very been to NYC and Albany?

I'd say that it's Albany that NEEDS more police per capita

Yes! The idea that Albany needs more police per capita than NYC is not only obvious if you walk around both but also if you look at the stats.

If you go by the data used at Neighborhood Scout, you get

percentile ranking of safety:
Albany 6 (safer than 6% of US areas)
NYC 26


Violent Crimes per 1000 residents
Albany 9.6
NYC 7.92

Property crimes per 1000 residents
Albany 47.78
NYC 22.60

Albany has brought down its murder rate dramatically the last few years and is below NYC on that number (even though NYC's murder rate is quite low for a big city.)

Here is the per capita number of police officers:

Population per police officer
Albany 285.3
NYC 222.8

To get to NYC's per capita rate, Albany would need to add about 95 police officers. You can judge whether they need them or not.

To get to NYC's per capita rate, Albany would need to add about 95 police officers. You can judge whether they need them or not.

Either way my point stands. A uniform level of policing is not appropriate.

Either way my point stands. A uniform level of policing is not appropriate.

I would agree that there isn't a magic number of police per capita.

I do think that there's something interesting about the confusion between safety in Albany and NYC--which is very widespread both in the specific case and in the general position it indicates--in that it shows us how slowly common sense changes. The sense that the most-dangerous cities were the big ones has a real basis; that basis has just changed, and our common sense takes time to change with it. What's especially baffling to people who don't deal with it is the way that inner-ring suburbs have changed to become the most-dangerous and least-educated parts of some metropolitan areas; that is literally unimaginable to whole generations of people, even if the reasons are pretty obvious.

Wife in Labor!

Wife in Labor!

That's either a hard-won political conversion, or a Blessed Event. Congratulations either way :)

That's either a hard-won political conversion

That'd probably be Wife in Labour, right?

Wife in Labor!

Since this is the politics thread, isn't it "Labour"?

It's a labor movement.

One of my favorite bumper stickers.

Congrats WJ!

Best wishes, WJ!

I'm not against all Federal power. They should enforce Constitutional rights, and it was right to end Jim Crow. I would have fully enforced the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in the South from 1880 on if I were in power.

But, if a state wants to have shitty schools, and bad police protection, etc., then the answer is for people to vote otherwise with their ballots, or vote with their feet. The Feds don't need to step in and mandate those kinds of service levels.

When the state fails, though, to enforce laws to the point where civil rights are jeopardized, the Feds need to step in in order to ensure rights are being protected. It's not a bright line, to be sure, but there's some point past which schools are so shitty that the guarantee of a public education becomes meaningless; there's some point past which police protection is so non-existent that people are being actively harmed; there's some point past which enforcement of rape laws is so non-existent that, again, people are being actively harmed. That can be put in a civil rights context, of course.

Rape shield laws are similarly troubling to me. I know without them, the victim may be put on trial, but I also feel that the accused's good faith belief in consent should be part of the question of guilt (or at the very least, sentencing), and that there's a right to confront one's accuser.

I'm troubled by rape shield laws, and by the whole idea of a sex offender registry. I do think the latter is two discussions, though; one for adults who offend against adults, the second for adults who offend against children.

Has this been posted already:?

I'm troubled by rape shield laws, and by the whole idea of a sex offender registry. I do think the latter is two discussions, though; one for adults who offend against adults, the second for adults who offend against children.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by children. Different age groups need different levels of protection. I think there is a huge difference between having non-consensual sex with an adult, consensual sex with a teenager, non-consensual sex with a teenager, and any sort of sex with a ten-year-old.

An adult who sleeps with a fifteen-year-old that consents is certainly creepy by the standards of American culture, but I'm not sure that "creepy" is enough to put someone on the same sort of list as the elementary school stalker. There's an incredible difference between having a sexual attraction to teenagers that are physically capable of reproducing (that's biological and was very normal for most of recorded history) and a sexual attraction to prepubescents.

I think a reasonable and good faith belief that you are with a consenting partner of age should be a legitimate defense to a charge of rape. It's hard to demonstrate anything approaching reasonable good faith if you're talking about a third-grader... a tenth-grader dressed like an adult in an adult setting such as a bar might be another story.

I'm not defending that as something that should be socially acceptable, but I'm not convinced that it should be criminal, especially the sort of criminal that renders the convicted an unemployable social pariah.

I'll admit, no way was I thinking of posting on BTF when my wife was in labor. Of course, my wife delivered two scheduled C sections at the butt crack of dawn.

