Sunday, September 02, 2012

Law enforcement dominates local government spending increases in Austin

If you live in Austin, here are a pair of recent Statesman stories which demonstrate how much of your rising tax bill is attributable to spending on law enforcement:
See also from the Austin Chronicle, "Public Safety: A Growth Industry," Aug. 31

Now consider this recent Statesman headline: "Property taxes in Texas up nearly 200% over the last two decades, comptroller says," (Aug. 23). For perspective, check out the left-column charts on page three of this report (pdf) from the Texas Comptroller documenting property tax and sales tax increases over the last two decades. Both categories of taxes have increased well beyond what would have been needed to keep up with population growth and inflation. An earlier Statesman report found that, even adjusting for inflation, "The property tax bill for a typical Austin home rose 38 percent between 2000 and 2010," with tax levies by the City of Austin increasing an inflation-adjusted 44%.

Almost all of the City of Austin's recent increased spending is attributable to the public safety budget. In 2010, the Austin Chronicle quoted city councilmember Bill Spelman who calculated that, "'Over the last 10 years, public safety spending per person, in real terms, has gone up by nearly 50 percent since the year 2000,' a 45% increase from $365 to $529." Meanwhile, "'Spending on everything else in the General Fund, has gone up by 2 percent since 2000,' from a little over $175 to $178." Said Spelman, "We've taken all the new money we've gotten from property taxes, sales taxes, and what have you, and put it all into public safety. And none of it into parks, libraries, health and human services, development services, and so on. It's all gone to public safety."

Nationally one hears conservatives complain about public-employee unions as a major driver of government spending, but at the local level in Austin that's mainly only true of law enforcement. Teachers and other government employees don't have the clout to command the kind of raises one routinely sees among peace officers in the capital city.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think you Grits reported previously that arrests are also up for possession of under 2 oz. of cannabis?

Is this why we need more police -- to make these extra marijuana arrests?

Robert Langham said...

Austin run by liberals at all levels, so this is hard to blame on the conservatives or people who call themselves conservatives. I expect the libs who run Austin are terrified of being labeled "soft on crime" so they let the police run wild.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Agreed, Robert, but even more than fearing the "soft on crime" label IMO it's mere mere pandering to the police and deputies' unions. Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

When a far-left zealot starts to throw out statistics, I start to wonder how it is that his figures always support a far-left, Chris Matthews type point of view.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Yes, 4:25, complaining about high taxes and criticizing public employee unions is definitely a "far-left, Chris Matthews type point of view." I can definitely see your point. :-/

Anonymous said...

4:25pm...I can see you don't get it. Chrsi Matthews suppoerts higher taxes and unions...lol

Grits...are any of the Travis County PD's collective bargaining groups in the true sense of being organized labor?

Anonymous said...

Some call for spending reductions only so as to reduce the number of police and favor the criminals. They don't care about reducing spending in any other area. They are not fiscally conservative, just anti-police and pro-criminal. They have not had one positive thing to say about the police. Not one.

Anonymous said...

Higher taxes=need for higher salaries to pay....and on and on. Nice stats, Grits. Amazing. It will have to end someday, the question is not when, but how?

Anonymous said...

No 5:36, it won't end if the President wins again. He wants to increase both police and teacher positions while Romney is just the opposite. GO TEAM OBAMA!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/democrats-hit-mitt-romney-for-comment-on-teachers-first-responders/

Anonymous said...

12:05:00 PM
Obama wants to spend more--just like a man who joyfully runs up his credit card with no thought as to how he can pay it off. Borrow and spend and print more money--that's the ticket.

john said...

Can Hussein please be laid off now and his job goes to Asia like mine did? Then he'll get a new sense of his credit value as Citibank---who received nearly $3 Trillion in bailout---sues him.
As for the coppers, et al., they need more money to get more gear to use against We The Poor People---those who they've been trained to believe are their enemies, instead of protecting and serving us like they once did. They learned this from the completely corrupted politicians we failed to police. And it was NOT just Hussein--he's merely the next false-face front-man for the bankers.
And they don't have to use CAPTCHA CHA---because they ARE robots.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Y'all realize the federal gub'mint doesn't pay for local law enforcement, right? How did this end up about Obama? Focus, people.

Anonymous said...

Often times the federal government is responsible. They dangle that cheese called COPS grants, city government bites into it and then after the grant has expired, the city is left to foot the bill.

You are right when you say the federal government doesn't pay for it because they darn sure don't have the money to pay for nothing as evidenced by this country's mounting debt.

But they still promote the COPS program regardless.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

I'll grant that, and fwiw, this blog has repeatedly criticized Obama and Democrats for backing it. But Austin's problems, I'm afraid, are of their own making and have nothing to do with Obama.

Anonymous said...

And just who are these LEOs getting all this money? Why they are the same jokers who are molesting your children. Indeed, more police officers are convicted of child sex crimes than all other professions combined. It's law enforcement's "dirty little secret", and one we are committed to exposing. Police officers use their positions of trust to violate our children. Their victims are threatened with physical harm and told no one will believe their word over that of a police officer. Please visit our Facebook pages to understand why all cops have a predisposition to molest children at some point or another in their crummy lives, and learn what you can do to prevent your child from becoming one of their 100,000 victims each and every year: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tribute-to-survivors-of-child-sexual-assault-by-law-enforcement-officers/180584842010594

North Texas Cop said...

To anon at 9:50...

How many times are you going to post your histrionic accusations and blatantly false statistics on this and other blogs during discussions of subjects that have nothing to do with your favorite falsehood? In anticipation of your possible reply (I've read your snarky ripostes elsewhere), are you familiar with the concept of psychological projection?

Anonymous said...

North Texas cop, you are either in denial, or you simply refuse to accept the facts. Regardless, when you are caught we will post your photo on our wall along with the link to the article detailing your child sex crime. Same as we've done for the other 30,000 cops...

Gritsforbreakfast said...

I've gotta agree with North Texas Cop about the off-topic comments. You've posted that meme and link many times now. Stop, please, and stay on topic. From now on I'm going to delete those off-topic rants when I see them.

That said, NTC, have you ever looked at the link anon keeps providing? It's a pretty impressive list with links to news stories for every allegation. That's part of the reason (besides lack of time and/or interest) that I haven't taken to deleting the comments as off topic, but henceforth I'm going to start. It's become waaay too repetitive and the accompanying comments (e.g., "all cops have a predisposition to molest children") are asinine, libelous and paint with far too broad a brush.