The disgusting Joe Biden, who publicly wished his political opponents could be raped so they would stop opposing Barack Obama’s spending plans, is not only a fool, he’s also a liar.
Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post fact-checked the hell out of the Vice President today, and awarded his claims of escalating rape and murder, which only billions of fresh Obama spending could prevent, the coveted “four Pinocchio” B.S. rating. As Kessler notes, the assertion that only adding cops could cause crime rates to decline is “debatable and subject to many caveats” at best – something Biden presumably knows, since he used to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, and wrote the largest crime bill in U.S. history.
But absurd over-simplifications of complex arguments for crass political gain don’t get you four Pinocchios. For that you’ve got to flat-out lie, and Biden has done so repeatedly. He explicitly claimed that murders have doubled in Flint, Michigan, while rapes have tripled. In fact, the murder rate during the period Biden cited increased about 30%, while the rape rate went down.
Also, the police chief of Flint has “repeatedly asserted that cuts in staffing had little effect on the crime rate,” which would seem like an important data point when Biden’s entire argument – when he’s making an argument and not just shrieking madly about statistics he made up off the top of his head – is premised on the exact opposite.
Now, you might say this is part for the course, coming from a man who claimed to “spend a lot of time” in a restaurant that does not exist during the 2008 vice-presidential debate… and invited listeners to go there with him, so they could “ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy” of the Bush Administration “has made them better off in the last eight years.” What would the hypothetical patrons of that imaginary restaurant say if you could journey into the far recesses of Joe Biden’s addled mind and ask that question today?
But this is about more than just observing that Joe Biden does not meet the minimal mental requirements for the office he holds. The larger point is that we’re talking about giving the government billions of dollars to spend, on the principle that it knows how to spend that money better than we do. The hideous failure of our fantastically expensive public education system is a rebuke to the $30 billion Obama wanted to give the teachers’ unions. Biden’s delusions and made-up statistics are part of a Democrat effort to pass legislation through panic.
You’re not supposed to ask logical questions about the relationship between crime rates and police staffing, especially when discussing a one-time “stimulus” that would hire temporary cops. Incidentally, we’ve had this discussion before. Do you remember Bill Clinton’s Community Oriented Policing Services program from 1994, which he repeatedly promised would “put 100,000 cops on the street?” Well, it didn’t. Not even close. It actually added 69,000 to 89,000 police officers at most – it’s hard to separate the “stimulus” hiring from officers who would have been hired anyway – and many of them went to affluent and low-crime communities, because Clinton’s bill was about pork-barrel spending, not a carefully reasoned attempt to invest scarce public resources carefully.
A 2007 Reason article notes that crime rates were going down before the COPS program, and “some criminologists find no evidence that the new cops did anything to lower the level of mayhem.”
A study by John Worrall and Tomislav Kovandzic of the University of Texas at Dallas, published this year in the journal Criminology, concluded that “COPS grants had no discernible effect on serious crime.” A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office disagreed, but said the effect was very small. About 95 percent of the decline in crime in the 1990s, it said, was attributable to other factors.
We shouldn’t be surprised that adding all those patrol officers would produce little or no improvement. Given the multiple shifts, vacation and sick days, the additional number of personnel on the street at any given moment is only about 10,000, spread across a nation of 300 million people. That’s fewer than one extra cop per local police department.
Flooding the zone in high-crime areas might yield significant results. But the money also wasn’t targeted at those cities with the worst crime. It was allocated, with majestic impartiality, among places that are dangerous and places that are safe.
You’d think this sad history of ineffectual Big Government spending would be well-known to Joe Biden… because he wrote the COPS bill in 1994.
Democrats love to describe their tax-and-spend policies as “investments.” Well, investors carefully consider mountains of information before spending their money as wisely as possible, because they want to earn the best possible return. They don’t launch wild spending binges based on overheated rhetoric and phony numbers pulled from their posteriors. Of course, Biden and his ilk aren’t talking about “investing” their money.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter