posted on February 12, 2001 11:55:47 AM new
Indeed, Antiquary. The alternative of production-line lobotomies for the electorate (half, anyway) would overly strain the medical system.
and copzsweetheart, you said:
"They were no longer considered a threat to U.S. national security until 1995."
...I assume your contention is actually the opposite of this, i.e. that they were "still", not "no longer" considered a threat.
-gaffan-
posted on February 12, 2001 12:30:39 PM new
Well, gaffan and antiquary, it gives me no small satisfaction to return to find that neither of you is any longer overly undermisinformed.
posted on February 12, 2001 12:33:34 PM new
No gaffan, I'm sure that "They were no longer considered a threat to U.S. national security until 1995." is exactly what copzsqueeze meant. It's only the beginning of the return to before.
The program you are incorrectly referring to is the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program (LLEBG) created in 1996 and managed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) It is not the program that Clinton used to create his farce.
The program (sham) that Clinton created, which I believe was called Cops Ahead, was created in 1994 and was actually splintered from a federal program already in existence titled, Community Oriented Policing Services ( COPS). and, I believe, was being administered by the DOJ/OJP.
COPS is a federal subsidy program that does subsidize the hiring and/or training of police and support personnel IF additional personnel is necessary to create and support any or all of the crime prevention programs/units e.g., DARE, Community Oriented Policing, narcotic and major case task force(s), violent crime suppression, repeat offender programs, juvenile crime reduction, vertical prosecution programs, Cops in schools, etc.
What it appears Clinton did, was to allow the (temporary) federal subsidization for hiring and training of police officers and waived the applicable program(s) requirement.
Most likely, the PD's in your area are using the "COPS" funding but not under the defunct program Clinton created for PR tickets.
Regardless, most of time the federal funds are required to be matched, or partially matched, and many have short-term subsidation. There are (always) federal strings attached that cause many cities to not seek federal funds.
PS: If you can find the pre-election budget for LLEBG State Awards granted, I would not be surprised to see that the states known to be heavily Deomcratic when voting received the most funds.
posted on February 12, 2001 01:12:30 PM new
So what?
Clinton gave needing agencies a shot in the arm, as I said long ago, and a shot isn't supposed to be like permanent welfare payments. He also brought many agencies into an sphere of funding which may otherwise have intimidated many of them because of administrative costs and complicated mechanisms which were oiled by his shot in the arm. From there, those who wished to continue to avail themselves of such funding could with much greater facility since the protocol had been established and become customary for them. It worked, and there are law enforcement agencies around the country making use of federal monies where they might otherwise not have applied. A rock thrown which enters a lake makes a splash and is gone, but it's presence is known by the lapping of waves on the shore.
posted on February 12, 2001 01:32:17 PM new
Clinton and his boondoggle program did no such thing. Many of those that jumped aboard, which were not in the numbers the Demorats have vomited and want you to believe, paid the Piper in the end.
I wonder how many officers hired, using the farce program, had to be let go down the road after having invested themselves and their families in relocation and financial indebtedness.
posted on February 12, 2001 02:49:28 PM new
Here is an example of what Clinton's program probably (also) caused.
Most law enforcement agencies are notoriously understaffed, due to poor tax bases, budget constraints, and mishandling of budget. I doubt there is any state, county, city, or village, that allows the top commander of their law enforcement agency to add personnel to his or her agency as he or she wishes.
Do you believe that any governmental body that has limited their law enforcement agency to a certain number for any of the above said reasons, is suddenly going to add personnel knowing that the funding was partial and that they would have to pick up the full tab down the road?
Many agencies today are under some type of contract (collective bargaining). When the governmental body adds personnel, it is usually done in a manner that stipulates that the agency has been permanently increased to the number of personnel hired under the program. This is what many state to city leaders like to avoid if possible.
If the state, county, city, agency later wants or needs to reduce the size of the agency and not fill positions vacated, a contractual and costly battle can ensue. If the department hired new personnel using the federal funds, do you really believe the applicants are always told that the position is temporary?
In all probability, knowing how the governmental bodies see their personnel as employment-expendable, some of the tactics that probably occurred but you will never be told, were the following.
Plan 1: Hire new (additional) officers but do not fill future vacated positions. Then, contractually barter a reduction in force to previous level, or just drag feet for a few years.
Plan 2: Hire new (additional) officers as temporary employee (usually can be done without negotiating contract revision). Then bring various types of harassing force to bear upon targeted (veteran) personnel to retire or resign. Move the temp to permanent when a veteran officer succumbs to the force. Do not fill vacated positions. Then, contractually barter a reduction in force to previous level, or just drag feet for a few years.
Plan 3: Hire new (additional) officers as temporary employee but tell them that once a permanent position opens he or she will be made permanent and that the odds are in their favor….when, in fact, it is known that the odds are low. When the funding is terminated, say "Sorry and bye-bye" to temp(s).
In the end, the agency has received fed money to help pay the bills, and other perks, but no additional officers have been added and the officers available to fight crime remains the same.
posted on February 12, 2001 03:37:37 PM new
krs said:
"it gives me no small satisfaction to return to find that neither of you is any longer overly undermisinformed. "
Yes, I am not, krs. A situation which I find to be double-plus good.
-gaffan-
posted on February 12, 2001 04:49:50 PM new
Look at all the guessing and if's? How is it the program's failing that the agencies it meant to assist are not undeceitful and not underdishonest?
I suppose that the program should have been known that the police agencies would be in essence dens of overcrooked and underhonorable thieves, when it incorrectly assumed that they were interested in protect and to serve rather than lining their pockets with ill gotten gains. How naive of the program.
posted on February 13, 2001 02:50:13 PM new
gaffan: Thank you for correcting me, I did mean "still" rather than "no longer".
Just for clarification purposes, I didn't feel intimidated by sgtmike. I honestly believe he has more knowledge on the subject than I (or krs) do.
krs: I find it interesting that you believe me to be the "enemy", yet we are all Americans concerned about the best interest of our country. Rather than posting your opinions here on a message board, why not channel your energy to someone that can do something about your concerns... your senator, representative, governor??? Attempting to force opinions and debating the issue doesn't solve the problem. Do you honestly believe your posts will change anyone's mind about their own opinions? I, for one, will continue to enjoy Rush Limbaugh, President Bush and the tax relief he will implement for my benefit, and the fact that for at least the next four years, those without jobs and on welfare, supported by my hard earned tax dollars will be worried about their survival, for once. If that doesn't appeal to you, too bad. Your refusal of my truce proves to me that you are more interested in the argument, rather than the problem.
My final and last comment on this subject is "United we stand, divided as Republicans and Democrats, we fall".
posted on February 13, 2001 05:17:00 PM new
copzsweetheart
Earlier in this thread, I told you that
your only fault was being a Republican.
It seems that your faults are increasing.
You ask why krs posts here. Krs makes a
major contribution to the discussions here.
Sgtmike pales in comparison. You must not
know much if you think Sgtmike knows more.
I want to ask you, copzsweetheart, why do
you post here?
