One of the biggest issues that the United States faces today, and one that affects every single aspect of our society, is the budget. The budget deficit is forecasted to keep rising, at least for the next year. The deficit for 2011 should reach just below $1.5 trillion. The Washington Post quotes CBO (Congressional Budget Office) director Douglas Elmendorf saying, “Without ‘significant’ changes in spending patterns, tax policy or both…the nation will probably have to borrow an additional $12 trillion through 2021, pushing the total debt held by outside investors to nearly 100 percent of the economy and leaving the country deeper in debt than at any time since 1946.” These numbers are staggering, and we, the people, are the ones that are paying into the endless tax hole. It seems that both the Republicans and Democrats seem to argue more about what should be done than how to actually deal with the deficit. There are deficit-reducing plans out there that have been suggested but the people have not heard about them because one of the two parties struck it down before it could be discussed. Not to be completely negative, there is a ray of hope in the form of a committee that includes Republicans and Democrats working together to try and stop the spending that is putting the United States into a deeper deficit. Another ray of hope, according to the Washington Post, is a balanced-budget amendment being purposed by Republican Senators Orrin G. Hatch and John Cornyn that would “cap federal spending at 20 percent of the economy, significantly lower than the current 25 percent of gross domestic product. It would also prohibit tax increases unless approved by two-thirds of lawmakers in both the House and Senate.” The deadline for the proposal of United States’ spending plan is March 4th, so the people will see what our representatives come up with.
The above discussion lays the foundation for how funding affects crime control, specifically in regards to law enforcement agencies. The basic line of thought being that without funding, local law enforcement agencies cannot pay all of their officers nor hire new people, and if the agency knows they cannot pay their officers they will let them go. When officers are let go, there are fewer officers to guard our communities, cities, counties, states, and our country. If there are fewer officers to guard the people, more criminals will take advantage of the lapse in authority and be able to get away with more crimes. Thus, the more crimes that take place, the more victims there are. As Senator Bob Casey said, "You do the math, in any particular community. Loosing one officer, or 2 or 3, or 5 can have a devastating impact on the ability of the community to keep order and protect the people from criminals on the street." This lack of funding applies to the federal law enforcement agencies as well, only their influence has more impact on the national and global front. If federal agents are laid off, the overall affect is that more “destructive forces” have a bigger window in which to adversely affect the people of the United States of America. It must not be forgotten that if these officers and agents are laid-off, they no longer have a job with which to support themselves and their families.
In addition to cutting personnel, a lack of funding affects the equipment that law enforcement agencies use. The agencies cannot get new patrol cars, more effective protection gear for the officers, or invest in programs that help deter youth from committing crimes. It is hard to believe, even with how wonderful it sounds, that the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has funding for the “Safeguarding our Future: Building a Nationwide Network for First Responders.” This is committee is working on making a “…national broadband network dedicated to public safety….” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. As good as this initiative sounds, again, where is the funding coming from? Again, bringing this back to how funding affects crime control. With fewer officers on the street, there are fewer authority figures between citizens and criminals. It may look and feel like a hopeless situation, but there is always something that can be done. Maybe it is in the form of writing to our representatives in Congress, asking them to look elsewhere when they cutting funding, and while at it looking for a way to make less funding more effective for law enforcement agencies. Maybe it is in the form of getting people to volunteer for neighborhood watches and help the police officers wherever they can. Or maybe it is in the form of fortifying your house and learning how to protect yourself. Our country still has to go on, so funding will still go on, but changes do need to be made.
Funding should not just mean that there is money to give to a certain cause/policy/agency, but that there is real money to give. Even if we cut spending to a “reasonable” amount, it just means that the government will be increasing the deficit at a lower rate. Yes, there is a huge budget deficit. Yes, we need to cut our unnecessary spending, and sometimes even lessen necessary funding. No, we cannot fix this problem overnight. It will take a period of time over which our government is diligent with the money we have given them. We, the people, need to hold our government accountable for the money they spend.
Published Feb. 10, 2011. Accessed Feb. 23, 2011.
Published Jan. 27, 2011. Accessed Feb. 23, 2011.
Published Feb. 15, 2011. Accessed Feb. 23, 2011.
Published Feb. 17, 2001. Accessed Feb. 23, 2011.
I agree when you say, we need to hold our government accountable when they spend money. this is nothing new our economy has not seen before, the government spending money in useless places. It would be interesting too see where we are in 40 years and how the budget will look then
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to comment on my blog. It is true that there is nothing new in our economy when it comes to the government spending money. Unless we turn our spending around, I dread what our budget will look like in 40 years.
ReplyDelete