Oakland’s police chief Anthony Batts has announced that Oakland Police will not responded to 44 different crimes if planned layoffs occur at midnight. It was useful for Batts to announce the categories in advance for criminals to chose from a criminal dim sum list of free crimes including grand theft, burglary, vehicle collision, identity theft and vandalism.
If you are the victim of burglary, you will be told to make a report online and not to expect police to respond.
Here the list of free crimes in Oakland:
burglary
theft
embezzlement
grand theft
grand theft:dog
identity theft
false information to peace officer
required to register as sex or arson offender
dump waste or offensive matter
discard appliance with lock
loud music
possess forged notes
pass fictitious check
obtain money by false voucher
fraudulent use of access cards
stolen license plate
embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
extortion
attempted extortion
false personification of other
injure telephone/ power line
interfere with power line
unauthorized cable tv connection
vandalism
administer/expose poison to another’s
That allows ample room for most criminals to plan a life of crime without the risk of police interference.
This is the response to the planned layoff of 80 officers. That is roughly one-tenth of the force. As we continue to gush billions in Afghanistan and Iraq, our cities are returning to a state of nature. According to the city of Oakland, each of the 776 police officers currently employed at OPD costs around $188,000 per year. The city council asked OPD officers to pay nine percent of their salary toward their pensions. However, the union would only agree if the city promised no layoffs. The city refused.
Source: NBC.
Byron,
Actually an end to corporate welfare is one of the omitted sub-groupings. The details (so far) call for an end to subsidies but not an end to tax advantages/penalties for issues like off-shoring. Also on the omitted sub-groupings is “Operational Efficiencies and Savings by Tax Code Elimination and Simplification”. It would effectively reduce the role of the IRS to that of a clearing house. SS? I hadn’t really though much about it other than perhaps adding an agenda item under the Corporate issues about passing legislation making it illegal to privatize it or any other public trust (speaking of which, would automatically put us at odds with the Chamber of Commerce – they announced how they intend to spend their cash in the wake of Citizens United and privatization of SS was right up there . . . venal bastards). I’m certainly open to suggestions.
The above list is a very brief thumbnail sketch.
Smom,
To keep them honest. It’s still impeachment light. If their state House and Senate feels they in Washington are not doing their job, they should be able to fire them at any time with a lower threshold than an impeachable offense. The short term makes recall elections problematic but it’s not like Governors don’t appoint Representatives to fulfill terms when a Representative dies in office already. If the State officials did so in contravention of their constituents, well then they would have to face the voters come time for their re-election.
Slartibartfast
Buddha said:
“How about Presidential recall possible only after 18 mos.? Surely that’s enough time to evaluate if they are doing as they promised (or at least trying).”
Possible recall after 2 years (it makes more sense to have this be an option in the midterm election = especially if the referendum were decided along electoral college lines).
=================================================================
Buddha,
I think Slarti makes a valid point as it pertains to midterm elections etc.
House members are up for election every two years. Why would you need a recall for them?
Buddha:
“The CPP would only expect that they uphold the platform, the spirit of the Declaration and the letter of the Constitution.”
that is certainly something most thinking people can get behind.
I also like no corporate funding. Can we include a point of no corporate welfare as well and no subsidies to farmers to not plant crops or to plant crops? And how about getting rid of funding for the arts and sciences, way too political in my mind.
How about just a simple flat tax of 17% with no deductions and if you make under say $35,000 per year you pay no taxes at all? This would save a great deal of money on enforcement and compliance. The IRS could almost be eliminated and the savings could go into the social security fund.
How about actually putting Social Security in a real lock box and letting people inherit grandpas residual if he dies before it is expended?
Give people back some of the freedom that has been taken away by the GOP and DNC.
“Isn’t it ILLEGAL for the police to hold us hostage like this? Isn’t this just Blackmail? This police chief is committing a crime, he should at least be fired from his job. He works for the people and the people should decide what is most important to investigate.”
I don’t think things have been ‘legal’ for a long time.
What do you suggest we do? stop paying them? Looks to me like we did that….hence the layoffs. ‘The people’ speak through their elected officials….looks to me like ‘the people’ gave these cops the finger in a big way…they now get to do twice the work, taking on twice(or more) of the risk, for less pay, less benefits and no say. I would return the bird to the people too.
as for hostage taking terrorists…follow the money. This Country is being held hostage by corrupt corporate creeps, not cops.
