Skip to main content

The real problem with fixing violent crime in Wilmington is that Democrats don't want to pay for it.

Over at Delawareliberal cassandra has another post up about crime in Wilmington.  cassandra and I have our differences, but she continues to do excellent fact-based blogging about the nature of the problem, the potential solutions, and the general ineptitude/malaise of the current governmental apparatus to solve the problem.

As cassandra knows and has blogged repeatedly, this ain't rocket science.  There are a lot of evidence-proven strategies (like full-scale community policing with a constitutionally careful stop and frisk approach) that could make a dent, a serious dent, in crime and violence in Wilmington.

The problem is--in this one-party state--the Democrats don't care enough about reducing what amounts to urban terrorism in Wilmington to do anything about it.

Instead, last year, they supported a State budget that included millions to bail out casinos and tens of millions in corporate welfare rather than invest in either inner-city education or crime fighting.

In recent years they invested in buying the State Police a navy rather than putting more cops on the streets to keep Delawareans from getting shot on their porches.

They invested tens of millions (the exact figure is difficult to determine because it is hidden in other lines) in developing the Delaware Information Analysis Center, which takes plenty of pictures of your license plate as you drive around the state, but which has done absolutely nothing to apply modern intel-based policing methods to the city of Wilmington.

The simple fact is that you have to evaluated politicians by the way they vote rather than the rhetoric they spew.  And the reality in Delaware is that in our General Assembly, where the Democratic Party holds strong majorities, and in our Executive Branch--which is completely Dem--the 140-odd shootings in Wilmington just aren't important enough to dent business as usual.

Indirectly, you could say that these legislators and bureaucrats are only reflective of the positions of those who elected them across the state, and since people in the suburbs and rural areas don't care, why should they?

That's the worst of cop-outs.

Speaking of cop-outs, I understand that the Delaware State Police has invested in new SUV patrol vehicles so that officers on Routes 1 and 95 will be able to better look down and catch talking/texting motorists.  I think we're up to about 37 highway fatalities this year, and only a handful involved cell phones.  But that tells me exactly where Democratic priorities are:  texting while driving is dangerous and must be wiped out.  People who live in Wilmington are expendable.

It's difficult to blame anybody else for this when you actually control all the branches of government.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Begging in the Feds...because that's worked so well in the past...

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20131205/NEWS01/312050083/Wilmington-Council-passes-measure-seeking-federal-help-violence
Anonymous said…
True, but one must always remember that the current all-Democratic state government is 1000 time better, despite its many faults, than the split government of ths early 2000's...

Back when nothing got a consensus in the General Assembly unless it put millions into the pocket of a few with temporary residences in Greenville....

Back when it was still ok to beat up homosexuals because, heck, even half of those in government thought it was ok.

Can anyone seriously imagine a Republican running this state? Greg Lavelle as chief executive officer?
(They have no one else and even his Senate seat is not very safe...) Can you imagine what life would be like, where nothing got done, at all, and then in December, a press conference gets called and he says we need a new task force to study a new problem? Giant moral problems like there is gambling going on in our casino's?

The beefs you mention are very real, and fully I'm supportive of most of the things you propose... And if, if, there was an alternative action or person, then perhaps you might have a case...

But you know as do I, that putting in a backwards, petty-focused, inept, wimpy, small thinking administration just to make a change from the status quo, probably creates more issues than one bargained for....

Image overturning the gay marriage law?

The answer across this nation is not Republicans... Absolutely not. Disagree? Go to DelawarePolitics.Net, and see what I mean...

Whether the challenges come from within the existing party, or liberal leaning new party, they will come.... Just don't forget what an abysmal failure the Delaware Republican Party currently is, and has been since the DuPont legacy left it in the 80's....

Just perform a reality check, and think for one second, of Greg Lavelle giving the State of the State address...

Excuse me, got to leave now. I have to go clean up the coffee I just snorted all over my desk...
No, sorry kavips, but you don't get to play that card this time.

Saying that our corporatist, corrupt government is better than the alternative isn't an excuse for the abject failure of the current Democratic Party to deal with what's on their plate in front of them.

And I have already argued that DE needs a new opposition party.

But here's the reality: in most states Jack Markell would be considered a moderate to slightly liberal Republican, and so would Tom Carper and John Carney. It wasn't just that Democrats used to vote for Mike Castle in droves, the moderate Republicans who supported him appear to have moved into the Democratic Party and taken control of it.

You can't continue to use the "we're better than the other guys" when you (a) rule through illegal mechanisms; (b) piss away tens of millions in taxpayer dollars to feed your corporate donors; (c) gut public education in favor of your corporate reformist friends; and (d) treat even your own state employees like so much dirt.

Eventually you have to stand on your own record, awful as it is.
tom said…
The worst part is that it wouldn't even cost them much (in dollars anyway).

They could go a long way toward eliminating most of the violent crime in Wilmington simply by admitting they were wrong and re-legalizing drugs.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...