posted on February 10, 2001 09:51:21 AM new
I'm very much a political minority among my professional colleagues, krs. I'll be sure to post a copy of thatarticle on the bulletin board. Should probably add an "I told you so" as well.
posted on February 10, 2001 11:28:24 AM new
What next? The Treasury Department, which could include the, gasp, Secret Service?
Nah...then the shrub would have to give up his naps and defend himself against the next poor soul who wants to commit suicide by Secret Service (as someone else said).
posted on February 10, 2001 11:30:04 AM new
I hate to be cynical. Afterall, I'm sure Clinton's latest unofficial hand picked appointee, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe is a fine and honorable man with only the best intentions. No hidden political agenda there. (cough) But, this looks like a Chicken Little - THE SKY IS FALLING kinda statement on his part. The word "allegedly" tipped me off. When a person has a clear political agenda to discredit the person he makes the allegations about I find myself looking for facts to back up his statements... just a habit from being so damned cynical. I guess the new rule is that if you only "allege" false information you don't have to bother with backing it up with pesky little things like the truth. Sounds egggsactly like a typical politician to me.
Bush's problem is that people aren't used to a president who ask the branches of government to be accountable for the way they're spending our money. What a concept.
posted on February 10, 2001 11:32:41 AM new
krs - I am beginning to worry about you making it through the next 4-8 years. Hope your blood pressure is okay.
From you site: "But Fleischer said "spending has skyrocketed" and that the president "does believe that we have to be fiscally conservative."
I agree, especially since it's going to cost us $950,000.00 a year for Clinton's office suite. We need to make some cuts some where.
posted on February 10, 2001 11:45:28 AM new
My, Linda_k, but you've taken some liberty to depart from the actual figure of $650,000.
Be as cynical of the report as you like. Everyone has stipulated that departments be accountable--that's not news. What is news is that these "look ats" before funding, are directly counter to his campaign promised largess in both areas.
One area that IS accountable is the press.
No need to worry, Linda_k, my BP is almost always 120/72, and my heart has been described by the U.C. Davis department head of nuclear medicine as "vigorous" in his report after extensive examination. Dwell on that descriptive word.
posted on February 10, 2001 12:01:54 PM new
This cut doesn't surprise me in the least. After all if people were only responsible for their behaviors there would be no need to spend money for police prevention of and protection from crime. There is also widespread documentation of abuse of the system; therefore, I shouldn't have to pay to support and perpetuate this moral and fiscal injustice. Let's go after fire departments next.
posted on February 10, 2001 12:04:44 PM new
I don't think that his decision to review the current spending before putting a definite $$ amount on the increases is contrary to any campaign promises. It seems to be a logical first step, IMO.
The press may be accountable. I'd personally dispute that. But, in any case the report you linked doesn't have any facts quoted... they're reporting a baseless allegation made by a man with an obvious agenda. I'm just not impressed.
But, I'm glad you have a vigorous heart... mine is less than vigorous. That's why I usually avoid the political threads. Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
posted on February 10, 2001 12:52:25 PM new
Somehow, in your imagination, do you think that this is a denial of the report?
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer would not comment on reports that Bush may cut the Justice Department's budget by $1 billion in the next fiscal year.[/i]
But Fleischer said "spending has skyrocketed" and that the president "does believe that we have to be fiscally conservative."
I suppose that a person could avoid exposure to politicalese, and if you have, I think it's safe to tell you that those statements by the WH spokesman are as much as an affirmation of the report.
posted on February 10, 2001 02:25:57 PM new
Julesy - Clinton is millions of dollars in dept right now. Mostly attorney fees.
But this is what I found:
LIBRARY FUNDS DIVERTED FOR RENT
Begin quote/ A SUBSIDY SOUGHT FOR CLINTON OFFICE
The unprecedented $300,000-a-year subsidy former President Bill Clinton has offered to help rent a penthouse office on fashionable 57th Street in New York City will come from tax-exempt donations intended to build and endow his presidential library in Little Rock.
