I am curious why the police force has to carry so much of the burden of the cuts? Over 1/3. How about we cut out some of those pet social programs for awhile and unnecessary high salary admins.
Typical liberal ploy, scare people about their safety (cutting police, letting criminals go, etc.) to get people to agree to pay more taxes.
What is Mayor Giminez’s stance on wanting taxes raised?
“I am curious why the police force has to carry so much of the burden of the cuts? “
When Clinton provided federal money to hire local cops it was not for crime control, though that was how it was sold. A small town near here got the extra cops and later did away with their entire police force as all they did was write tickets. Locally here they’ve radically stepped up “code enforcement” which is dog-whistle for revenue collection. So, will they cut revenuers? No. Probably not, as that will make any budget problem worse. As it is I suspect the actual crime fighters, the detectives, are vastly overworked. Did you realize that practically every dead body requires a report? Can you imagine how those cases get pencil-whipped in a town with half a million residents? Actual crime fighting is, for all practical purposes, not happening. Only political crimes or high profile cases get the kind of attention you see on CSI.
But on a lager scale when the federal government went into its most recent funding “crisis” it was the military that bore (as I recall) 50% of the hit.
Social programs are too important to be subject to funding or budget constraints. (uhm.../s?)