I hope things are going well WJ.

Wife in Labor!

I hope you told your family before you posted that.

Just think years from now wj can show his kid this thread and how the announcement of its birth came right in the middle of a discussion about sex offenders

The plowshares that can be reaped from $85,200,000,000,000,000,000 in military spending should not be scoffed at. You can't build a Life Star without first building a Death Star.

Death panels, Death Star, whatever.

Speaking of disenfranchisment, and 'would you please make up your mind' components of the Constitution:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Also, color me skeptical that states properly discount the disenfranchised members of their populations when it comes to counting those towards EC votes.

Ah--I see it's time for another windfall profits tax...


.

anyone notice senator mcconnell's declaration over the weekend?

tax increases are now off the table.

.
Sure, and to the surprise of literally no one, I imagine.

Post #116 featured The Great Bloviator:

(CNN) – Hours after Congress sent a bill for the president's signature to avoid the fiscal cliff, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is already gearing up for the next showdown.

The Kentucky Republican wrote in an op-ed that President Barack Obama should be prepared to "have a fight" over government spending and the debt limit in the coming weeks, adding that the tax debate is now a thing of the past with the new legislation.

"I have news for him: The moment that he and virtually every elected Democrat in Washington signed off on the terms of the current arrangement, it was the last word on taxes. That debate is over," McConnell wrote in the Yahoo News op-ed. "Now the conversation turns to cutting spending on the government programs that are the real source of the nation's fiscal imbalance. And the upcoming debate on the debt limit is the perfect time to have that discussion."

...

Obama said in his statement late Tuesday night at the White House that he wants "less drama" and "brinksmanship" in future negotiations over fiscal matters.

"I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed," he said.

...

McConnell wrote that the president should get ready for the battle.

"The President may not want to have a fight about government spending over the next few months, but it's the fight he is going to have, because it's a debate the country needs," he said, adding that Obama "must show up" and deliver a serious plan for slashing federal spending.

"That's the debate the American people really want. It's a debate Republicans are ready to have. And it's the debate that starts today, whether the President wants it or not," McConnell wrote.


Yeah, this is going to end well ...

The reporter forgot to add, "and all serious people started laughing uncontrollably at McConnell's 'and you have to go first' remark."

.

Also, color me skeptical that states properly discount the disenfranchised members of their populations when it comes to counting those towards EC votes.

Either you've misinterpreted the provision you're quoting or I'm misinterpreting your dry humor.

"I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed," he said.

Either Obama is being disingenuous or he misunderstands the government budgeting process. If the government reaches the debt ceiling and runs out of money, then it has to stop spending; it does not have to default on existing debt payments.

I'm curious about the change in the NYT reports on McConnell's statement. At first they said that he meant revenue neutral in a peculiar way--increased revenue by tax reform would have to be balanced by equally big spending cuts. Then they rewrote to say that he meant tax reform would have to be revenue neutral in the generally accepted meaning--as if you could reform rates and loopholes but aim to collect the same amount of money. I assume it's a writing error, but if there's some effort to show his leg on #1, he and Biden will be able to work out the debt ceiling in five minutes at whatever stage they want to.

Assuming he meant #2, the real question is how far McConnell will go in requiring cuts to pass the debt ceiling. Obviously if he said we'll extend the debt ceiling today if you stop talking about raising revenues, the Obama administration would sign off in a second. If he holds to the House line that you have to make cuts for every dollar you add to the debt ceiling, then the negotiations will get tense.

My guess is that he will at the right moment move to the middle of those two positions, after both sides have floated implausible and marginally dishonest proposals for a few weeks. But again the issue is whether the House will move with him. All indications would be that he and the President will wait for the House to self-immolate again and then work out a deal they will present as a fait accompli.

The House's only leverage is passing something specific and forcing everyone to deal with it, but obviously that's a hard thing to accomplish with this caucus.

On the House, I'm curious who's going to emerge against Boehner. It sounds like Cantor is in major trouble on both sides. He felt he had to vote against the deal because to maintain any credibility with the Tea Party group, but that didn't appease them. So he behaved in a tricky situation in a way that blew up his credibility with both the Boehner and Tea Party groups.

The question would be whether Boehner likes having a dead duck as his Majority Leader. It sounds like Kevin McCarthy could be elected Majority Leader today if it were brought to the caucus.

Either Obama is being disingenuous or he misunderstands the government budgeting process. If the government reaches the debt ceiling and runs out of money, then it has to stop spending; it does not have to default on existing debt payments.

