WASHINGTON — The nation's police departments are clamoring for an unprecedented amount of federal aid to forestall big local tax hikes or the possible layoff of nearly 40,000 police officers — enough to staff the entire New York City Police Department.
When President Barack Obama signed the huge economic stimulus bill earlier this year, $1 billion was set aside to help local and state police avoid layoffs or keep their police academy classes intact.
The response has been staggering: Departments applied for more than $8.3 billion in aid, meaning only a fraction of the demand can actually be met.
July will be a nervous month for mayors and police commanders as they await official word on how much aid they will get from the grant program known as COPS. The first award announcements are expected this month.
"You've got to cross your fingers and remain optimistic," said Mayor Ron Dellums of Oakland, Calif.
Dellums said without federal aid, his city could lose 140 police positions, and California law gives few options for raising taxes to keep those officers.
Even before a single COPS grant check has been mailed, Dellums said the huge demand for help shows that without more aid, Oakland and other cities "are going to be confronted with the stark reality that we have to cut back."
In Pontiac, Mich., Police Chief Valard Gross has seen plenty of spending cuts in recent years and is worried that the red ink spilling across local budgets everywhere else means his city will now get less.
"It concerns me greatly. I can't say what areas are most deserving, but I believe we've been hit harder than just about anyone in the country," said Gross.
Pontiac's police force has shrunk by about half in the past five years, down to about 70 full-time officers, Gross said. "We're already in the mode where it's an emergency, but we've been able to reorganize, and my guys are still kicking butt."
The chief has applied for $4 million to fill 40 positions. But Pontiac's big budget troubles represent only a small sliver of the total requests for aid.
More than 7,200 aid applications poured into the Justice Department and, taken together, they say nearly 40,000 cops could be laid off without federal help. There's no way to verify the number; it depends upon the political process in many places, and law enforcement officials are not above presenting their potential losses in stark terms that aren't necessarily inevitable. During the Clinton administration, FBI Director Louis Freeh once claimed a proposed budget didn't contain enough money to buy bullets for target practice; others said, if that were so, it only meant the bureau had misallocated its more than $2.2 billion budget.
By comparison, the last time the demand for money from the COPS or related programs even came close was more than a decade ago.
In the 1996 budget year, police departments asked the Clinton administration for $1.3 billion, to fill 33,388 full-time officer positions. They got almost the full amount.
Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, the No. 3 official at the Justice Department, said this year's response to the grant program "has provided us with a true understanding of the difficulties facing law enforcement departments today."
In part, the spike in demand is a result of the change from a Republican to a Democratic administration. Through the Bush years, the COPS and related programs were gradually cut away by Republicans who saw them as wasteful and argued that the money was used to hire fewer cops than Democrats claimed.
Democrats counter that the COPS grant program deserves some credit for the large reductions in crime in the 1990's and thus has proved its effectiveness.
In addition, unlike former President Bill Clinton's version, the Obama program will pay not only for new hires but also to retain cops who might otherwise be laid off.
Around the country, cities are scrambling to keep police on the beat without raising taxes.
In St. Louis, officials recently said they may have to cut 105 police positions if the department doesn't get enough federal aid. If those cuts are made, the city's police force would be smaller than it has been in about a century.
Mitchel Herckis of the National League of Cities said the initial COPS program was designed to expand local police forces to fight rising crime — Clinton promised to put 100,000 more cops on the street — but the new version has been retooled to try to just hold departments together in tough times.
Emergency response staff is often the last thing city officials want to cut, he said.
"Across the country, holding on to officers is a huge deal for many cities and towns," he said. "Keeping those essential services for folks is the top priority."
___
On the Net:
COPS program: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item2108
Well, if the various state and local police agencies took all the money they've spent on militarizing themselves in opposition to the citizenry, rather than being a force in cooperation with the citizenry, they could do just fine, financially. If they were to take the additional steps of ridding those forces of those proven to be - by standard measure - psychologically unfit to be law enforcement officers, then they could probably enjoy a surplus.
But, as long as they continue their general downward spiral into jack-booted thuggery, as has been the case since 2001, they will just have to get by like the rest of us (except not subject to the same laws, of course)
Perhaps the budget crisis will delay the US falling into a complete police state long enough that our police are subservient again to the citizens, rather than the other way around.
