Several Indiana cities have been awarded grants to hire police officers – apparently, the grants come at a 3-to-1 ratio. The federal government will pay for 3/4 of a police officer’s 4 year contract. According to a story in the Muncie Star Press by Rick Yencer, Muncie Mayor McShurley intends to decline the funds for Muncie, saying she can’t figure out how to pay for the fourth year. I haven’t been following Mayor McShurley closely enough to have a sense for whether this is a legitimate budget concern or some sort of Palinesque posturing against the federal stimulus bill. Or, maybe Muncie’s crime is low enough that additional police officers are not a pressing concern.
A sidebar to the story lists other cities and the money they are receiving for police officers:
Muncie 5 officers $1,160,175
Anderson 6 officers $1,501,434
Marion 4 officers $947,500
Indianapolis 50 officers $11,046,850
Gary 11 officers $2,076,514
East Chicago 5 officers $1,120,105
Michigan City 3 officers $592,641
Clinton 1 officer $134,136
Kokomo 5 officers $1,146,950
South Bend 13 officers $2,453,295
Terre Haute 6 officers $1,204,896
Akron 1 officer $143,176
Clarksville 2 officers $467,844
Lafayette 4 officers $915,564
Merrillville 3 officers $588,090
Lake Station 1 officer $186,183
Montezuma 1 officer $129,288
Spencer 1 officer $138,942
LaPorte 2 officers $382,154
Linton 1 officer $161,370
Nashville 1 officer $118,635
Muncie’s crime rate is not so low. Muncie is having serious money problems (ok, maybe not as bad as Georgetown). Best guess is either something Palinesque (and that could include something more like Michael than Sarah) but I would not exclude some original idiocy either.
Not necessary that any bad things happening but some reality thinking. Based on current estimates of revenue over the next several years it may be time to evaluate “free money” which does not cover all expenses. That is, a grant that does not cover all costs and has expenses of 25%plus (4th year required to continue at local expense) may not be a feasible undertaking. Annual grant is only for pay and some benefits but local responsible for extra benefits, clothing, weapons, ammo (and current training requirements with cost of ammo is quite high per officer), protective vest, vehicle expense, etc. etc. may just be too much to be undertaken now. Many local governments are going to have to be making major cut backs in order to live within the new revenue situations —and it may never return to “days of old”.
Your point is well taken, but I wonder why we have come to this point. Are we less capable than our forefathers and that’s why we can’t maintain our society at the levels they managed?
My sense is that, for awhile anyway, wealth disparity was kept to a dull roar (mid 30s – early 80s). When income disparity was allowed to increase, civic institutions (among other things) started to weaken. But, it’s entirely possible I misunderstand the actual income disparities during that period, the relative strength of our civic institutions, or the relationship between the two.
A multitude of factors play a role: property taxes (caps, homestead credits, etc.), reluctance of local governments to impose more local taxes (right given by all seeing legislature), property tax collections down seriously in some areas, income oriented taxes and sales tax revenues shared back to locals down, etc. etc….thus revenue forecasts are rather gloomy and have to be taken seriously in budgeting with hopefully some allowance for maintaining needed flexibility when need or opportunity arise. Some serious matters facing all local units and the answers not readily available.