Tag: news

As Syria’s Currency Plummets, US Mocks Economic Crisis: “Our Sanctions Contributed To The Collapse”

As Syria’s Currency Plummets, US Mocks Economic Crisis: “Our Sanctions Contributed To The Collapse”

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/09/2020 – 18:45

ViaAlmasdarNews.com

Syria criticized the statements of the American envoy, James Jeffrey, about the current situation in Syria, stressing that it affirms that the United States is looking at the region with “Israeli eyes”, and it also represents a recognition by Washington of its responsibility for the suffering of the Syrian people.

An official source in the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs told state-owned SANA, “The intensification of sanctions is the other side of the declared war on Syria after the aggressive project staggered in the face of successive defeats of its tools from terrorist groups,” according to the Syrian News Agency.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad file image.

The source said, “These statements confirm once again that the United States is looking at the region with Israeli eyes, because the demands that Jeffrey talks about are old and renewed Israeli demands to impose their control on the region.”

He continued: “This American policy, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the most basic human rights and international humanitarian law, will fail again in the face of the Syrians insistence to adhere to the sovereignty of their homeland and the independence of their political and economic options.”

The U.S. envoy to Syria, James Jeffrey, said in a video interview with a number of Syrians abroad two days ago that the U.S. sanctions against Damascus “contributed to the collapse of the value of the Syrian pound” and that “the Syrian regime is no longer able to manage an effective economic policy, or launder money from Lebanese banks, due to the economic crisis that is also affecting Lebanon.”

For years just prior to the outbreak of the war beginning in 2011 50 Syrian Pounds equaled $1…

He added that “the U.S. Congress stood behind (Caesar’s law), and that the sanctions covered by the law to protect Syrian civilians, will automatically affect any economic activity, as well as any dealings with the Iranian regime.”

The U.S. administration recently approved the “Caesar Law” which comes into effect this month.

The Caesar Law, in addition to the Syrian government, targets all individuals and companies who provide funding or assistance to Syria, as well as a number of Syrian industries, including those related to infrastructure, military maintenance, and energy production.

In this context, Jeffrey indicated that his country had presented Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with a way out of this crisis, and that if he was “interested in his people, he would accept the offer. Washington wants to see a political process and it may not lead to a regime change.”

Jeffrey boasted of US sanctions as the population suffers for extreme lack of resources and basic staples:

“Do sanctions work?… But as we see with the total freefall of the Syrian pound right now and other indicators – shortages of gas and other fuels – the Assad regime is under tremendous economic pressure...”

Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas revealed Jeffrey’s offer, noting that “it requires going to a political solution to implement Security Council Resolution 2254 and the cision, and ompletion of a new constitution and holding elections under U.N. supervision after achieving a safe and neutral environment and acceptance of international decisions,” stressing that Washington’s offer is Assad’s commitment to the “Geneva 1” statement, which he says is not possible to stay in power.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3e0pEPO Tyler Durden

Daily Briefing – June 9, 2020

Daily Briefing – June 9, 2020


Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/09/2020 – 18:25

Senior editor Ash Bennington joins managing editor Ed Harrison to discuss market sentiment in light of NBER’s recent announcement that the U.S. slid into recession in February. Bennington and Harrison explore whether market participants are betting that liquidity will mitigate the credit cycle’s severity and whether this could be a miscalculation that catches investors off guard, leading to a “double-dip” recession. They also draw comparisons between today’s markets to that of the dot-com era, highlight the shift toward momentum trading, and share their thoughts on how durable damage to demand can bring an unnaturally elevated market crashing down later in the year. In the intro, Peter Cooper explains the surge in new online brokerage accounts and explores particular instances of excess speculation by retail investors.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3dOvNPd Tyler Durden

No More Fort Bragg? Army Mulls Stripping Names Of All Bases Named After Confederate Generals

No More Fort Bragg? Army Mulls Stripping Names Of All Bases Named After Confederate Generals

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/09/2020 – 18:25

For the first time in decades since the issue was initially raised by the NAACP and other groups, the Pentagon says it’s now “open” to considering renaming all Army bases named after Confederate generals and leaders, after pressure coming from activists and civil rights groups amid George Floyd and ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests gripping the nation for the past two weeks.

This includes the sprawling Fort Hood base in Texas, named after Confederate General John Bell Hood, as well as nine other Army posts, especially Fort Lee Army Base in Virginia, named for top Confederate general Robert E. Lee.

No less than Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy signaled early this week they are “open to a bi-partisan discussion on the topic,” according to an official Army statement.

The Dallas Morning News: “Riakos Adams, secretary of the Killeen chapter of the NAACP, poses outside Fort Hood on Aug. 22, 2017. The post is named for Confederate Gen. John Bell Hood, and the NAACP and others want it renamed.”

This shift in even considering the possibility was also reportedly triggered by The Marine Corps recently decreeing a ban on all displays of Confederate symbols, such as the Confederate battle flag, including even on individual personnel’s vehicles. The order even goes down to banning depictions of Confederate symbols on bumper stickers, mugs, or T-shirts and posters.

“The Confederate battle flag has all too often been co-opted by violent extremist and racist groups whose divisive beliefs have no place in our Corps,” the Marine Corps said in a statement.

Naturally, those advocating for the erasure of anything related to this era of American history and the Confederacy are pushing for more, even the names of major US bases. 

Confederate Generals Braxton Bragg, Henry Lewis Benning and Robert E. Lee, via Military.com

Here are ten base names that would be on the chopping block if the Department of Defense actually went through with the renaming: 

  • Fort Benning in Georgia
  • Fort Bragg in North Carolina
  • Fort Hood in Texas
  • Fort Lee in Virginia
  • Fort Polk in Louisiana
  • Fort Gordon in Georgia
  • Fort Pickett in Virgina
  • Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia
  • Fort Rucker in Alabama
  • Camp Beauregard in Louisiana 

But we ask: where does this attempted ‘purging’ of America’s past and historical memory end? 

How long till even the Washington monument or Jefferson Memorial are targeted? Will even Monticello be taken apart brick by brick? 

Certainly those now defacing buildings and monuments amid the protests of the past two weeks will not stop advocating for the erasure of all American history. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MPFqkB Tyler Durden

Ron Paul: COVID-19 Shows Why We Need Separation Of Medicine And State!

Ron Paul: COVID-19 Shows Why We Need Separation Of Medicine And State!

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/09/2020 – 18:05

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

It seems like only yesterday. Americans were denied the right to go to their churches. They were denied the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. They were denied the right to open their businesses and go to work to provide for themselves and their families. They were denied the right to go to restaurants, to bars, to hair salons.

No laws were passed denying these rights. Even that would be illegal and immoral. But what happened was worse. They were denied these basic rights by governors, county judges, and even local mayors who used the coronavirus outbreak as an excuse to rule by decree. They stole power that was not theirs to take and wielded it at all levels to force America into three months of house arrest.

Then, in the midst of stay-at-home orders across the country, the same governors and local officials who locked Americans in their homes suddenly came around with their keys and threw open the doors.

Suddenly not only was it OK to go out into the street, it was required to go out into the street!

What happened? A cure? A miraculous vaccine?

No. The officials who locked Americans up found a cause they felt required Americans in the streets to protest. Police had killed a black man, George Floyd, in their custody in Minneapolis and suddenly the need to protest trumped the need to “stay home, save lives.”Suddenly the same health “experts” who told us we must not gather in crowds or there will be death in the millions from coronavirus issued statements supporting gathering in crowds. An open letter on the George Floyd protests signed by more than 1,200 doctors and other health professionals clarified that they “do not condemn these gatherings as risky for Covid-19 transmission.” However, they wrote, “this should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-at-home orders.”

Did the coronavirus develop some kind of superior intelligence enabling it to distinguish between those who were congregating for a “good cause” and those who were congregating for a “bad cause”? Of course not. What has happened from the beginning of this shameful coronavirus episode is the politicization of public health at the hands of authoritarians.

Two prestigious medical journals, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, were forced to retract studies they had published concluding that Hydroxychloroquine was harmful to Covid patients. The rush to print the studies looks very much like a political move rather than one based on scientific principles. Once President Trump revealed that he was taking hydroxychloroquine the mainstream media and even “expert” journals began attacking the drug.

This is what happens when medicine merges with the state. We get the worst of both. We get career bureaucrat Dr. Fauci telling us we can never shake hands again and that we must stay home until a vaccine is found. Meanwhile, doctors across the globe are reporting that this variation of the coronavirus is disappearing on its own.

