The 2021 Budgets Are In, And Funding For Police Is…

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

27 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    This is my shocked face… o_oReport

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    The decision in the Breonna Taylor case is expected soon, so I will just post this in advance.

    If the decision is to exonerate the officers, there will be new protests, and some new riots.
    And the usual talking heads will interview the shopkeepers who will feign bewilderment as they blubber about their losses.
    And there will be calls for more police, more militarization, more of what provoked the riots in the first place.

    As the saying goes, we have tried literally nothing, and we are out of options.Report

  3. greginak says:

    In Fla the guv is actually trying to make a law that you can’t cut cop budgets. He has a giant new bill that is aimed at stopping mass protests. It’s gonna go down in the flames of dozen court challenges but he’s trying to authoritarian it up.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to greginak says:

      We are seeing the rise of Herrenvolk Oban style populist authoritarian as a significant number of white people exist in full existential panic but demographic decline. Instead of moderating or changing, they decided to insulate themselves. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better especially because a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that this is what is going on.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to greginak says:

      And people wonder why the Republicans are so eager to control the courts.Report

    • greginak in reply to greginak says:

      Forgot to add, the Free Speech Choir will have approximately nothing to say about this. Dave Rubin and Prager will whine about not being able to say the N word, Bari Weiss will never acknowledge it, Sulli will at the most poo poo it and complain about rich people being mean to him.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to greginak says:

        “Respect the Rule of Law!”

        “There’s no law against peaceful assembly.”

        “There is now!”Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          There’s no law against *PEACEFUL* assembly.

          This gathering is not *PEACEFUL*.

          Therefore it is illegal.

          Therefore we can use force to arrest you for attending.

          Q.E.D.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

            There is no law against peaceful assembly.
            Except subject to time, place and manner.
            And over here.
            And at this time. And under these circumstances.

            Oh, and that group over there violently protesting in support of the regime? Well, the rules don’t apply to them because reasons.

            Yeah, the hallmark of authoritarian regimes is that the law is a supple tool of convenience.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              You don’t even need to do that, though. You don’t need to appeal to time, place, manner. You don’t need to point out that there was a poker game in the back and poker is illegal unless it takes place in the casino.

              You just need to point to the violence.

              No contortions necessary.Report

              • Fish in reply to Jaybird says:

                Further, you can even escalate the situation and provoke the violence, and then point at the violence you provoked as a reason for breaking up the assembly.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Fish says:

                See? There’s no need for contortions at all.

                You don’t have pull the “it says WELL REGULATED MILITIA!” crap. Just have a couple of plants throw a molotov cocktail or two and you’re covered.Report

          • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

            And besides, they set up the Free Speech Zone and published its location well in advance of the event.Report

    • Damon in reply to greginak says:

      Really?

      He said that if local jurisdictions cut police funding, the state will cut the local jurisdiction’s funding…not quite the same thing.

      He’s also working to increase penalties for criminal behavior. But you’re totally right that this will go over like a brick……..o.0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxiTGFvE2Y4&ab_channel=WFLANewsChannel8Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Damon says:

        My suburban city now has four mental health professionals, on call and with city-provided vehicles, paid for out of the police budget. When there’s a call that appears to have a mental health aspect, both a regular officer and a mental health professional are dispatched. So far as I can tell, everyone is happy with the results thus far. OTOH, we’re not having demonstrations where buildings get burned down.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to greginak says:

      It’s gonna go down in the flames of dozen peaceful court challenges

      It should be stressed that these court challenges, while fiery, will be mostly peaceful.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        I was going to edit “fiery but peaceful” into the quote, but decided to go with a different approach. However, after doing so, I left the “peaceful” part in. So that didn’t go so well, but you get the idea.Report

  4. Jaybird says:

    Is it at least happening in blue districts where the Democrats control the House and Governor?Report

  5. Jaybird says:

    I suppose the other argument is that “Defund the Police” doesn’t literally mean “Defund the Police” and it’s disingenuous to think that it would.

    The fact that police budgets haven’t been touched isn’t evidence of anything and you’re being dishonest. “Defund the Police” has always been about something else that is orthogonal to police budgets.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

      “Defund the police? No no, you misheard me, I said de-fun the police! It’s a regional dialect. Clearly what I meant was that the officers who are enjoying themselves by abusing suspects and civilians are having fun, and we need to just make sure that those people aren’t on the force anymore! And obviously that means a completely new oversight department is required with a full staff and budget…”Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    During the early days of the current protests, the mayor of Chicago came out against defund the police with the argument that most of the money goes to payroll and they have been able to add a lot of young minority officers to the force and this increases the number of people of color in the middle class. Defunding the police will only lead to less people of color in the middle class because younger officers will be the first cut.

    Now why is it easier to create middle class jobs for people of color through the police over other government jobs is an interesting, complex, and probably depressing (in terms of conclusions) policy problem. I would guess the answer has something to do with the fact that American training requirements for being a police officer are lax compared to other countries and the fact that our culture largely still sees police and firefighters as good and other government workers as bad.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      There is a viewpoint that consistently boggles me. We see it with police, with teachers, and all kinds of stuff.

      The point of the police is not to provide middle class jobs to the police.
      The point of teaching kids is not to provide middle class jobs to teachers.

      The point of the job is not to provide employment.

      It’s completely topsy-turvy.Report

      • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird says:

        When government jobs are the easiest entry point to a middle class wage, as they are for people of color, it is the point.

        CPD has been understrength for years, mostly because the city can’t afford full strength numbers. Defunding, while an admirable goal prima facie, is already a de facto thing.Report

        • I’m juuuuuuust crazy enough to think that the point of the police has something to do with law enforcement rather than merely funneling tax money to preferred constituents.

          I mean… this seems pretty obvious to me. Self-evident.

          We don’t treat Sanitation Engineers like this. Not phlebotomists. Not programmers.

          But we look at the cops and we say “well, the point is to give money to people” rather than some bullshit about protecting/serving?Report

          • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird says:

            Laws are getting enforced rather strenuously of late, and, as I pointed out, the police force in Chicago is understrength. No one is getting away with anything. When we have too many cops, then it’s time to worry.Report

            • While I appreciate that we ought to make sure that our police forces are adequately funded rather than defunded, from what I understand, the argument was not “we need to adequately fund the police”.

              And, anyways, the argument for this particular sub-thread has to do with the point of the police and what it is.

              Personally, I don’t think that the point of the police is to provide employment.Report

  7. Jaybird says:

    A new wrinkle:

    Report