The Las Cruces Police Department Scorns City Councilor
The arrogance of the Las Cruces Police Department is exemplified by its failure to respond to repeated requests for information about the five SWAT vehicles for which the LCPD asked Council to seek state funding.
I made a mid-January request to Police Chief Jeremy Story for that information because I was concerned that those vehicles might be not only armored, but also armed for use in military-style attacks on homes or stores, with risks posed to people and property. A reasonable question: will they go to the right address? He did not provide that information; instead, he assured me that the requested vehicles were only for safe transportation of officers, not for assaults.
As I noted in a recent blog, I regard Story’s word as untrustworthy; withholding information which presumably would validate his word certainly seems suspicious. So I asked Councilor Cassie McClure to request that information on my behalf. She got the run-around. One officer suggested that she contact another officer. She did so and got no response. At the same time, she asked both addressees to contact me about this information; neither did. I wrote directly to both officers and have had no response.
Given my criticism of the LCPD, I imagine that it refuses to respond to these requests because they are mine or hers in my behalf. Some readers might respond with the simple question, well, what did you expect? To which, I have two answers. One, I expect them to act as professionally as they hypocritically proclaim themselves to act. After all, does not the “P” in the “P.R.I.D.E.” on LCPD patrol cars stand for professionalism? Two, I expect pettiness and prejudice by LCPD officers, up to and including, the Police Chief.
I also imagine that the LCPD thinks no better of any Councilor who would make a request on my behalf. Its discourtesy and unresponsiveness to McClure’s repeated requests register its scorn. But I can also imagine that her requests were pro forma, and the LCPD knew it, as she has since gone silent. Following in Kasandra Gandara’s footsteps might not be just a metaphor, for Kasandra operated the same way about LCPD’s false allegations of code violations.
Candidates’ Campaign Appeals Continue Unabated and Unimproved
Last year, I blew through my budgeted amount for campaign contributions to candidates for the presidency, and Senate and House seats. I think that I got my first request for a congressional seat in early January, and other requests in text messages have continued to pour in. My response to them all: “STOP. I am tapped out from the last election.”
These solicitations do as many as three things which really irk me. One, some do not give me the candidate’s full name, his or her (or their) party affiliation, or the jurisdiction in which he or she (or they?) are running. Two, some give me a long biography, almost invariably a story of a log-cabin birth, of up-from-poverty, boot-strapping growth, and a life-long understanding of the down-trodden. Some appeal to their military service (as if it proves something, but Joni Ernst’s self-touted military background failed her when pressured to support Pete Hegseth, whom she knew unfit to be Secretary of Defense). Others appeal to their elite college or law school degrees (as if Congress works best with Ivy graduates, but no one claims Yalie J.D. Vance as a classmate). And three, none states a commitment to a particular political philosophy or specific cause. Yes, I am for world peace and harmony, civil and human rights, clean air and water, lowered thermometers, and a chicken in every pot. But I have resolved to contribute to no candidates who rely on safe but skimpy slogans, only to those willing to stick his or her (or their) neck out for something. If they stand for office, they should stand for something and say so.
Let me offer one suggestion: a radically reformed tax system which would reduce financial inequality and simplify tax preparation. Suppose the tax system:
· Taxed both income and wealth
· Treated all income from whatever source the same
· Assessed all non-income assets at end-of-year prevailing market valuations
· Eliminated all personal and corporate credits and deductions except for state and local taxes, accredited charities, and accredited educational institutions
· Allowed corporate credits and deductions for research and development
· Graduated personal and corporate taxes on income and assets in ten or so brackets.
· Simplified tax returns of three sections: income, wealth, and allowed deductions.
Benefits of this proposal, among others: no more government-sponsored tax favoritism, with attendant forms of corruption; no more tax lobbyists, with attendant forms of corruption; no more tax lawyers of the rich circumventing the tax code; lower house costs; shorter, simplified, and intelligible tax returns.
Let me offer another: terms limits on senators and representatives. Establishing term limits for Congressional seats would require a Constitutional amendment, something akin to Mission Impossible. But advocating term limits might be an advantageous campaign talking point and preparation for eventual adoption of the amendment. The argument for is simple. Without term limits, senators and representatives become careerists, with an overriding career imperative of re-election, with an overriding need to raise money for re-election, with an overriding interest in serving their biggest donors. Senators facing a maximum of two terms and representatives facing a maximum of five terms are more likely to serve the public interest and accept political risks in supporting legislation for innovation or reform.
Trump and Republicans Are Defeating Themselves
Republicans always know the price of everything and the value of nothing. This proclivity is nowhere more evident than in Musk’s and his muskrats' cleaver-wielding approach to the federal government in the name of efficiency. Presumably, these techno-vandals are addressing waste, fraud, and abuse—oddly, without benefit of forensic accountants, among others—to reduce the size and expense of government and thereby save taxpayers billions, if not trillions, of dollars by eliminating entire agencies or depopulating those which they cannot eliminate. Their reckless actions are more likely to promote incompetence and corruption than efficiency. Some endanger national security (note the firing of personnel at the National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains the safety and security of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.) Even so, the metrics of government performance are not those of corporate performance—a distinction unknown to them. For this reason, despite the rabid Republican rhetoric of aggressive, fact-free assertion, Musk and his muskrats have demonstrated no waste, no fraud, and no abuse.
By curtailing agencies and federal employees, they are also curtailing services which sectors of the economy and segments of the population want and expect. (When I consulted to the Grace Commission forty years ago, its attacks on waste, fraud, and abuse were nothing but attacks on government programs which the Reagan administration opposed. Same, same, today, with DOGE.) When the economy and the electorate do not get what they want and expect from government because of unasked-for reductions or cuts, a powerful reaction will set in, and reality will reassert itself to the Republican ideologues who had dismissed it. Widespread discontent will lead to the widespread electoral defeat and discrediting of the Republican Party. Trump will have led lemming-like Republicans over the electoral precipice. A restored law enforcement regime, recovering previously established norms and procedures, will pursue prosecution, yes, with a vengeance entirely warranted. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are unlikely to be sparing of those who abused the government of, by, and for the people.
Meanwhile, instead of Plan B to fall back on, save the Republican Party as Plan A fails, and do the country some good, Trump will blame others for the damage of interrupted, deteriorated, or cancelled services which he has directed. He will sideline Musk and fire Cabinet Secretaries and other senior officers. He will defame them and others, including Republican senators and representatives who had humbled themselves in his service when he was riding high. He will have no way to unring the bell, mend the broken china, reconstitute agencies and departments, and recruit the expert staff necessary to revive them. Or to restore his bond with his supporters. For his voters—not once, but twice, burnt—will blame Republicans up and down their tickets. Trump, unable to run again, will leave office and suffer nothing more than a bruised ego and a ruined reputation. He may even enjoy their humiliating, cringe-worthy efforts to explain away their lack of courage and conviction, their abandonment of Republican principles and values, and their traitorous retreat from democracy, the Constitution, and decency.
No comments:
Post a Comment