Getting More for Less...

You've no doubt read by now that New York City has voted to defund its police department to the tune of $One Billion Dollars.  That's approximately one-sixth of its entire budget.  The police were asking for more.  They just got less.

They say they're doing that to "improve the overall quality of community policing."  Hmmmm.

And Seattle just voted to reduce funding to their police department by some 10%, immediately, and reduce pay for their top 40 officers by 30%.  And then to reduce it even more next year.  

And Lost Angeles just voted to reduce funding to its police by more than $150 Million Dollars.  

And Portland just voted to reduce its police budget by 50%.  50%!  And one of the nine councilweenies there voted against the majority; she wanted to abolish police funding altogether.  Completely.  Entirely.  Hmmm...

Now, I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but improving the quality of the services rendered by simply reducing the amount of money spent on them, and eliminating some of those charged with performing those services, seems counter-intuitive in the extreme.  But hey, that's just me.  So I got to thinking of other services we Americans enjoy and how such, ummm, "Progressive" thinking might serve to impact them were that same sort of thinking applied.  Here's a few I considered:

     -  It's kind of like improving the service at Home Depot by removing all of the shopping carts.  

     -  Like improving the service of American Airlines by making their planes smaller.  And slower.

     -  That's sort of like improving the quality of Baskin-Robbins by eliminating all of their ice cream flavors but vanilla.

     -  Sort of like improving the taste of breakfast at I-Hop by outlawing eggs.  

     -  And sort of like reducing the amount of pain in a surgical procedures by eliminating anasthesia.  

In short, if we can improve the services delivered by simply spending less on the responsible agency, how about expanding this remarkable new strategy to include another, even more important and expensive entity?  

How about we implement this strategy with the Congress of the United States of America?

America spends more than $4.5 Trillion Dollars a Year to operate our Government.  And a Big Chunk of that money goes to pay the feckless, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing legislators who decide how much and where and when to spend our money.  Being a Congressperson used to be Big Deal.  Now?  Take a look at Alexandria Occasional-Cortex if you'd like to know.  

So I suggest we apply the "reduced police funding principal" to Congress.  I suggest we immediately reduce the number of senators from two per state to one.  There are 100 now, let's take it down to 50 and just watch services improve!

And then I suggest we reduce the number of elected state Representatives from 425, the current number, to say 100.  That's two per state, more perhaps even than they really need.  Since they don't do anything anyway, except show up for their nightly time slot on MSNBC and CNN, that is, service will surely improve, just as it has(n't) in soon-to-be police-free Portland.  

Seattle and Portland and Austin and Kansas City and New York City and Baltimore and San Francisco tell us they need fewer police, and need for their police to do fewer things.  I say, give them what they want!  I say to the Portland and Seattle police departments, "blue flu" is in!  I'm one of those folks who believe, "if a little bit is good, a whole lot just has to be better!"  Just don't show up for work tomorrow and see how much better your department's service truly becomes!

And on the way out that gauzy, ephemeral, digital door, I would say, if you don't think service would improve if Congress left town, THEY'VE ALREADY LEFT TOWN!  There's nobody left in D.C.!  They're on vacation while America is hungry and broke and unemployed.  In a pandemic.  

And it would be hard to make that up even if you really tried...