The unique arrangement, announced to end criticism of renting luxury offices that cost more than those of all other living former presidents combined, was not described to potential donors of the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation./end quote/
So that *could* be the $900,000. minus the $300,000.00 = the $600,000.00 figure (per year). We'll know when the rents due.
I hope it doesn't get approved. I'd heard, that originally the cost to the taxpayers was going to be around $240,000.00 and that sure was a reasonable amount.
But I also wanted to mention that the 3 year rent we're paying to hold his Archives is also costing the US tax payers $4,374,000.00. We could buy that building for about 1/2 that amount.
That's my point. Lots of our tax dollars being wasted.
posted on February 10, 2001 07:26:49 PM new
I can't wait ro reach the ripe old age of 99, so I can start drawing Social Security...
The dude is totally gone bananas... Make retirement age LATER than 65?????The slob is going to retire in just a few years, with a nice fat pension that WE, the people, will keep paying him and all the past presidents....Yes, let's work past 65...then let's all croke, without having ever received a cent of what we paid into all of our working life....That's the compassionate republican way of cutting down Social Security benefits...
posted on February 10, 2001 08:59:00 PM newLinda_K No worries about the rent. That amount is now projected to run greater than $800,00. But, it seems that a very generous Marc Rich (the pardoned fugitive) saw to it that his ex-wife gave Mr. Clinton a $450,000 donation for the library. One of many gifts of cash and expensive furniture he arranged to have "gifted" to the Clintons. The $450,000 should cover a little better than half of the first years rent. Such a nice gesture on Marc Rich's part, don't ya think?
KRS I guess we differ here. It doesn't sound like a denial or an affirmation to me. From what I've read even the Democrats in office are concerned with the "skyrocketing" cost within the Justice Dept. and are hoping that the new President will bring some reason to it. It seems that that's exactly what Bush is trying to do. I haven't found any reports that claim Bush or anyone else is specifically referring to cutting the pay of our police force.
The Federal government does not, (paraphrased) "fund the police."
Federal law enforcement agencies are funded with government (taxpayer's) monies.
Any money or property received by law enforcement agencies not of the federal standing, receive money and property through federal grants and subsidization.
I speak from years of experience and can attest; many law enforcement agencies of (all) levels are some of the worse offenders for misusing taxpayers' money. If you were to (really) know about the unnecessary police toys, short-lived programs, and redirected use you pay for, you might whistle a different tune.
I tired of being given the assignment of getting (federally funded) programs off the ground only to have the program fade out in six months. Often, programs are created and federal funds requested to use for other reasons or just to end up with the toys that are often part of the grant.
Do you have any idea how many "civilian" positions are created and filled with civilians, regardless the grant was intended for sworn positions and sworn personnel? I will not begin talking about the stockpile of unnecessary toys many departments have acquired with federal funds.
There is not enough time or space to talk about all the hundreds of other areas, private sector and law enforcement, where taxpayers' money is misused.
The abuse and waste has to be in the billions.
I do not know who put the bug in Bush's ear, but he is on the right track. Federal funding will not stop, but now, the requesting agency's feet might be held closer to the fire, federal or other.
posted on February 10, 2001 11:14:57 PM new
Gee, that's funny. Big city across the way got nearly $100 million as direct fenderal funding and even this little burg got $100,000, no questions asked. Sure it was targetted to places where there was crime in magnitute, but the agencies didn't have to beg for it, nor do they have to give it back. This isn't some federal milk and doughnuts program for earnest little places with a dream, it's money to use to fight crime. Believe Chicago got quite a bit, Los Angeles sure did, Detriot--like that.
So, sgtmike, are you adressing me, the title, or the subject?
Rather than play "the game," please provide us with your insight and knowledge on this matter (police grants/funding) beyond a biased news-article full of inaccuracies.
Also, can you confirm the (actual) monies were (actually) received by the cities you name, whether the money was necessary and/or appropriately used, and if the money enabled a (related) decrease in crime?
God intervened in Cuba when "Rowan" was chosen to deliver the message to General Garcia, and not someone else.