Not likely, but one can hope.
That’s right, let the police spend less money on the new weapons and body armor they buy to stay alive and keep up with the drug dealers, punks and other gangs out there with fully automatic weapons.
What makes the police think they have the right to be on equal fighting ground with the criminals anyway.
That will work dumb butt if you and everyone else are ready to go back 100 years and start wearing guns on your hips for protection and hoping someone out there is not faster than you.
Learn something from your own country's history BEFORE you go calling someone a dumb butt. How about if we just go back about 28 years ago and STOP arresting people for every little infraction, especially those that don't involve anyone else?
30 years ago, my state, CO, spent $70 million on the dept of corrections. Now, after Reagan's drug war increase, the privatization of the prison systems of the country and 3 decades of politicians being "tough on crime", we spend $770 million. Our education system is starved for money, but we lock up more people than anyone but Texas and California. And who does that benefit? The already way too rich.
You want to get real, or do you want to conitnue to live in fear of everyone else in the country? The last time we had the kinds of troubles we have was back in a time called prohibition. I suggest you read up on it and find out what you are rooting for. Because it's not "law and order", it's a police state. And that is not a sustainable thing, nor is it particularly American. And it's bankrupting the country as a whole and each state individually. If we would go back to letting adults BE adults and stop locking up everyone who steps over the line, no matter how slightly, we could afford all the police we need.
We have more people locked up than any country in the world. More than China, More than Russia, more than Iran, more than ANYONE. Do you call THAT freedom? I don't. I call it incredibly hypocritical and foolish. Stop being so insulting, especially when you haven't done any research past what Limbaugh and Hannity tell you to think. That doesn't count.
Yes, the militarization of police in this country is indeed very bad for America. Whatever happened to the American concept of a friendly police officer, like Andy Griffith? When I see the police these days they all look like Nazi stormtroopers equipped for street battle. And now I find out half of them are on steroids and have an ingrained hatred of Liberals.
We could easily afford to have less police officers if we simply decriminalilzed marijuana, since a huge amount of police resources go towards marijuana. Add in the money saved in the court and prison systems, and you've got some big time government cost savings.
Could be because they are IN A STREET BATTLE with the gangs, dope peddlers and other criminals.
Maybe you the above are members of some of these gangs and that’s why you want the police under armed, and undermanned.
Lets take the guns away for the law and only let the outlaw
Lets just make evrything legal and dom away with the police all togather, go back the the old west where your life was only as good as your gun hand.
And when was the last time this country had such issues? During prohibition. And rather than learn a real lesson from that, we had "leaders" who turned right around and made something ELSE illegal, thereby creating EXACTLY the same issue that they had just gotten rid of.
If you want to make a difference in this situation, you will have to wake up and learn that it's not the substance, it's the LAW that makes the problem. If you made coffee illegal, you would have a huge black market in coffee and all kinds of otherwise law abiding citizens would suddenly be criminals. Rather than deal with something like adults, we treat people like children and give them timeouts, sometimes for decades at a time.
The only reason why those terrible drug dealers are a problem is that you have removed their right to deal with differences via the legal system and left them NO other way to deal with things but through violence.
If they could take each other to court, there would be no need for violence, and no innocent bystanders would be caught in the crossfire, would they?
You are standing up for the continuation of a previously proved flawed system that has NEVER worked in the history of mankind. What makes you think that more of the same will fix anything? It never has and it never will.
The only thing I've noticed with the extra police are the issuing of traffic tickets...that's "crime fighting?" They don't stop crime, they can only investigate, and then they just fill out a report and that's pretty much it... Cities shouldnt be employing cops they can't afford locally anyway...disarm the citizenry through asinine Gun Laws and you just get scared people who think the police will protect them, which most people don't know are NOT legally obligated to protect, despite what it may say on the side of police cars, "To serve and Protect.."" liars...my only use for the police is to come pick up the bodies and get my side of the story..it'd take'em 15-20 minutes to get to me anyway if I ever called 'em for help.
I see most sitting alongside the road waiting for the greatest crime threats to speed by..and issue a ticket... screw the police
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |