~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-in-2020/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... n-2021-why

Homicides continue a trend!

[Typical Lax Dad]

[old salt]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-in-2020/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... n-2021-why

Homicides continue a trend!

Murders continue an upward trend in 2021.
2020 was not a one year blip, after BLM = defund the police.

[Brooklyn]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-in-2020/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... n-2021-why

Homicides continue a trend!

Murders continue an upward trend in 2021.
2020 was not a one year blip, after BLM = defund the police.

A trend that was started under tRump. Mebbe if hadn't appointed so many republicon judges this would not have happened.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... s-in-2020/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... n-2021-why

Homicides continue a trend!

Murders continue an upward trend in 2021.
2020 was not a one year blip, after BLM = defund the police.

Do your job.

[Brooklyn]

salty,

2020 was not a one year blip, after BLM = defund the police.

History shows that, contrary to right wing lies, police reform actually works:


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ne ... t-n1231677


Camden, N.J. disbanded its police force. Here's what happened next.
Crime dropped in Camden, but there’s more to the story, say advocates and longtime residents.



It has been hailed as a potential model of police reform, a crime-ridden city in southern New Jersey that disbanded its force and rebuilt it from the ground up.

The Camden Police Department underwent the unprecedented overhaul in 2013, leading to sharp reductions in crime and a focus on improved community relations. Seven years later, with the nation grappling over police reform after the killing of George Floyd, attention has turned to Camden for lessons on the path forward.

The reality, residents and advocates say, is complicated. Camden no doubt feels safer than it was a decade ago, they acknowledge, but the process was rocky, and problems persist.

In its early days, the new force ramped up summonses for such offenses as riding a bicycle without a bell, sparking a backlash from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. The department ultimately reversed course and implemented sweeping policy changes, but some long-term residents said the current stable of officers, nearly half of whom are white and many of whom live far from town, still have much work to do in building trust and confidence within the community.

"They are not jumping out dunking people on their head no more," said Anthony Ways, who runs a community youth center. "But they are sitting there — 2, 3 in the morning — with the lights flashing being an intimidating presence."

Ways spent 13 years in prison on a murder charge before he was exonerated in 2005.

"Somewhere in the middle," he said, "they have to find that sweet spot where they can police but, at the same time, take account of the citizens and their concerns."




Camden, a city of roughly 74,000 just across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, was a thriving manufacturing hub in the early 1900s. But by the turn of the century, the city was in steep decline, and suffering from a population exodus.

Camden faced a crisis beginning in 2010, when the state slashed aid funding as part of spending cuts that Chris Christie, then the governor, imposed in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Roughly half of Camden's 360 police officers were laid off. Arrests plummeted. Violent crime spiked.

In 2012, Camden recorded 67 homicides and 172 shooting victims. It was ranked the most dangerous city in America, with a murder rate more than 18 times the national average, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

With the city in dire straits, Christie and state Democratic lawmakers pushed to regionalize its police force. Politicians in Camden, including Dana Redd, then the mayor, lent their support to breaking up the city's all-union police department and replacing it with a larger but lower-paid force.

Despite stiff pressure from the union and an outspoken group of residents, the Camden Police Department was formally disbanded in 2013.

The new force was led by the existing Camden police chief, Scott Thomson. He moved to remake the ethos of the department.

"We were going to have all of our officers have the identity of guardians and not warriors," Thomson said in an interview.



more ....


Excessive force complaints have DROPPED 95%.


Too bad that the salty's and other right wingers of this troubled society always have their way. No wonder society is so f_____d up. Blame them, not Democrats and don't blame me.

[kramerica.inc]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-c ... 1639344374

The Real Cost of Biden’s Spending Plan
CBO comes clean on the price tag if the programs are made permanent.

Dec. 12, 2021 5:34 pm ET

President Biden’s tax and entitlement plan received what should be a pair of knockout punches late last week. The report of surging inflation has been well covered. But the media have largely ignored the second blow—the real cost of the plan if honestly scored. Allow us to complete the record.

We’ve been telling you for months that the plan’s advertised cost of $1.75 trillion over 10 years includes multiple budget gimmicks that disguise the real cost. The Penn Wharton Budget Model has scored the 10-year cost at about $4.6 trillion, but the White House keeps claiming against all evidence that the cost is “zero.”

Now comes the Congressional Budget Office to report that the claim of zero cost is a Big Con. CBO, a political outfit beholden to Congress, can’t be so blunt. It is constrained by budget conventions imposed by Congress. But even under those conventions, CBO has said the bill would add $200 billion to the deficit over 10 years.

Enter Sens. Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn, who asked CBO director Phillip Swagel to add up the cost of the bill that recently passed the House if all of its programs were made permanent. This is a more honest accounting because Democrats admit both that they want to make the spending permanent and that they’ve adjusted programs to make them fit under the Senate budget rules so they can pass with a mere 51 votes (including Vice President Kamala Harris ).

Mr. Swagel’s response, sent on Friday, is a torpedo speeding toward the hull of Build Back Better. The dishonesty in the $1.75 trillion spending total is astonishing even by Congressional standards.

Take the child allowance, which Democrats say will cost only $185 billion because it ends after one year. No one believes they won’t extend it next year, and the year after that, ad infinitum. CBO says the real cost over 10 years is $1.597 trillion. Democrats also peg their earned-income tax credit expansion at a cost of $13 billion because it too ends after one year. CBO says the real cost is $135 billion over 10 years.

An honest accounting of those two programs alone consumes $1.732 trillion, or nearly all of the $1.75 trillion that Sen. Joe Manchin has said is the most total new spending he’ll support over 10 years.

But there’s so much more. Democrats phase out the child-care and pre-K entitlements after 2027 with a total cost of $381 billion. CBO says the real cost over 10 years is $752 billion if made permanent. They also underestimate the cost of expanded healthcare subsidies at $74 billion by phasing them out in 2025 or 2026. CBO says the real cost is $220 billion.


And don’t forget the spending after 10 years once the subsidies for all of these new programs become embedded in American behavior. This is the main purpose of making these programs into entitlements—to make people more dependent on government from cradle to grave.

One of the bill’s biggest tricks is its restoration of the state and local tax deduction to $80,000 up from $10,000. Democrats pretend that this will raise $15 billion over 10 years because the current $10,000 limit is set to expire after 2025. CBO says the real cost of this Democratic tax deduction for the rich without that gimmick would be $245 billion.

We could go on, and we recommend people look at Mr. Swagel’s letter on the CBO’s website. The 18 programs that Mr. Swagel itemizes in a table with his letter contribute $3.477 trillion over 10 years to the total cost of the House bill—compared with the $889 billion that Democrats claim those same programs cost under their gimmicky rules.

Overall, Mr. Swagel says in his letter, CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation project that the House bill would increase the deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years without the budget gimmicks and phony phase-outs.

Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer reacted furiously to this news, falling back on their claims that the Build Back Better Act is “fully paid for.” Mrs. Pelosi says CBO has scored Mr. Graham’s “imaginary bill.” But her bill is the real fiscal fantasy and “fully paid for” is the lie of the year.

All of this gives Mr. Manchin, and other Democrats hiding behind his skepticism, ample ammunition to call the whole thing off. If this bill passes, they’ll own all of the deficits, debt and inflation that result.

[youthathletics]

Queue.....the WSJ is trash,and it's somehow trumps fault. Biden admin lies.....too!

[MDlaxfan76]

Queue.....the WSJ is trash,and it's somehow trumps fault. Biden admin lies.....too!

The WSJ is not 'trash', it's the last of the right leaning or right wing publications that remains a strong journalistic endeavor. However, it's Editorial Board is not journalism, it's editorial. Opinion. And since Murdoch acquired the WSJ, it's editorial group has significantly weakened as it has grown more stridently partisan.

There are indeed two sides of the "misleading" argument on "paid for" aspects of BBB. Because of the terminations of programs that may or may not be extended, the costs are suppressed below what they would be IF extended.

