it.
Obama was pushing federal control of police after his party
Again, you keep asserting this, then offer no supporting text or even a passable argument.
Don’s correct. Obama’s wingman Holder took it on, & went after police depts, especially in red states, & cities therein with lefty mayors. Eg: Austin, TX. The Left were pleased as punch to have Holder assign federal people & funding to come investigate some event or another that a mayor wanted to claim proved the police were racist & not fixable.
This was pushed for anytime a black person was killed by a cop while Obama reigned eg Michael Brown’s death. And the corrupt, agenda-driven FBI was glad to continue the push* during Trump’s term.
* to discredit city police.
Eventually, the “defund police” movement became a big nationwide goal. That is part of centralizing law enforcement, IMO — selectively, of course.
Don’s correct. Obama’s wingman Holder took it on, & went after police depts, especially in red states, & cities therein with lefty mayors.
No, he’s not. The feds pestering local police is not the same thing as local policing being lodged in federal agencies. This isn’t that difficult.
Art Deco: “the Fed’s pestering local police” has actually meant overbearing monitoring, & issuing of reports & orders designed to intimidate police into backing off actual policing, even leading to police leaving those departments.
This type of control IS effectively federal takeover. It does not require a vote or new law, sadly.
Again, you keep asserting this, then offer no supporting text or even a passable argument.
You won’t accept any argument.
Yes, Obama using the weight of federal power against officer Wilson was an attempt to further control local police.
The Democrats are not going to jump to a federal police force overnight. They will increase federal oversight over local police with each step. I’ve explained several such steps.
While “defund” might seem like a goal unto itself to many leftists, the establishment is only using it to create a crisis to exploit and that will come with more federal control. BLM is used to justify federal oversight to protect “civil rights” but also to defund to create crisis. No one with a clue would expect the end state to simply be defunding police; that will create a vacuum that something will fill.
Are you associated with federal police in some manner? That could explain your blindness to what is going on.
1. You said that, not me.
2. You referred everyone to the commission report, then refuse to offer any salient quotation from it.
No, I was referring to this, which you wrote:
From 1928 to the present, you’ve had 24 Democratic platforms composed and promulgated. In which of them do you find a call for the federal government to assume responsibility for ordinary police services? When did a Democratic member of Congress introduce a bill to do that? How many co-sponsors did it have?
That’s irrelevant. The left has many goals they don’t talk about in advance.
And their key goal is centralized control, and that must include law enforcement.
As far as Obama’s commission, the results were not what he intended. They wanted to find a civil rights violation in the Michael Brown shooting to exploit. In this they were hampered by the leftist propaganda; they believed the “hands up don’t shoot ” claims which proved false. So yes, Obama was stymied, but his goal was to expand federal control of local police. That was the whole point of starting it.
No, he’s not. The feds pestering local police is not the same thing as local policing being lodged in federal agencies. This isn’t that difficult.
It is about expanding federal control of local police.
This isn’t difficult: they will try to expand control at each and every step, because they need that to accomplish their goals.
Don. I’m glad you understand the big picture.
Art Deco, at least regarding America’s police crisis, wrt leftist goal, is stuck on blind.