Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page 49)

16 C O N T I N U E D F R O M PAG E Faulty Findings? I strongly disagree with your editorial [The Sacriﬁce at Home, August 2007] on several counts, as well as with Mr. McKay’s analysis [Vanishing Act, August 2007]. First, your opinion of the war and how it has been run should be kept to yourself since it’s your opinion. There are many people who read the government news who believe the war is [a] right and just cause, even though I may agree the political, desk-bound generals and Pentagon personnel have truly screwed up the tactics after the initial victory over conventional troops. This is due to no longer having down-to-earth, ﬁghting generals like Omar Bradley and Patton. It is a syndrome of the present upper echelon to think in terms of big wars instead of down-and-dirty wars, as we are in now, who fail to listen to their own personnel who are experts in ﬁghting this kind of conﬂict — their egos and political nature got in the way. The new general in charge — who wrote the book on counter insurgency — is ﬁnally in charge. He is moving the troops in the right direction. I do not feel ﬁghting the enemy in their land is a waste of taxpayers’ money; unless you wish to ﬁght them eventually in the U.S. Second, federal grants have been around for ages. States and counties and local agencies should start their own programs, hire their personnel and then ask for federal assistance in obtaining highly expensive equipment to initiate a program that they are capable of supporting locally. Otherwise, when federal money runs out due to inevitable cutbacks in the government, the agencies drop the program and use the hard equipment for other things than its original purpose. The brass will transfer ofﬁcers to the patrol or other divisions who are short of personnel or lay off ofﬁcers since their budget inﬂated by federal grants has now been reduced to a ﬁgure which cannot sustain the extra personnel unless they raise taxes which is never approved by the locals. Federal grants are temporary — not permanent. If you want a permanent government dole then all police agen- cies should come under federal control, and all ofﬁcers be made federal law enforcement ofﬁcers with one set of policies and procedures etc., and with the power to enforce all federal, state, county and local laws anywhere in the country. This was suggested when grants ﬁrst started being popular. It made sense ﬁnancially, but state, county and local ofﬁcials screamed since they would no longer have the power to dictate to the state police, sheriffs or chiefs of police. The hue and cry was “violation of states’ rights.” All local governments have the responsibility to establish and maintain police departments. If they cannot, then they must have state troopers or county sheriffs patrol the area. Ultimately it is the taxpayer who must bear the burden if they want local control. Crime reduction has never relied on the federal money pumped into agencies. It may help for awhile to put extra bodies on the street, but it is good, hard, aggressive police work that reduces crime. The community also must work in consort with their local agencies, not remain silent when information is needed to apprehend the criminal element including narcotic pushers and dealers. Community programs started on federal assistance must be able to continue with local funds after the initial seed money from the federal government runs out. If not, then the program should never be started. Each agency must appropriate the funds needed through taxes to build an agency capable of dealing with local crime. It is not the federal government’s job. If Mr. McKay is referring to a federal government mandated program, which calls on local agencies to enforce federal laws, then money from the DHS to initiate and sustain the program as long as required is appropriate. States, counties and local agencies are supposed to fend for themselves through local taxes. The federal government takes care of foreign and domestic issues that concern federal law — unless you and Mr. McKay want a permanent federal law enforcement agency responsible to the federal government only, not local politicians. The average police ofﬁcer does not object to the concept of a federal police department — one department; one set of policies and rules; pension, uniform and equipment issue (which saves money), etc. Liberals object to the concept since they are afraid of a national police force. Local politicians object since they would lose control over their private army, unable to dictate what they will or will not do. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I will say it again: Federal money is generally used to sustain an army and enforce federal law; not sustain a state’s efforts to ﬁght crime. It should be used for seed money only, never to continue local agencies’ programs to ﬁght crime unless it involves federal law (e.g., narcotics movements across state lines). I like the government news to report, inform, give pros and cons on issues, equipment, [and] programs and let the reader decide. But please leave individual ideas and opinions to yourselves. JOHN MACKAY STILLMAN Raise Your Voice Your opinions matter to us. Send comments about this issue to the editors . Please list your telephone number for confirmation. Publication is solely at the discretion of the editors. Government Technology reserves the right to edit submissions for length. 49 http://www.govtech.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Government Technology - October 2007

Contents Point of View Big Picture The Last Mile GT Spectrum Letters How It Works Cerf on the Net Way Back Machine Separation Anxiety Let's Roll Rising to the Challenge Wednesday Afternoon Fever Parking Possibilities Products Signal: Noise

Government Technology - October 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.