We have a tradition of separation of church and state in the United States for good reason. The merger of state and church invites oppression and corruption. We need to adopt this same approach to medicine and the state. We now see how this merger has produced the same kind of widespread tyranny and corruption.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30q2KO0 Tyler Durden

25,000 More Store Closures Expected As Pandemic-Fueled “Retail Apocalypse” Rolls On

25,000 More Store Closures Expected As Pandemic-Fueled “Retail Apocalypse” Rolls On

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/09/2020 – 17:45

The one discussion bulls chose to ignore while equity markets soar to new highs is the permanent economic damage story due to months of coronavirus lockdowns. A new report shows tens of thousands of brick and mortar shops could close their doors this year, which would indicate the “retail apocalypse” is accelerating. 

The report, commissioned by Coresight Research, forecasts that in 2020, upwards of 25,000 retailers could shutter operations after months of lockdowns decimated mall traffic — collapsing store sales and resulting in delinquent rent payments.  

Even before the pandemic, we noted the “retail apocalypse was particularly bad in 2019,” with about 10,000 stores closed for good. Most of the closures were mall-based retailers as consumerism and spending shifted online. Lockdowns, in the last few months, accelerated the shift to buying items online while strict social distancing rules enforced by the government led to non-essential shop closures. 

Coresight CEO Deborah Weinswig wrote in the report, a closure wave of “anchor tenants” in shopping malls will lead to surrounding shops closing up as well. She said if that happens, her firm would then expect 20,000 to 25,000 shops to close by year-end.

“Department and large apparel-chain store closures in malls will, therefore, create a ripple effect that spells bad news for malls,” Weinswig said. 

In early June, Simon Property Group, one of the largest mall operators in the US, sued GAP, it’s the largest tenant, claiming the retailer failed to pay more than $65.9 million in rent and other charges during shutdowns. 

The lawsuit “highlights the mounting tension between retail landlords and their tenants, many of which stopped paying rent after the crisis forced them to shut stores,” CNBC noted. 

So far, US retailers have planned about 4,000 permanent store closures, with hundreds from Pier 1 Imports, Neiman Marcus, Tuesday Morning, JC Penney, Stage Stores, and L. Brands. Before the virus outbreak, Coresight was already forecasting 15,000 stores would close this year. 

Store closures this year have already triggered an unprecedented implosion in US commercial real estate. The latest remittance data by Trepp shows a massive surge in newly delinquent CMBS loans. 

“CMBS Delinquency Rate registered at 2.29% in April, in May the Delinquency Rate logged its largest increase in the history of this metric since 2009. The May reading was 7.15%, a jump of 481 basis points over the April number. Almost 5% of that number is represented by loans in the 30-day delinquent bucket,” we said last week. 

As stores close up shop, jobs are also lost, which we recently noted, 18 million workers could be at risk of permanent job loss. 

And if you’re curious to learn just how big the impending commercial real estate bust will be, your questions will be answered in “Sizing The Commercial Real Estate Bust.” 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hmkG2e Tyler Durden

No Routine Sealing of Names of Officers Who Arrested Molotov-Cocktail-Thrower

From Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries in yesterday’s U.S. v. Smith (E.D. Wis.), denying (correctly, I think) the government’s motion to seal:

On June 4, 2020, a criminal complaint charged Tyshaun Smith with attempted arson and possession of a destructive device, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 5845(f), in connection with his alleged throwing of a “Molotov cocktail” into a place of business. On June 5, the United States filed a motion seeking an order to seal the criminal complaint for thirty days. Now, in its place, the government proposes filing a public version of the complaint that redacts the names of the officers who arrested Smith, as well as the ATF agent who submitted the affidavit in support of the complaint. The impetus of the motion is the government’s belief that current circumstances in the community could pose a danger to the officers should their names become public.

The public’s nearly unfettered right to access court records is well established. Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he tradition that litigation is open to the public is very long standing.”). This right “serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of fairness.” Doe v. Pub. Citizen (4th Cir. 2014). For criminal cases, public access “plays a particularly significant role in the functioning of the judicial process” and inures to the benefit of “both the defendant and … society as a whole.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982).

The United States recognizes this right, but notes that “the first amendment right of public access is not absolute; it is a qualified right.” … [But] the government has not met its burden to justify the redactions it seeks.

There is no doubt that protecting the safety of law enforcement officers is a paramount government interest, yet the government has not articulated any particularized or concrete safety concern that is manifest in this case. In a time of unrest throughout the nation, law enforcement officers are arresting hundreds of individuals every day for offenses similar to those charged here.

Given the perceived antipathy of some protestors to law enforcement officers generally, it could be said with respect to almost every one of these arrests that revealing the identity of the arresting officers could pose a risk of backlash. There is no indication, however, that other courts across the country are redacting officers’ identities or that the situation is so dire that traditional principles allowing for full transparency are being abrogated as a matter of course. Absent some concrete threat to the officers, which has not been suggested here, there is no principled way to discern why this case would justify redactions while others would not.

Finally, it is conceivable that redaction could backfire. Transparency is the cornerstone of public confidence in the judicial process. Shielding the identity of law enforcement officers responsible for Smith’s arrest could further undermine the public’s trust in the criminal justice system generally and engender ill will towards the officers specifically.

Here’s the government’s press release about the underlying prosecution:

According to the criminal complaint, on May 31, 2020, at approximately 11:03 p.m., Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) officers responded to a 911 call regarding an entry into the Boost Mobile store.  When officers arrived, Tyshaun Smith and two other individuals were standing outside of the store next to a broken window.  Smith was holding what appeared to be a burning Molotov cocktail.  An officer observed Smith throw the Molotov cocktail into the store.  Smith and the others then ran from the scene.  However, Smith fell and was arrested.  When arrested, Smith’s sweatshirt and gloves were coated in gasoline, and he was in possession of a loaded 9 mm firearm.  Police were able to extinguish the burning Molotov cocktail in the store and recover the device.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30m520G
via IFTTT

Does City’s Painting of Messages on City Streets Require It to Give Equal Access to Other Messages?

Various cities are painting “Black Lives Matter,” “End Racism Now,” and similar messages on city streets. Does that create a “public forum” where everyone would have the same right to do so?

No. In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009), the Court recognized that a city is free to put up certain monuments in its parks—and to accept selected monuments from private groups—without having to put up or accept other monuments. Such monuments are government speech, and the government is free to discriminate based on viewpoint in choosing what messages to affirmatively promote this way:

A government entity has the right to “speak for itself.” “[I]t is entitled to say what it wishes,” and to select the views that it wants to express.

In the words of Rust v. Sullivan (1991), on which Pleasant Grove relied,

When Congress established a National Endowment for Democracy to encourage other countries to adopt democratic principles, it was not constitutionally required to fund a program to encourage competing lines of political philosophy such as communism and fascism.

And that’s true of all viewpoints that the government chooses to express, however controversial or uncontroversial.

Now when it comes to private speech that merely uses the streets, sidewalks, or parks (rather than seeking to erect permanent or semipermanent structures there), the government must indeed allow all viewpoints and indeed speech of all kinds of content (setting aside the traditionally recognized exceptions, such as true threats). “Granting waivers to favored speakers (or, more precisely, denying them to disfavored speakers) would of course be unconstitutional,” and may be declared so whenever “a pattern of unlawful favoritism appears.” (Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist. (2000).) For a good example of that, see Hoye v. City of Oakland (9th Cir. 2011), which held unconstitutional a city policy restricting speech on city sidewalks around abortion clinics; the policy was ostensibly content-neutral, but the court found that the city enforced it in an unconstitutionally content-based way:

The City’s policy of distinguishing between speech that facilitates access to clinics and speech that discourages access is not content-neutral…. “[T]he fundamental principle behind content analysis is that government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.” … To distinguish between speech facilitating access and speech that discourages access is necessarily to distinguish on the basis of substantive content. Asking a woman “May I help you into the clinic?” facilitates access; “May I talk to you about alternatives to abortion?” discourages it. Telling a woman, “It’s your right to have an abortion!” facilitates access; telling her, “If you have an abortion, you will regret it!” discourages it.

Here, the City has conceded, both at oral argument and through Captain Toribio’s deposition, that its policy is to permit speech on one side of a controversial public debate, but not on the other. The City’s implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance is therefore indubitably content-based.

