skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Data show the growth of police budgets have far outpaced population growth in cities across the country.
David Sirota
Jun 8 
“Defund the police” has become a nationwide mantra, and for good reason: Budget data from across the country show that in many cities, spending on police has far outpaced population growth, and drained resources from other public priorities.
Basically, our cities have been siphoning money from stuff like education and social services and funneling the cash into ever-larger militarized security forces.
Nationally, the numbers are stark: between 1977 and 2017, America’s population grew by about 50 percent, while state and local spending on police grew by a whopping 173 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to data from the Urban Institute. In other words, the rate of police spending growth was triple the rate of population growth.
Chicago and New York embody the trends.
Chicago: 27% Increase In Police Spending Amid School Closures & Population Decline
Chicago has been losing population over the last decade. At the same time, Mayor Rahm Emanuel grew the police budget by 27 percent during his eight-year term, to the point where Chicago now spends more than 38 percent of its general fund on police.
Those increases coincided with a spate of police brutality scandals, as well as budget cuts that resulted in teacher layoffs and the mass closure of Chicago public schools. And yet, Chicago’s new mayor, Lori Lightfoot, has been pushing a new 7 percent increase in the police budget.
New York: Little Population Growth, But Massive Increase In Police Spending
In New York, it’s a similar story. Back in 2008, the city spent $4.1 billion on its police force, according to city council documents. Twelve years later, the city is spending $6 billion on its police force. That’s a 46 percent increase during a period in which the city’s population growth was essentially flat. A new report by New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer notes that in the last five years alone, spending on police rose by 22 percent, driven by a 6 percent increase in the number of officers on the force.
All this happened during a period when the city experienced many years of budget cuts to social services and schools. Indeed, as Public Citizen points out, New York’s police budget is now “more than the city spends on health, homelessness, youth development and workforce development combined.”
These are hardly anomalies, as illustrated by a Center for Popular Democracy report looking at 12 major cities. That analysis concluded that “governments have dramatically increased their spending on criminalization, policing, and mass incarceration while drastically cutting investments in basic infrastructure and slowing investment in social safety net programs” to the point where today, “police spending vastly outpaces expenditures in vital community resources and services.”
Predictable Pushback From The Hacks
To be sure, political pundits and right-wing fearmongers will try to scandalize the “Defund The Police” motto, as a way to elide and denigrate the deeper systemic criticism of the criminal justice system.
Just this morning, CNN’s Chris Cillizza -- one of the most reliable purveyors of establishment conventional wisdom -- is out with a typical bullshit clickbait article headlined “Is 'Defund the Police' a massive political mistake?”
Meanwhile, in typical “well, actually” form, fossilized Democratic operatives, including an adviser to stop-and-frisk advocate Michael Bloomberg, are suddenly arguing that “police reform” polls better than “defunding the police.”
Setting aside the grotesque spectacle of professional political mercenaries lecturing a youth-driven mass movement about proper etiquette and tone, there is the problem of so-called “reforms” not working.
As a majority of Minneapolis city council members declared this weekend: "Decades of police reform efforts have proved that the Minneapolis Police Department cannot be reformed, and will never be accountable for its action.”
The Very Real Potential For Change
Despite that truism, the opponents of wholesale change will inevitably continue pushing back, and they will be making two cynical bets.
First and foremost, they are wagering that America is forever frozen in the Reagan-Clinton era -- the epoch in which retrograde politicians got elected berating “superpredators,” promising “tough on crime” measures, pledging to restore “law and order” and pushing to deploy ever-larger quasi-military police forces throughout our communities.
They are also betting that Americans cannot process any nuance at all and that we will interpret “Defund the Police” as some sort of radical idea to turn the country into a completely lawless Purge-esque hellscape.
In the past, those cynical bets might have been pretty safe -- after all, for the last 40 years, America has indeed remained stubbornly authoritarian, inhumane and stupid when it comes to criminal justice policy.
However, of late, there seem to be new signs that we’re getting smarter. Recent polls suggest that popular opinion is with the protesters, not the police -- and favorability ratings for police have plummeted. Additionally, the New York Times notes that “never before in the history of modern polling has the country expressed such widespread agreement on racism’s pervasiveness in policing, and in society at large.”
And because of the recent protests -- and years of prior activism and organizing -- some local politicians are starting to move forward with sweeping changes. As just one example: a majority of Minneapolis city council members announced Sunday that they are beginning "the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department and creating a new transformative model for cultivating safety in our city.”
No rational human being thinks public officials are suddenly going to disband entire police forces. Clearly, though, many rational human beings seem ready to support significant reforms of police policy. And many may similarly support a change of budget priorities.