On the other hand, they do terminate...and would need to find new revenues to cover them if extended. Same process, but the difference may be that they may then be so popular that voters are willing to fund them...but why would this be so scary to the right (oh yeah, that may mean more corporate taxes)

Personally, I think the tax programs should cut harder into corporate profits for the large corporations. Extra 3% on any corporation reporting to Wall Street $50 million or more in profit. I'd also be ok for a 'wealth' tax on anyone with over $50 million in personal assets. And I'd be very much in favor of beefing up IRS enforcement of taxation of the large corporations and mega wealthy. That's where the money is.

[Brooklyn]

he Real Cost of Biden’s Spending Plan
CBO comes clean on the price tag if the programs are made permanent.

Let's pretend it was a war on Afghanistan, Iraq, or another phony war on terrorism. That would make the cost quite acceptable.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Queue.....the WSJ is trash,and it's somehow trumps fault. Biden admin lies.....too!

If that’s from WSJ opinion page, it’s trash. I can’t read the editorials anymore. $200 billion is basically $0.

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/03/30/cbo ... estimated/

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

[kramerica.inc]

Cross posted:

Joe Manchin Might Finally Be a Force For Good

Somebody needs to make Democrats decide which programs to scrap.

By Jonathan Chait

The Congressional Budget Office published a report Friday measuring the cost of the Build Back Better bill as if all the spending it created were to be made permanent, rather than sunsetted, as much of it will be. The agency found the bill would, under those circumstances, increase the deficit by about $3 trillion.

Democrats are treating this, and the political press is reporting it, as a setback for their efforts. But the CBO report simply confirms an obvious flaw with the bill. Democrats need to stop thinking of this as a communications problem and start thinking of it as a substantive one, and fix it.

The original design of Build Back Better was, in its broad sweep, correct. The Biden administration laid out more than $4 trillion in new domestic spending, and paid for it by patching up the tax code’s criminally lax treatment of the rich. But then centrist Democrats gashed holes in Biden’s plans to tax the wealthy, leaving his measure far short of the revenue he needed to finance it.

At that point, Democrats needed to make some hard choices about which programs to prioritize and which to set aside for the next time they control government. Instead, they … didn’t. That’s why they ended up gaming the timing of their programs, essentially stuffing five pounds of sugar into a two-pound bag.

Manchin’s complaint is that, if the administration intends to make its programs permanent, then it’s hiding the cost by letting them expire automatically. The administration responds that future Congresses can decide how to pay for extensions.

But this explanation is fanciful. The pushback against Biden’s plan by centrist Democrats reveals the limits of the party’s appetite to tax the wealthy. The only way Democrats are going to find more revenue is if they have considerably larger majorities in both chambers of Congress. And the chance that they have that in 2026 — when there won’t be a Republican presidency that drives the kind of Democratic Congressional surge that has been required to produce those majorities — are exceedingly slim.

So Manchin’s expressed fear that the true cost of Build Back Better will simply be funded by borrowing is misplaced. So, too, is his worry that it will aggravate inflation. (Even inflation hawks like Larry Summers say the bill won’t have a detectable impact on prices.) But the concern that the bill’s funding expires is very serious.

What’s more, the temporary nature of the spending serves to further undermine some of its effectiveness. The child-care and pre-k programs depend on states participating — and Obamacare is strong evidence that Republican governors and legislatures are going to be extremely reluctant to voluntarily participate in any new social program created by a Democratic administration.

Worse, they will have a stronger incentive to boycott Biden’s childcare and pre-k programs than they did to boycott Obamacare. While Obamacare was permanently funded, the pre-k and childcare programs phase out after a few years. CBO estimates that 34 percent of children live in states that won’t participate in the pre-k expansion, and 40 percent live in states that won’t accept the child care expansion. Those numbers are political guesses and may well be too low. That means they may cost less than CBO forecasts, but if so, they will also help fewer families.