You are most welcome. One lives to be of service.
Thanks for all your work Buddah.
Slarti,
I think that addresses your question too.
Byron,
Purest sense of the term is still not pure democracy as you describe. You’re binary thinking again. 😀 It’d be a party driven, representative democracy, but it wouldn’t be two party bound. As we’ve discussed many times, two choice between corrupt (DNC) and more corrupt (GOP) is not really a choice – hence platform item #8. We don’t just want to be “the competition”. We want there to be LOTS of competition. Item 8 is even a plank we could work in concert by forming coalitions with independents and members of say The Green Party. It would be a boon to all three groups.
The statement of principles will be very clear on one point I can assure you: no corporate funding – ever, only individuals and every party voter gets an equal say to criticize or make proposals to the platform committee, but only the majority agreed upon best ideas will become part of the official platform. That’s one of the reasons for early floating of these ideas is to get feedback on what’s the best ideas. And as far as the candidates that we can back and get elected? The CPP would only expect that they uphold the platform, the spirit of the Declaration and the letter of the Constitution. Any other votes that come before them we’d leave to their conscience and their local constituents at election/re-election time.
Buddha,
I agree with Byron that a republic is preferable to a democracy (and I also think that any party with ‘Constitutional’ in its name is implicitly saying the same thing).
Buddha said:
“How about Presidential recall possible only after 18 mos.? Surely that’s enough time to evaluate if they are doing as they promised (or at least trying).”
Possible recall after 2 years (it makes more sense to have this be an option in the midterm election = especially if the referendum were decided along electoral college lines).
Buddha:
I agree that politicians should listen to us but isn’t pure democracy bad to? The Constitution seems to me like a pretty good protector of our freedoms when used properly, couldn’t pure democracy just vote it out of existence altogether?
I am a fan of democracy as long as there is some standard that it adheres to. I don’t want people voting themselves 6 month vacations and steak every night at the expense of someone else and I don’t want someone else voting for 80 hour weeks and salaries of $5/day at the expense of the people.
I admit, I like the idea of No Confidence but it is problematic.
I wonder if it would be unnecessary for the President for another reason though.
With the No Confidence ax hanging over the Congress, they’d probably be quicker to impeach some jackwad criminal like Bush than risk their own office at the hands of angry voters.
Maybe?
Buddha,
There are three kinds of mathematicians – those that can count and the other kind.
(Alternately, there are 10 kinds of mathematicians – those that can count and the other kind.)
And any Presidential recall within 12 mos. before end of term uses rules of succession in place of special election.
Slarti,
How about Presidential recall possible only after 18 mos.?
Surely that’s enough time to evaluate if they are doing as they promised (or at least trying).
Slarti,
Pardon the multi-tasking. #9 for a reason. lol
I’ll learn to count someday. 😀
Buddha,
Personally, I think that 4 year contract with a year 2 performance review of sorts for the presidency is a strength of our system. I don’t think that any presidency can be fairly judged any sooner (absent an impeachable offense which is already provided for). With representatives and senators I might be convinced that no-confidence/recall was a good idea, but I doubt you can convince me that it would be a good idea for the president.
Byron,
Because our candidates would have a simple choice. Seek to enact out platform or cease to get party support. Just like the DNC and GOP do now to keep their party members in line.
Nature doesn’t make the Constitution work, B.
We the People do. But Our Collective Voice has been replaced in Washington by lobbyists and CEO’s. Screw ’em. They’re destroying the country and We want it back.
When we cease to be the voices elected officials listen to, then We need to elect officials that listen to Us. You say you are a fan of democracy? This is a democratic movement in the purest sense of the term.
I like #9 very much as I have always thought the lack of a no-confidence clause was a weakness in our system.
Each of the items is vital but #8 is as necessary as #9. I can’t tell you how pleased I was to see both on the list.
As long as Freedom of Choice is addressed in the Principle Statement, I am very pleased.
“The House – Each Representative can be voted on No Confidence and recalled by their state legislature forcing an interim election.
The Senate – The House (or a State Legislature) can vote for No Confidence in the Senate and force a recall election and/or dissolution (in the case of a House vote).
The President – The Senate (or alternatively the House and Senate) can vote for No Confidence in the Executive and force a recall election and resignation.”
These are all very much in keeping with our Republic form of government … in my opinion