What an interesting reading. When the government reaches the debt ceiling ... the President can't spend all the money he is legally obligated to spend based on all the previous budget laws Congress has passed.

Example: Congress passes laws to collect $4. Congress passes laws to spend $5. Congress passes law saying you can't spend more than you collect. The President is obligated to follow (execute, as in executive branch) the laws Congress passes.

For anyone to say anything about the government "running out of money" is clearly exposing their lack of understanding around budgets and financial matters. The government is not, can not, run out of money.

For anyone to say anything about the government "running out of money" is clearly exposing their lack of understanding around budgets and financial matters. The government is not, can not, run out of money.

But, it's like a family's bank accounts and credit cards! I saw that on Facebook!

#366 $85,200,000,000,000,000,000 is just a provisional estimate. You probably end up with gaps in defensive coverage or an unprotected exhaust vent if you try and cheap out.

@376: what could possibly go wrong with minor stuff like that, though?

anyone notice senator mcconnell's declaration over the weekend?

tax increases are now off the table.

Both sides have made their positions fairly clear at this point. We'll have to see what ends up happening.

Obama's stated position is that he won't negotiate over the debt ceiling, but that he will accept a separate, deficit reduction bill over the sequester that is made up of one part spending cuts to one part tax raises.

McConnell/Boehner's stated position is that they will not raise the debt ceiling without corresponding budget cuts. I'm a bit confused over their position on the sequester, to be quite honest. They want to get rid of it, but does that mean that they would want three trillion in spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling 2 trillion? I'm not really sure what the answer is there. There's also no clear position on preferred cuts. The leaked stuff from the negotiations focused on things like raising the Medicare age and the chained CPI correction, but those seemed more like scalps for a wall than actual policy preferences.

I think the parameters to evaluate a deal are very easy: any deal where additional tax revenues make up more than 1/4 of the package's size is probably a win for the president. Any deal without additional tax revenues and that confirms the precedent of hostage taking over the debt ceiling is a win for congressional Republicans.

I think this negotiation is problematic for Republicans because up to this point, they've been able to not actually state their cuts. They probably have to state their cuts, and they will be unpopular. The president's position of closing tax loopholes to raise money is much more popular.

McConnell/Boehner's stated position is that they will not raise the debt ceiling without corresponding budget cuts. I'm a bit confused over their position on the sequester, to be quite honest. They want to get rid of it, but does that mean that they would want three trillion in spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling 2 trillion? I'm not really sure what the answer is there.

That's easy. When the GOP says "budget cuts" they mean "entitlement cuts." They're not speaking of the budget in general, but only of entitlement programs. As such, in GOP parlance, "budget cuts" do not include DOD spending.

That's easy. When the GOP says "budget cuts" they mean "entitlement cuts." They're not speaking of the budget in general, but only of entitlement programs. As such, in GOP parlance, "budget cuts" do not include DOD spending.

Which, in this instance (not always in the past, but today) is the correct focus.

We have something north of $80 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations. It's unsustainable. Our level of defense spending is not unsustainable. It can, and should be cut, but it's not the core of the issue.

Boehner today says the Republicans can live with the sequester. It is hard to imagine but just possible that there are enough anti-spending people in the caucus to make defense cuts realistic. I wouldn't count on it, but if so, there's another way a deal would be pretty feasible.

That's easy. When the GOP says "budget cuts" they mean "entitlement cuts." They're not speaking of the budget in general, but only of entitlement programs. As such, in GOP parlance, "budget cuts" do not include DOD spending.

Right, but there are no specific proposals. What is Boehner's ask? Is he asking for voucherization? For beneficiary cuts? I'm guessing it's MedicAid cuts, but you can't cut 2 trillion dollars just from Medicaid alone (at least not in a politically feasible way).

We have something north of $80 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations. It's unsustainable.

Of course it's sustainable. This is silly. The President's 2012 budget had very few entitlement cuts and had the deficit below 3% of GDP within 8 years or so.

We have something north of $80 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations. It's unsustainable. Our level of defense spending is not unsustainable.

Please explain why the one is unsustainable while the other is not.

Which, in this instance (not always in the past, but today) is the correct focus.

Because we need to spend more on defense, after all there is a mine shaft gap that needs closing.

Right, but there are no specific proposals. What is Boehner's ask? Is he asking for voucherization? For beneficiary cuts? I'm guessing it's MedicAid cuts, but you can't cut 2 trillion dollars just from Medicaid alone (at least not in a politically feasible way).