But when it comes to the government’s own speech, the government can pick and choose what to say. And that includes permanent or semipermanent items on sidewalks, on streets, or in parks, such as monuments, plaques, street signs (including for streets that have ideologically laden names), traffic control signs, electronic message signs put up by the Transportation Department, or ideological messages written on the pavement.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2AYVWvZ
via IFTTT

No Routine Sealing of Names of Officers Who Arrested Molotov-Cocktail-Thrower

From Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries in yesterday’s U.S. v. Smith (E.D. Wis.), denying (correctly, I think) the government’s motion to seal:

On June 4, 2020, a criminal complaint charged Tyshaun Smith with attempted arson and possession of a destructive device, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 5845(f), in connection with his alleged throwing of a “Molotov cocktail” into a place of business. On June 5, the United States filed a motion seeking an order to seal the criminal complaint for thirty days. Now, in its place, the government proposes filing a public version of the complaint that redacts the names of the officers who arrested Smith, as well as the ATF agent who submitted the affidavit in support of the complaint. The impetus of the motion is the government’s belief that current circumstances in the community could pose a danger to the officers should their names become public.

The public’s nearly unfettered right to access court records is well established. Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he tradition that litigation is open to the public is very long standing.”). This right “serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of fairness.” Doe v. Pub. Citizen (4th Cir. 2014). For criminal cases, public access “plays a particularly significant role in the functioning of the judicial process” and inures to the benefit of “both the defendant and … society as a whole.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982).

The United States recognizes this right, but notes that “the first amendment right of public access is not absolute; it is a qualified right.” … [But] the government has not met its burden to justify the redactions it seeks.

There is no doubt that protecting the safety of law enforcement officers is a paramount government interest, yet the government has not articulated any particularized or concrete safety concern that is manifest in this case. In a time of unrest throughout the nation, law enforcement officers are arresting hundreds of individuals every day for offenses similar to those charged here.

Given the perceived antipathy of some protestors to law enforcement officers generally, it could be said with respect to almost every one of these arrests that revealing the identity of the arresting officers could pose a risk of backlash. There is no indication, however, that other courts across the country are redacting officers’ identities or that the situation is so dire that traditional principles allowing for full transparency are being abrogated as a matter of course. Absent some concrete threat to the officers, which has not been suggested here, there is no principled way to discern why this case would justify redactions while others would not.

Finally, it is conceivable that redaction could backfire. Transparency is the cornerstone of public confidence in the judicial process. Shielding the identity of law enforcement officers responsible for Smith’s arrest could further undermine the public’s trust in the criminal justice system generally and engender ill will towards the officers specifically.

Here’s the government’s press release about the underlying prosecution:

According to the criminal complaint, on May 31, 2020, at approximately 11:03 p.m., Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) officers responded to a 911 call regarding an entry into the Boost Mobile store.  When officers arrived, Tyshaun Smith and two other individuals were standing outside of the store next to a broken window.  Smith was holding what appeared to be a burning Molotov cocktail.  An officer observed Smith throw the Molotov cocktail into the store.  Smith and the others then ran from the scene.  However, Smith fell and was arrested.  When arrested, Smith’s sweatshirt and gloves were coated in gasoline, and he was in possession of a loaded 9 mm firearm.  Police were able to extinguish the burning Molotov cocktail in the store and recover the device.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30m520G
via IFTTT

Does City’s Painting of Messages on City Streets Require It to Give Equal Access to Other Messages?

Various cities are painting “Black Lives Matter,” “End Racism Now,” and similar messages on city streets. Does that create a “public forum” where everyone would have the same right to do so?

No. In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009), the Court recognized that a city is free to put up certain monuments in its parks—and to accept selected monuments from private groups—without having to put up or accept other monuments. Such monuments are government speech, and the government is free to discriminate based on viewpoint in choosing what messages to affirmatively promote this way:

A government entity has the right to “speak for itself.” “[I]t is entitled to say what it wishes,” and to select the views that it wants to express.

In the words of Rust v. Sullivan (1991), on which Pleasant Grove relied,

When Congress established a National Endowment for Democracy to encourage other countries to adopt democratic principles, it was not constitutionally required to fund a program to encourage competing lines of political philosophy such as communism and fascism.

And that’s true of all viewpoints that the government chooses to express, however controversial or uncontroversial.