Let’s remember that only a few years ago, Donald Trump himself was submitting budgets proposing to defund the police. And now we’re seeing a similar push in some cities.
Whether or not we actually follow through and make those changes will hinge on whether or not we’re willing to have an honest discussion about how these outsized spending increases on police are draining resources from everything else.
Congress must act decisively to guarantee health care to everyone in the country. It should do so on moral grounds, it should do so on public health grounds, and it should do so to help ensure our economy gets back on track and stays back on track.
by
Diane Archer, Wendell Potter
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/06/08/defeat-coronavirus-we-need-expand-medicare
The novel coronavirus pandemic has exposed many failings in our health care system, among them the unreliability and excessive cost of employer-sponsored health insurance. More than 40 million people are newly unemployed as a result of the pandemic. According to economists at University of Massachusetts, PERI, among these newly unemployed, 25.6 million workers and their families—more than 75 million people—are also likely to be uninsured.
To contain the virus and relaunch the economy, everyone needs health care. But without employer-sponsored health insurance and a paycheck, many workers are no longer able to afford the care they need. During a pandemic, that puts all of us in danger.
Congress has already passed more than $2.7 trillion in COVID-19 stimulus funds. But, it has not yet passed legislation that will ensure no one skips or delays care because of the cost. Last month, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the House passed legislation that would cover the cost of COBRA—health insurance that is an extension of employer coverage—for about 52 million people, 17.2 million workers and their families. This does nothing to help workers who lost their jobs but did not have employer coverage. It also does not guarantee that workers who did have employer coverage will get care, since out-of-pocket health care costs for families with employer health insurance average more than $3,000 a year.
Both Senator Sanders’ and Representative Jayapal’s bills would remove financial and bureaucratic obstacles to needed care. In the words of Senator Sanders: "When so many people in this country are struggling economically and terrified at the thought of becoming sick, the federal government has a responsibility to take the burden of health care costs off the backs of the American people.” These bills would also make it far easier to access care, creating an open provider network.Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) have proposed a simple, cost-effective way to guarantee everyone who recently has lost their jobs, including those without employer coverage, health care during this pandemic. The federal government would cover their health care costs through Medicare; it would also cover any out-of-pocket costs that exceed five percent of their income. In effect, these workers and their families would have coverage that’s better than employer coverage
The vast majority of the public supports the Sanders-Jayapal Medicare proposal, according to a Data for Progress poll. Nearly three in four voters (73 percent) favor having the federal government pay for people's out-of-pocket health care costs during the pandemic, including a majority of Republicans (58 percent). In fact, when voters understand the difference between the Medicare proposal and the COBRA proposal, 61 percent favor it versus 14 percent who favor the COBRA bill.
The Medicare proposal enables people to get care from the doctors and hospitals they want to use. People don’t need to worry about whether a doctor is in-network or out. They don’t need their insurer to approve their care before they can get treatment. And, they know they won’t get a surprise medical bill because all their costs are fully covered.
Equally important, the Medicare proposal establishes a strong infrastructure for containing the novel coronavirus. It helps millions of Americans by removing barriers to care, while also creating a federal database for tracking the spread of the virus. The federal government would know where treatment and resources are most needed.
If Congress is concerned about costs, passing the Sanders-Jayapal legislation is a no-brainer. For about $93 billion, the Medicare legislation covers the full cost of three months of care for 76.8 million people. For roughly the same amount, the COBRA legislation covers the full cost of three months of care for only 51.6 million people.
It should go without saying that our health care system is broken and that Congress should guarantee care to everyone in the country. It should do so on moral grounds, it should do so on public health grounds, and it should do so to help ensure our economy gets back on track and stays back on track.
Mr. Sanders’ and Ms. Jayapal’s legislation demonstrates the value of guaranteeing everyone care through improving and expanding Medicare. If Congress passes their legislation, people would not be forced to choose between health care and other basic needs. They would not be up against a corporate health insurance system that profits from denying them care. Losing a job would not mean losing health insurance. And, the nation would be far better prepared to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus or any new virus.
No member of Congress should support the COBRA proposal. It’s a multi-billion dollar gift to corporate insurers, who are profiting from the coronavirus pandemic. And, it’s a slap in the face to their constituents, who won’t be safe so long as they can’t get the care they need.
"When Americans say that they want and need tests, they weren't talking about the nuclear kind."
by
Andrea Germanos, staff writer
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/08/80-lawmakers-demand-trump-ditch-any-thought-resuming-dangerously-provocative-nuclear
A group of 80 Democratic federal lawmakers on Monday called on President Donald Trump to drop his reported consideration of atomic bomb nuclear testing, calling it an "awful" and "dangerously provocative" proposal that could give rise to "a new nuclear arms race."