And may I say that for so long as you, sgtmike, continue to treat every piece of information that I bring here on any subject as hostile and biased, you will continue to play the "game" as you put it. You see, I don't write the stuff, and you certainly are no greater authority than is any news agency confined as you are to your little corner of the world. The fact that you seem ignorant of this federal funding of selected police agencies around the country testifies to that. Believe me, it was big news around here, even to those of us not in any way involved in police matters. The relatively small city that I live in was able to add five officers immediately, and is still using the program described in the URL brought here by antiquary above to hire, train, and suppliment the salaries of even more.
posted on February 10, 2001 11:59:48 PM new
Here is a link to information regarding Clinton's political PR debacle. The information is validated in the Rand and Federal records but this article sum's it up in a layperson way.
In the end, it was found that only 50,000 officers were actually hired (nationwide) and that the actual number is probably 1/2 of what was reported.
posted on February 11, 2001 12:13:32 AM new
I think that that source should be considered to be biased. I read, and have bookmarked reagan.com.
In any case, regardless the success in completing the program of grants as first presented, 50,000 positions is a lot, and they were deployed where they were needed most. Oakland, CA was a very gratified recipient, and even though most likely predominently republican in political persuasion, I doubt that any of the people in that police force were inclined to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Also, what are they saying anyway? That the localities were unable to maintain what the program began for whatever local reason. Did they think, really, that that shot in the arm was ever meant to provide a permanent cure? Or that forever henceforth a municipality would be able to enjoy freedom from the everyday efforts to maintain their police? If they did they were in error. The grants were only to fill in gaps, sort of like buying computers for schools. The school still has to provide for the teacher.
When you present and argument or an opinion, whether it is your composition, a copied article, or a link, and do not want anyone to oppose, you need to advise the readers that disagree; they are not to post.
If I disagree with what you post when intended to be a validation of the message you are conveying, you call it "hostile," I call it an opposing view. If one only provides information that is "pro," when "cons" exist, that is "biased."
As for my knowledge and involvement of and in federal grants and funding, you can take it to the bank that I know something but I find it unnecessary to upload images of my credentials.
My friend, it is you that always want to make any opposition to your topics and respective posts a personal thing. I always detect your cryptic message being sent to the moderators via your replies.
You say you locale is still using the program. Must be a different program. The program in question was slated to expire in 1999.
Now, regardless of what you believe and what you say, Bush is on target, federal police funding is abused and misused, tax money is wasted in the billions, and the 1994 Clinton "put an extra cop on the street" program was a joke….in the end, a 9.5 billion dollar joke.
Drop this proposed budget in my lap in my first few weeks in office, when there are priorities, I would balk and have questions to be answered too.
If you have the background to interpret what is being requested in this proposed budget, you will detect that different amounts are proposed for programs that are the same, just worded differently to appear to be different.
Many of the programs are incredibly ludicrous. Moreover, along with many other continued and proposed programs named, many will receive very little money, if any.
One up for Bush for his refusal to be reined and led.
posted on February 11, 2001 12:51:16 AM new
You're assuming things in error. You are assuming that because I post an article from a newsreport that it is my viewpoint, or that I have adopted in for all time. When you become vehemently hostile towards ME because of what I've posted from news, then you are not addressing the post but attacking the messenger.
I don't bring things here so that they cannot be disputed, discussed, or refuted entirely. In fact I bring them just for that reason. Would you rather that I didn't so that you can spend your time here acting like an idiot fawning over other people's cats?
The Oakland police has been able to retain the positions enabled by the program and is thus still using it, last I read.
Since you claim to be adept at reading unwritten messages, what would you say about this phrase "Clinton's political PR debacle"?
Hope your blood pressure is okay.
Make retirement age LATER than 65?????The slob is going to retire in just a few years, with a nice fat pension that WE, the people, will keep paying him and all the past presidents....Yes, let's work past 65...then let's all croke, without having ever received a cent of what we paid into all of our working life....That's the compassionate republican way of cutting down Social Security benefits...