Of course there are no specific proposals. Boehner must do two contradictory things at once. First, he must signal to the deficit hawks of his coalition that he is taking on entitlement spending. Thus nebulous "budget cuts." At the same time, he must avoid at all costs putting his coalition in the position of voting to cut entitlements, because to do so would be electoral suicide among his primary supporter base - old people living off of entitlements.

We have something north of $80 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations. It's unsustainable.

It's certainly not unsustainable. There are many ways to sustain it, some of which are better than others.

What an interesting reading. When the government reaches the debt ceiling ... the President can't spend all the money he is legally obligated to spend based on all the previous budget laws Congress has passed.

Example: Congress passes laws to collect $4. Congress passes laws to spend $5. Congress passes law saying you can't spend more than you collect. The President is obligated to follow (execute, as in executive branch) the laws Congress passes.

Sure. But when laws directly conflict -- as they do here -- one cannot legitimately claim that only one law is an obligation. It may be impossible for him to comply with both; in that case, one law should be changed. But there's no reason to pretend that the only possible option is to amend the debt ceiling law, as opposed to the spending law.

More importantly, laws to spend $5 in the future are not "bills that they've already racked up." Obama's language is designed to create the impression -- as it was last time -- that the only spending he can forgo is interest payments to bondholders. But again, if he's not legally allowed to spend more than $X, there's no reason to pretend that the only possible option is to default on existing debt payments (i.e. "bills that they've already racked up."). He could instead just forgo future spending, whether on procurement or wages or welfare.

For anyone to say anything about the government "running out of money" is clearly exposing their lack of understanding around budgets and financial matters. The government is not, can not, run out of money.

First, that's not strictly speaking true. It can't run out of dollars. But to the extent it owes money in other currencies, it could. Second, I thought from context it was clear I meant "run out of available money." The fact that it has the physical ability to print money means nothing if it doesn't have the legal right to do so.

More importantly, laws to spend $5 in the future are not "bills that they've already racked up." Obama's language is designed to create the impression -- as it was last time -- that the only spending he can forgo is interest payments to bondholders. But again, if he's not legally allowed to spend more than $X, there's no reason to pretend that the only possible option is to default on existing debt payments (i.e. "bills that they've already racked up."). He could instead just forgo future spending, whether on procurement or wages or welfare.

Treasury has said that even if you go to some form of "Super PayGo" where you pay bonds coming due with moneys from tax revenue coming in daily, they would likely default.

I think Obama's formulation is accurate.

It's certainly not unsustainable. There are many ways to sustain it, some of which are better than others.

Well, part of the way to sustain them is through an improved economy.

That's easy. When the GOP says "budget cuts" they mean "entitlement cuts." They're not speaking of the budget in general, but only of entitlement programs. As such, in GOP parlance, "budget cuts" do not include DOD spending.

Yes, but we have seen this many times before. GOP has to propose budget/entitlement cuts to appease the deficit hawks. But if you want to cut entitlements TODAY, you are mostly affecting seniors. Who reliably vote GOP. So it doesn't happen, or you get the Ryan budget proposal, who will cut the entitlements 10 years in the future to solve today's budget problem.

He could instead just forgo future spending, whether on procurement or wages or welfare.

He is legally obligated to spend according to the laws passed by Congress. He has the de facto ability to direct the Treasury to act in certain ways which might result in some spending having priority, but why would he do so against his stated bargaining position.

You originally stated he didn't understand the budget, which is clearly wrong. He is making a combined political and policy statement which you don't like because you disagree with his politics and policies.

First, that's not strictly speaking true. It can't run out of dollars. But to the extent it owes money in other currencies, it could.

This is wrong. A sovereign nation in control of its own currency can not "run out of money". There are many things that can happen, many of them very bad, but running out of money is not one of them. I can walk you through the whole thing if you want, but "owing money in other currencies" is a silly formulation, especially as US$ are right now the de facto global currency and there is almost no governmental debt in the world that can not be paid with US$.

Second, I thought from context it was clear I meant "run out of available money." The fact that it has the physical ability to print money means nothing if it doesn't have the legal right to do so.

Not being legally allowed to pay ones bills and not being able financially to pay ones bills are very different things. Post US debt ceiling the US will be financially able to pay it's bills, but (maybe - the whole thing is a CF) not legally allowed to do so.

Boehner today says the Republicans can live with the sequester.