The demand came in a letter to the president—also sent to Pentagon chief Mark Esper and Energy Secretary Dan Broulliette—led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.).
The letter comes after the Washington Post reported last month that the administration had floated in May the idea of a carrying out the first nuclear test explosion since 1992 as a show of force to Moscow and Beijing, with one senior administration official calling the idea "very much an ongoing conversation."
"A return to nuclear testing is not only scientifically and technically unnecessary but also dangerously provocative," wrote the lawmakers. "It would signal to the world that the U.S. no longer has confidence in the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. It would needlessly antagonize important allies, cause other countries to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and prompt adversaries to respond in kind—risking a new nuclear arms race and further undermining the global nonproliferation regime. None of these developments would improve America's national security or strengthen its position in the world."
The possible of the resumption in testing was also the subject of a separate letter sent Monday to Esper and Broulliette from a group of House Democrats.
In that letter, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) along with Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), and Pete Visclosky (D-IN) express concern that Congress was not informed of the content of the meeting in which the idea was floated. The lawmakers also called it "unfathomable that the administration is considering something so short-sighted and dangerous, and that directly contradicts its own 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)."
The letter continues:
The NPR, which this administration often cites as inviolable, makes clear that "the United States will not resume nuclear explosive testing unless necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal." There is no information to suggest nuclear explosive testing is necessary based on these factors. In fact, the entities responsible for the safety and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent—the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and its nuclear weapons laboratories—have, without fail for 24 years, certified to the President that our nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without the need for testing.
[...]
As the nation which tested more nuclear devices than every other nation combined, the United States benefits most from a global testing moratorium. For this same reason, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would substantially enhance our national security. The notion that resuming testing would somehow pressure Russia or China into arms control negotiations is baseless and uninformed. Resuming testing would open the door for widespread global testing, which would only serve to benefit our adversaries and make Americans less safe. The administration should instead focus its efforts on productive arms control negotiations, including extending the New START Treaty, seeking limitations on the introduction of new and unnecessary military capabilities, and continuing to champion the long-standing global moratorium on testing.
The House lawmakers also pointed to the "far-reaching human and environmental impacts" that would accompany the resumed nuclear testing.
"One need look no further than the public health and environmental toll that previous nuclear testing—both by the U.S. and by others—has taken here at home and around the globe," the letter states.
The lawmakers gave a June 22 deadline for the answers to a number of questions including what legal authority Trump would cite to conduct the testing; whether intelligence agencies have analyzed the likely impacts of the testing; and what changed since the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) certified in February that the nation's nuclear stockpile was safe.
The possibility of the resumed nuclear testing had already sparked concern outside of Capitol Hill.
Sara Z. Kutchesfahani wrote Friday at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
A U.S. resumption of nuclear tests would send a bad signal to other countries and prompt them to test and create their own nuclear weapons. Moreover, innocent bystanders could be exposed to the radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion. Tens of thousands of people have been afflicted by leukemia, thyroid cancer, miscarriages, and severe birth defects as a result of past nuclear testing in the United States alone.
Kutchesfahani also pointed to Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto's dramatic time lapse map of the 2,053 nuclear explosions that took place between 1945 and 1998.
Half of those tests—1,030—were conducted by the U.S., Kutchesfahani wrote, a total "more than the number of tests done by the other seven nuclear testing countries combined."
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation executive director and former Congressman John Tierney (D-Mass.) also recently criticized the administration's proposal, calling it "nothing short of appalling" and "a clear sign of this administration's continued willingness to put Americans at risk," and especially concerning in light of the coronavirus pandemic.
"We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis of our lifetime and this is what the Trump administration is doing with its time?" he said. "When Americans say that they want and need tests, they weren't talking about the nuclear kind."
"Nuclear brinkmanship is not a game; nuclear weapons are not toys; and the Americans who live near or downwind of the Nevada National Security Site are not pawns to be blasted across a radioactive chess board," added Tierney.
The proposal has also drawn rebuke from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
"A Trump nuclear test would cross a line no nation thought the U.S. would ever cross again, and is threatening the health and safety of all people," said ICAN executive director Beatrice Fihn.
"Testing poisons environments, food, and lives—Americans are still dying from the original nuclear weapons tests. It would also blow up any chance of avoiding a dangerous new nuclear arms race. It would complete the erosion of the global arms control framework and plunge us back into a new Cold War. Only a multilateral solution can shore up these bilateral treaties Trump is ripping up," said Fihn.
"The TPNW is that solution," she said, referring to the historic 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which would ban the bomb.
The U.S. has not signed that treaty.
