Saturday, December 29, 2007

Cutting Federal Grants In Wisconsin

Good.

Federal grants to help state and local police fight crime will be slashed by nearly two-thirds in 2008, according to the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance.

The omnibus spending bill President George W. Bush signed into law Wednesday will cut the amount of Byrne Justice Assistance Grant money Wisconsin receives from $6.48 million in 2007 to about $2.3 million in 2008, the Office of Justice Assistance reported this week.

“The cuts are draconian,” said David Steingraber, executive director of the state agency, which disburses the federal grant money.

Steingraber said the money is used for programs that wouldn’t otherwise exist, such as multijurisdictional drug enforcement units and stationing community prosecutors in local police districts in Milwaukee.

Drug trafficking and distribution cross municipal boundaries, but “it’s difficult to fund efforts over counties and cities because there’d be fights about who would pay,” Steingraber said.

Local and state law enforcement should be paid for by local and state taxes.  People in New York should not more have to pay for a prosecutor in Milwaukee than Milwaukeeans should have to pay for a drug enforcement unit in New York.  And let’s be real here, far more of these federal grants are spent in places like New York, Miami, and San Francisco than in places like Milwaukee, Eau Claire, and Appleton.  Wisconsin gets the shallow end of the grant pool, as well it should. 

If there’s a problem with crime that crosses jurisdictions and the neighboring jurisdictions can’t get together to tackle it, then the citizens of those jurisdictions should tar and feather their incompetent elected leadership.  Throwing federal dollars at them just allows them to continue to be incompetent but hides it with a warm blanket of federal tax dollars. 

Furthermore, it is generally true that the worst abuses of government spending are usually funded by a grant.  Whether it be a federal grant to a state or a state grant to a city, the attitude of the people tasked with spending the money is too often that it’s “free money” and they don’t take the care that they would otherwise take in making decisions about its use.

(11) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1325 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. David Steingraber, executive director of the state agency, which disburses the federal grant money.

    We need a follow up here, to see if the cuts hold, and if so, that the “state agency which disburses the federal money” is also cut by 2/3rds…  including David’s pay.

    Put that on the calendar for summer of 08 please wink

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 1407 hrs


  2. Fewer drug enforcement units?  Excellent.

    Posted by Nick on December 29, 2007 at 1715 hrs


  3. Yea maybe this will work as well as when the Bush administration cut fuding for the COPS program… oh yea crime in cities went up nationally.  Whatever happened to being tough on crime?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 1831 hrs


  4. This started when Clinton was running for relection, I believe.  We knew this day was coming, when the grant funding would be cut.  Not all conservatives were for this program.
    Of course, people like daver just love the welfare system for states, especially larger states.  He probably doesn’t know a program we can’t cut out and they do then he will blame Bush for it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 2130 hrs


  5. Dan the facts are the COPS program was significantly cut or in some cases zero funded and crime went up nation wide…  And the Bush Admin cut it.  Apparently the right is just not that hard on crime anymore.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 2146 hrs


  6. daver, any evidence that lower funding of COPS program contributed to any increase in crime and there are cities that have lowered crime, so does that mean the cOPS program does not work?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 2204 hrs


  7. So you mean other than in cities nationwide when the COPS program was cut and then defunded crime rose pretty much everywhere… No I guess I’d just call that a strong correlation. 

    Wow conservatives for less police there’s something I never thought I’d read.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 0002 hrs


  8. Furthermore, it is generally true that the worst abuses of government spending are usually funded by a grant.

    Is this documented or supposed?

    Many city governments, Milwaukee especially, are stretched to the limits already and now these cuts come along. Once again your ideology world trumps the reality on the ground every time.

    The notion of a federal system is that the national government steps up to fill the holes the lower level cannot, especially when it comes to crucial services such as police protection

    What you so cavalierly call incompetent leadership is usually a case of having so few resources. And your notion that neighboring jurisdictions can pitch in is so laughable when considering how cooperative our Milwaukee suburbs are. The idea that New Berlin would “cooperate” with Milwaukee makes the head hurt.

    This again is another example where greed wins out over common sense.

    The money is there to pay for those things. It’s time we think about our own self interest and demand it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 0008 hrs


  9. In general, conservatives like more police, however not when the federal government pays for it and if there is a sunset date.  If Milwaukee wants more cops, they can pay for it, if NYC needs police,they should pay for it, not people from WI.
    When Vegas needed more cops, they passed a referendum for more cops.  Milwaukee can do the same.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 0205 hrs


  10. Local and state law enforcement should be paid for by local and state taxes. 

    Which you have no interest in actually paying.

    Furthermore, it is generally true that the worst abuses of government spending are usually funded by a grant.  Whether it be a federal grant to a state or a state grant to a city, the attitude of the people tasked with spending the money is too often that it’s “free money” and they don’t take the care that they would otherwise take in making decisions about its use. 

    Because you say so, right?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 1259 hrs


  11. Let us imagine for a moment:

    Milwaukee County wants to hire more drug enforcement personnel to bust the people who produce herion, which is exported to surrounding counties, including Washington.

    Milwaukee County asks Washington County to provide funding for this effort, since the crimes affect people in both counties.

    What do you think the more likely post would be on this and similar blogs:

    A> There goes Milwaukee County again, trying to tax surrounding counties for its problems.

    B> This is an example of cross-jurisdictional cooperation, and is a good use of funds.


    Anyone going to seriously put money on B? Put your money on the Devil Rays to win the World Series next year while you’re at it.

    There’s the reason higher levels of government get involved. Hardly anyone, especially arch conservatives, are easily convinced that problems transcend jurisdictional lines; and they aren’t about to help pay for problems they percieve to be endemic to someone else’s community.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 1310 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.