Like every other ham-fisted tactic they've trotted out over the last year or so, this will hurt the GOP far more than the President. He will call their bluff, again, they will cave, again.

Entitlements are the "Wolf! Wolf!" of conservative politics. They've never stopped yelling that since 1935. Social Security is good as it is--for how long? 25 years. By that time, most all those evil Boomers will have died, but even so, any solution is as simple as raising the income level to be taxed. Indeed, if you simply remove the ceiling completely, you can probably lower the FICA/SE tax rates. Again, it's just another tempest in a teapot.

The conservative Club for Growth said Friday that it will punish House members who voted for a flood insurance measure aimed at helping pay for Hurricane Sandy’s damage.

The Club will “key-vote” the measure, using it to compile an annual rating for each lawmaker.

The House on Thursday morning approved the $9.7-billion increase in funding for the National Flood Insurance Program. The bill passed easily in a bipartisan 354-67 vote.

It needed a two-thirds vote of the House for approval since it was coming under suspension of rules procedures.

“Congress should not allow the federal government to be involved in the flood insurance industry in the first place, let alone expand the National Flood Insurance Program's authority,” a statement from the Club’s Andy Roth said.

An NFIP reform bill was passed with bipartisan support in the last Congress, but some conservatives believe the program should be ended or slowly curtailed.

Supporters of NFIP say that the private marketplace will not offer flood protection to the public at affordable rates, making a government program necessary.

Link

He is legally obligated to spend according to the laws passed by Congress. He has the de facto ability to direct the Treasury to act in certain ways which might result in some spending having priority, but why would he do so against his stated bargaining position.

He is also legally obligated not to borrow money except according to the laws passed by Congress.

You originally stated he didn't understand the budget, which is clearly wrong. He is making a combined political and policy statement which you don't like because you disagree with his politics and policies.

No; I originally stated that either he didn't understand or he was being disingenous. I assumed it was the disingenuous one; I was just giving the benefit of the doubt by providing both possibilities.

No; I originally stated that either he didn't understand or he was being disingenous. I assumed it was the disingenuous one; I was just giving the benefit of the doubt by providing both possibilities.

Benefit of the doubt: "He's either a liar or stupid; so if he's not stupid, he must be a liar."

This is wrong. A sovereign nation in control of its own currency can not "run out of money".

It certainly can. The fact that one controls one's own currency allows one to keep paying domestic creditors (as domestic creditors are legally obligated to accept the government's currency) -- at least until hyperinflation causes the government to collapse -- but it does not necessarily allow you to pay bills to foreigners.

There are many things that can happen, many of them very bad, but running out of money is not one of them. I can walk you through the whole thing if you want, but "owing money in other currencies" is a silly formulation, especially as US$ are right now the de facto global currency and there is almost no governmental debt in the world that can not be paid with US$.

I wasn't positing that this was the situation the U.S. faced; as I explained, my actual statement was just that the government would run out of available money. I was just making a technical point that, in fact, governments can run out of money.

He is also legally obligated not to borrow money except according to the laws passed by Congress.

This is debatable, due to the "full faith and credit" clause. He's legally obligated to spend the money appropriated, and he's legally obligated to not have a default. Given those constraints, the debt ceiling itself is of questionable constitutionality.

You are aware of this line of reasoning, of course.

It certainly can. The fact that one controls one's own currency allows one to keep paying domestic creditors (as domestic creditors are legally obligated to accept the government's currency) -- at least until hyperinflation causes the government to collapse -- but it does not necessarily allow you to pay bills to foreigners.

You are still wrong. I could posit about you in a similar fashion to what you did to Obama, but I won't. Governments can not run out of money. It can pay foreign debts in its currency. Your currency may devalue, future debt may end up being hard to come by (or have large interest attached), many things can happen - but the government can not run out of money. Money is an abstraction (backed by paper and coins, but an abstractuion nonetheless) created by the government, the government can not run out of it. Really.

David, allow me to give an example (at the risk of writing this while you or others are posting inreference to 399).

Government Mouse owes $100 Trillion (in equivilent Mouse Bucks) to Shell Oil and France. The Mouse Treasury "prints" the money to pay off the debt. What are my creditors to do? They accept it or they don't. If they don't the Mouse has not run out of money, the currency has been devalued and they may never do business with me again (Yeah, like people are going to never do business with the US government again), but I have not run out of money.

No one is disputing bad things can happen when Governmental debt goes out of control, but none of those things have anythign to do with the debt limit.