The political economy of expanding the welfare state is that the size of the bill is constrained by how much new tax revenue Democrats can raise from the wealthy. Every dollar is precious and should fund something permanent. Throwing away some of those dollars to set up programs that automatically self-destruct is an unconscionable waste.

Democrats seem to be facing a different political economy dilemma: Nearly everybody agrees they need to focus their bill on a smaller number of programs, but none of the constituent groups wants their own program to be the one that’s cut. Manchin might actually have a constructive role here by forcing them to come face to face with the possibility that, if they don’t prioritize, none of them will get anything.

Manchin, of course, created many of the Democrats’ problems by opposing the tax increases they needed to fund the bill. But now that fight is over, and the new problem — making tough choices given the funding constraints the centrist wing imposed — is one Manchin can help solve.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12 ... etter.html

[Farfromgeneva]

Queue.....the WSJ is trash,and it's somehow trumps fault. Biden admin lies.....too!

If that’s from WSJ opinion page, it’s trash. I can’t read the editorials anymore. $200 billion is basically $0.

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/03/30/cbo ... estimated/

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

The oped section has gone to ish. I still like Peggy Noonan and Greg Ip is the real deal but the rest suck

[Typical Lax Dad]

Queue.....the WSJ is trash,and it's somehow trumps fault. Biden admin lies.....too!

If that’s from WSJ opinion page, it’s trash. I can’t read the editorials anymore. $200 billion is basically $0.

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/03/30/cbo ... estimated/

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

The oped section has gone to ish. I still like Peggy Noonan and Greg Ip is the real deal but the rest suck

It’s the Rupert Murdoch impact.

[old salt]

note -- it starts trending upward in 2019. Defund the police + bail "reform" + Soros campaign funded prosecutors.

[Typical Lax Dad]

note -- it starts trending upward in 2019. Defund the police + bail "reform" + Soros campaign funded prosecutors.

Stock market is down recently.

[old salt]

note -- it starts trending upward in 2019. Defund the police + bail "reform" + Soros campaign funded prosecutors.

Stock market is down recently.

There were several policing reforms which brought the numbers down in the previous 2 decades, before defunding the police, no pretrial confinement, refusal to prosecute "minor" crimes, removing plain clothes street units, "reimagining" policing & criminalizing policing -- all forcing police to work "to the rule" & look the other way, rather than risk the blowback. Your chart ends with an estimate for 2020.

[Typical Lax Dad]

note -- it starts trending upward in 2019. Defund the police + bail "reform" + Soros campaign funded prosecutors.

Stock market is down recently.

There were several policing reforms which brought the numbers down in the previous 2 decades, before defunding the police, no pretrial confinement, refusal to prosecute "minor" crimes, removing plain clothes street units, "reimagining" policing & criminalizing policing -- all forcing police to work "to the rule" & look the other way, rather than risk the blowback. Your chart ends with an estimate for 2020.

Do your job.

[old salt]

...Because of the terminations of programs that may or may not be extended, the costs are suppressed below what they would be IF extended.

On the other hand, they do terminate...and would need to find new revenues to cover them if extended. Same process, but the difference may be that they may then be so popular that voters are willing to fund them...but why would this be so scary to the right (oh yeah, that may mean more corporate taxes)

...gimme a break ! Whatever entitlement has ever been terminated. When the BBB short term funding ends, the costs will be piled into the deficit, along with all our other unfunded mandated entitlements.

[old salt]

note -- it starts trending upward in 2019. Defund the police + bail "reform" + Soros campaign funded prosecutors.

Stock market is down recently.

There were several policing reforms which brought the numbers down in the previous 2 decades, before defunding the police, no pretrial confinement, refusal to prosecute "minor" crimes, removing plain clothes street units, "reimagining" policing & criminalizing policing -- all forcing police to work "to the rule" & look the other way, rather than risk the blowback. Your chart ends with an estimate for 2020.

Do your job.

They are. Working to the rule & nothing more. Don't take the initiative, don't give chase, look the other way. Cops don't work on commission or get year end bonuses.