Now when it comes to private speech that merely uses the streets, sidewalks, or parks (rather than seeking to erect permanent or semipermanent structures there), the government must indeed allow all viewpoints and indeed speech of all kinds of content (setting aside the traditionally recognized exceptions, such as true threats). “Granting waivers to favored speakers (or, more precisely, denying them to disfavored speakers) would of course be unconstitutional,” and may be declared so whenever “a pattern of unlawful favoritism appears.” (Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist. (2000).) For a good example of that, see Hoye v. City of Oakland (9th Cir. 2011), which held unconstitutional a city policy restricting speech on city sidewalks around abortion clinics; the policy was ostensibly content-neutral, but the court found that the city enforced it in an unconstitutionally content-based way:

The City’s policy of distinguishing between speech that facilitates access to clinics and speech that discourages access is not content-neutral…. “[T]he fundamental principle behind content analysis is that government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.” … To distinguish between speech facilitating access and speech that discourages access is necessarily to distinguish on the basis of substantive content. Asking a woman “May I help you into the clinic?” facilitates access; “May I talk to you about alternatives to abortion?” discourages it. Telling a woman, “It’s your right to have an abortion!” facilitates access; telling her, “If you have an abortion, you will regret it!” discourages it.

Here, the City has conceded, both at oral argument and through Captain Toribio’s deposition, that its policy is to permit speech on one side of a controversial public debate, but not on the other. The City’s implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance is therefore indubitably content-based.

But when it comes to the government’s own speech, the government can pick and choose what to say. And that includes permanent or semipermanent items on sidewalks, on streets, or in parks, such as monuments, plaques, street signs (including for streets that have ideologically laden names), traffic control signs, electronic message signs put up by the Transportation Department, or ideological messages written on the pavement.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2AYVWvZ
via IFTTT

‘Defund the Police’ Should Include Federal Cops Too

Protesters demanding policing reforms are understandably focused on increasing accountability and slashing police budgets at the state and local levels.

But the call to “defund the police” should not ignore the large and growing presence (and expense) of federal law enforcement in recent decades—and would-be reformers should be careful not to hand-over more power to federal agencies that will be more difficult to hold accountable than local departments.

Federal police spending has skyrocketed since the 1980s, notes Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. The federal government’s police budget includes includes grants for local and state police departments, though that is a small portion of overall spending. The vast majority funds traditional federal law enforcement offices like the FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency, as well as the Secret Service, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, which tracks spending on all government programs, federal police spending averaged about 0.05 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1980s, and climbed to about 0.1 percent of GDP on average during the 1990s. Over the past decade, however, federal spending on police has averaged 0.26 percent of GDP.

“This spending has risen much faster than state‐​local police spending in recent decades,” writes Edwards. “That is a big concern if you believe in federalism and decentralized government.”

It’s true that state and local governments spend a larger portion of their budgets on policing. It was a member of the Minneapolis Police Department who brutally killed George Floyd last month, and it was local and state police who were responsible for many—but not all—of the subsequent displays of police brutality aimed at protesters. It makes sense that local policing is more in the spotlight at the moment.

But that doesn’t mean federal police forces should be exempt from reforms. Indeed, their growth in recent decades suggests they could be due for some budget-trimming too.

Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be happening. The Justice in Policing Act, which was introduced by House Democrats this week, would expand the role of the federal government in doing police work—and would hike federal police spending by $900 million.

Worse, perhaps, is the fact that the bill’s most high-profile police accountability measure—ending the legal regime of “qualified immunity” that protects officers from being held civilly liable for damage or injuries they cause while on the job—applies only to local law enforcement and not to federal officers that are part of the FBI or CPB, for example.

An expanded, unaccountable role for federal law enforcement is hardly the appropriate response to problems with state and local police forces. As Derek Cohen, the policy director for Right On Crime, a conservative police reform advocacy group based in Texas, explained on Twitter, federal intervention in local policing issues should be a last resort. And a top-down approach is unlikely to encourage reforms.

To put it another way, if you think forcing a citywide police department to change its ways is tough, wait until you’re dealing with the federal government.

Slowing the growth of spending on federal police and shrinking the mandate given to federal law enforcement is, in many ways, a separate project from the one currently underway in cities across the country. But if Congress wants to get involved in fixing what’s wrong with America’s police departments, it should not turn a blind eye to federal law enforcement budgets that are directly under its control.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dMoAze
via IFTTT