Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Umm....Police, Fire and teachers are not federal employees and it is not the job of the federal government to be involved in the hiring or firing of them. Axelrod is a joke, his comments are for clueless idiots like you who don't know any better I say more Axelrod he’s not helping Obama at all as a spokesman that’s for sure
So you are saying less police, firemen and teachers are a "good" thing. Yea. Keep working that message.
Running out of money is a bad thing and many states are still struggling. It doesn't matter how much something is needed. If the money isn't there, you're out of luck. Welfare spending has increased, as well as unemployment. We're moving in the wrong direction. We need more tax payers.
Umm....Police, Fire and teachers are not federal employees and it is not the job of the federal government to be involved in the hiring or firing of them. Axelrod is a joke, his comments are for clueless idiots like you who don't know any better I say more Axelrod hes not helping Obama at all as a spokesman thats for sure
So you are saying less police, firemen and teachers are a "good" thing. Yea. Keep working that message.
Running out of money is a bad thing and many states are still struggling. It doesn't matter how much something is needed. If the money isn't there, you're out of luck. Welfare spending has increased, as well as unemployment. We're moving in the wrong direction. We need more tax payers.
That's what Republicans want: less cops. Sure, Mitt. Roll with that.
That's what Republicans want: less cops. Sure, Mitt. Roll with that.
If we have enough cops--firefighters and teachers--why would we want to reach into the till to get more?
Umm....Police, Fire and teachers are not federal employees and it is not the job of the federal government to be involved in the hiring or firing of them. Axelrod is a joke, his comments are for clueless idiots like you who don't know any better I say more Axelrod hes not helping Obama at all as a spokesman thats for sure
So you are saying less police, firemen and teachers are a "good" thing. Yea. Keep working that message.
Running out of money is a bad thing and many states are still struggling. It doesn't matter how much something is needed. If the money isn't there, you're out of luck. Welfare spending has increased, as well as unemployment. We're moving in the wrong direction. We need more tax payers.
who says more will help reduce crime?That's what Republicans want: less cops. Sure, Mitt. Roll with that.
If we have enough cops--firefighters and teachers--why would we want to reach into the till to get more?
Who says we have enough?
Leading the charge is Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who sponsored that bill and is pushing legislation to hire another 50,000 officers, at a cost of $3.6 billion over six years, under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. He says it was because of the last round of hiring that "murder and violent crime rates went down eight years in a row."
It's hard to find Democrats who differ. Among his co-sponsors are fellow presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd. The House has already passed a similar measure.
But anyone who expects this approach to work as promised should take a closer look at what actually happened the last time. In the first place, the 1994 bill didn't make good on its goal of adding 100,000 cops to the streets. A study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice estimated it produced a net increase of just 82,000, while allowing that it might have been as few as 69,000.
Those numbers aside, the retreat of lawlessness began before any of those new police were sworn in.
A study by John Worrall and Tomislav Kovandzic of the University of Texas at Dallas, published this year in the journal Criminology, concluded that "COPS grants had no discernible effect on serious crime."
We shouldn't be surprised that adding all those patrol officers would produce little or no improvement. Given the multiple shifts, vacation and sick days, the additional number of personnel on the street at any given moment is only about 10,000, spread across a nation of 300 million people. That's fewer than one extra cop per local police department.
As Worrall and Kovandzic note, the average COPS hiring grant was practically a rounding error, amounting to about one half of one percent of a typical department's annual budget. Expecting that amount of money to have a dramatic effect on crime is like losing a pound and thinking you'll need to have all your pants taken in.
If more cops really translate into safer streets, you would think local taxpayers would be more than willing to bear the expense. But if they don't think their safety is worth what it costs, why should the rest of us foot the bill? The idea that residents of one city can finance their police operations at someone else's expense is a fraud. Everyone gets federal money from the COPS program, but everyone also pays for it.
