Jun 25, 2008

Gun (Stupid Titles with No Imagination)

One of the many problems I have with Philip R. Klein's opinions as published on the Southeast Texas Political Review has to do with PRK's  lack of comprehension. He's ignorant of the real issues, but nevertheless offers an opinion, often buttressed by his "anonymous sources."

As an example, readers may remember that a few weeks ago, Philip Klein claimed that:

Today, the Jefferson County Commissioners have on their plate a huge tax abatement. And this time it is with TOTAL. And it .... should pass. With yes votes from Arnold (leading the charge) and Waymon Hallmark.

And of course, one of Philip's anonymous sources purportedly confirmed the story:

"We will be watching today," said one manager to the Review over the weekend.

As I pointed out at the time, Jefferson County Commissioners actually appointed a committee to review previous agreements for compliance on projects that were already completed.  No new tax "abetments" were ever considered.

Philip's latest article is another case in point.  His opening paragraph is gibberish:

Seized drug money bought the guns this week in the Jefferson County Sheriffs office. Yes - they are big guns. And yes they will go onto the boats of the Jefferson County Navy. They will compliment the possible terrorist attack by who knows who that may attacked our plants and docks.

I'm still trying to figure out what Philip meant in that last sentence (the emphasis is mine). 

Note to Philip - there is a difference between "compliment" and "complement." A "compliment" is an expression of esteem, respect, affection, or admiration, so I'm not sure how the new guns would compliment a terrorist.  As a friendly suggestion, you should purchase a dictionary. If the price is too steep, try approaching the SBA for another loan. You could show them your "Motion for a Summery Judgement" as proof of need.

Philip argues that the money should have been spent on new patrol officers:

Boats, planes, and choppers are neat - but we need police cars and police officers on the streets.

Unfortunately, federal and state laws stipulate that a law enforcement agency may not "supplant" its own budget with confiscated funds, nor should "the prospect of receiving forfeited funds … influence relative priorities of law enforcement agencies." 

Instead, those funds are to be used for specific purposes, such as equipment or training.  As an example, buying and equipping boats to patrol those security zones around local plants where the Coast Guard has no jurisdiction is an acceptable use of seized assets.

Under certain circumstances, these funds can also be used for first-year salaries, as in the case of a newly-created position with an agency.  As an example, Orange County is using a portion of their seized assets for a new purchasing officer.

Unfortunately, the county must assume the salary after the first year - given how tight the budget is in Orange County, there's a good chance that position will disappear without an increase in property taxes.

So, here's the question that Philip either misunderstands or else, dodges: how much is he willing to pay in extra county taxes for more Sheriff's officers to patrol the unincorporated areas of the county with relatively little crime in the wee hours of the morning?

Any comment, buddy?

No comments :