Posted by Frank James at 9:01 am CST
Who knew the rising violence on the streets of Iraq and increasing violence on the streets of the U.S. were connected?
That's a link that can be drawn from stories in today's newspapers.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported yesterday that violent crime in the U.S. has risen for the second year in a row.
Stories today indicate that state and local law enforcement officials blame increasing violence on the homefront in part on the Bush Administration's shifting law enforcement efforts and funding on counterterrorism and homeland security.
Here's a passage from a Los Angeles Times story by reporter Richard Schmitt:
Experts said the crime upsurge reflected an increase in gang violence, particularly in midsized cities, and a growth in gun crimes, including robberies and homicides.
"We have gone backward in our ability to deal with the illegal gun market," said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University in Boston.
He said the problem had been compounded by the fact that the number of police on the street in large cities had dropped almost 10% since 2001.
The crime problem, he said, "is not going down unless we make some major changes in what we are doing."
Federal aid to state and local police declined to about $890 million in 2006 from $2.5 billion in 2001. Police departments are being squeezed by growing domestic security duties at a time when federal agencies such as the FBI are focusing more on preventing terrorism than assisting local departments fighting traditional crimes.
"We have seen some pretty dramatic cuts" in grant programs, said Gene R. Voegtlin, a spokesman for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, an Alexandria, Va., trade group for police department executives. "They are having an increasingly difficult time in effectively trying to combat crime and provide for safer communities. It has been a struggle."
While spending on domestic law enforcement for crime-fighting has declined, the U.S. is closing in on half a trillion dollars in spending on the Iraq War.
According to other stories in today's papers, all that money has purchased record amounts of violence in Iraq, according to the Pentagon's latest report "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq.
So for all that money, American taxpayers appear to have bought rising violence at home and abroad.
The American people may not be getting a what they thought they were paying for. But the money has bought one giant lesson in the law of unintended consequences.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Apparently the Bush Administration thinks you're more dead if a terrorist kills you, than if a gang member kills you. Good to know.
One contributing factor that this article doesn't mention is that many law enforcement agencies have been hit hard by National Guard & reserve deployments taking cops off American streets and putting them on Iraqi streets.
Posted by: Tony | December 19, 2006 9:33 AM
This is one the "Conservatives" are going jump on like a pig in,well you know.
When Newt and the boys took over in 92,we were promised that they,the "Conservatives" would spend our tax dollars wisely and we know that "Conservatives" are hard as nails when it comes to crime.
So, I'm gonna sit back and listen.
Posted by: Raving Loon | December 19, 2006 10:19 AM
Wonder why the mayors of these mid-size towns or the governors of the states where these mid-size towns are located can't find the funding in their own taxes to fund their own law enforcement issues?
Posted by: Terry | December 19, 2006 10:34 AM
Hey Loon good idea sit back and watch John D , Paulo and the others today. I thing I want from the Right please tell me where the 9 billion dollars is of our tax money missing in Iraq
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 19, 2006 10:39 AM
Tony,
Good point about agencies being hit hard by Guard and Reservist deployments. Though it doesn't draw the concrete connections between the War in Iraq and rise in violence at home, this Time article does paint a pretty clear picture about the rise in violence. And it touches on the Guard and Reservist deployments.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1565527,00.html
Another interesting point of the Time article... If we stick with this quagmire in Iraq and send over another few thousand troops to curb the violence overseas, what happens when all these offenders from the Reagan era hit the streets and we don't have enough cops?
Posted by: Jeff C. | December 19, 2006 10:43 AM
Apparently the Bush Administration thinks you're more dead if a terrorist kills you, than if a gang member kills you.
- T.
Tony's correct and it's part of the "let's get them there before the gangbangers of Iraq" come and get us here. Meanwhile, of course, our most vulnerable at home are being preyed upon by the slugs left back home. But, hey, at least they weren't mugged, raped, beaten or killed by "Islamo Fascists."
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | December 19, 2006 10:44 AM
Stay the Course, W. and lockstep Republicans.
President Obama will clean up your mess in 09.
Posted by: John E. | December 19, 2006 11:25 AM
I seem to remember that the Bush apparatus was against ClintonTime anti crime bills that put 100k officers on the streets. It was a truly bi-partisian effort. Republics and Democrats backed it at the time.
Roll around to the W effort and the story became 'just throwing more cops on the street won't curb crime'.
??
At the time law enforcement agencies across the country yelled foul but the super majority acted anyway.
Now we reap the benefits of W's 'vision'. Who could have predicted? Anybody.
Posted by: c.morris | December 19, 2006 11:55 AM
How much more evidence does one need before they can reasonably decide that this administration is a threat to national security?
Bill, John D, RRD, Bruce, any takers?
Posted by: James | December 19, 2006 11:58 AM
The LA Times article is, as could be expected, a thinly disguised editorial rather than a serious news article. The Swampune scribbler adds his own editorializing to it. There really isn't enough substance to the article to make it worth any serious response, but I will respond to one point.
I urge readers to take a look at the actual FBI report, rather than the LA Times/Swampune spin. First off, take the Frank James assertion that the FBI report states that "violent crime in the U.S. has risen for the second year in a row." A glance at the FBI report shows this to be FALSE. In fact, "violent crime" decreased 0.5% from 2004-2005. The increase is for the one, 2005-2006 year, only. From Table 3 of the FBI report, reported "violent crime" decreased 3.1% from 2002 to 2003, decreased 2.0% from 2003-2004, decreased 0.5% 2004-2005, increased 3.7% 2005-2006.
Note that "violent crime" has, contrary to the implication in the article, decreased during the years of the War on Terrorists. Decreased 1.9% overall 2002-2006. So if there is any connection between the war abroad and violent crime in the U.S., it appears that the war has brought about a REDUCTION in violent crime, NOT an increase.
Leave it to the LA Times and the Swampune to get the basic facts wrong.
Posted by: Bruce | December 20, 2006 9:06 AM
Hey Bruce,
Table 3 definitely doesn't show an overall decrease in violent crime since 2002.
Yes, it shows us a net negative (decrease) in violent crime when compared year to year, but in terms of overall trending, it actually shows an increase since 2002.
From 02-03 it went down 3.1, from 03-04 down 2, from 04-05 down .5, and from 05-06 a huge increase of 3.7. Remember, each number is relative only to the year before it, not overall.
What that tells us, despite crime being down each year relative to the year before it, is that it was decreasing year to year by progressively smaller amounts, which shows an UPWARD TREND, until it exploded this year with a 3.7 increase.
And your 1.9% overall decrease doesn't make sense because Table 3 is showing year to year isolated numbers, not an overall percentage trend from a benchmark. You can't just add the negative and positive percentages together, come out with a negative 1.9 and say it's an overall decrease. That's not apples to apples and its not kosher. For all your blustering one would think you would grasp that, but apparently not.
But wow, you did manage to put the severe right-wing spin on those numbers, including the usual name calling and hysterical chanting of "liberal media, liberal media..."
Pretty typical, really, a right-wing party member full of zeal, impugning anything and everything that even presents itself as an adversary to his ruling party.
We could get a more accurate picture of the overall decrease/increase if we had data for more years, but the FBI chart definitely shows an upward trend in violent crime. If you're calling it a decrease then you're not seeing the whole picture.
Posted by: Rob Norris | December 20, 2006 1:59 PM
Here's another article about the numbers, Bruce. Or will you discount this one too because its from the Washington Times, which in your mind is little more than a liberal, leftist diary?
The idea that...well, never mind.
Posted by: Rob Norris | December 21, 2006 9:45 AM
Bruce,
You keep opening your mouth and removing all doubt that you are an idiot.
Posted by: Janet | December 21, 2006 11:40 AM