Congress Moves to Extend D.C.'s School Voucher Program

Obama tried to kill the program in 2009 and 2012.


On Wednesday, the House passed a bill (240-191) that would extend Washington, D.C.'s school voucher program for another five years and boost its annual funding to $20 million.

Created in 2004, D.C.'s program is the the nation's only federally funded voucher initiative. The Obama administration attempted to phase the program out in 2009 and 2012, but it survived largely thanks to the support of outgoing House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who also sponsored the latest bill.

As The Washington Post reports,

Boehner, a product of Catholic schools, is the program's biggest cheerleader in Congress. A companion bill is pending in the Senate.

"While it's my name on the bill, the best champions for this program are some of the most fearless kids you've ever seen," Boehner said, choking up on the House floor. "Those of us who work here, make a good living — we owe something to the kids in this town. Help these kids get over the mountain."

Back in 2009, when it looked like Obama was going to successfully kill the D.C. voucher program, Reason TV's Nick Gillespie and Dan Hayes profiled Mercedes Campbell, who was attending Georgetown Visitation Prep on a voucher.

Watch that story below:

NEXT: The Crucible, Now at a Campus Near You

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It didn’t pass by enough to override a veto.

  2. When it comes to government-sector unions versus poor black people, the Democrats will side with the unions every time.

    1. Well they’ve worked so tirelessly to keep poor blacks in the ghetto, why stop now.

      1. Somehow I doubt the Black Lives Matter people will lobby in support of this law.

        1. Well when you look at what police unions and teachers unions do to their kids, you would think taking down public sector unions would be a priority.

          1. Seems like that movement has become more about attention whoring than anything else.

            1. Like Occupy, the Tea Party, and the anti-war movement before them.

              Professional political activists are why we can’t have nice things.

              1. It’s true. The psycho chick discussion below is the same thing really.

  3. Private monopolies are unsustainable, but still considered wicked. Government monopolies are only maintained via force, but still considered virtuous.

    1. Private monopolies are sustainable through government force.

  4. Boehner likes to cry, doesn’t he?

  5. Of course, the purists who think there shouldn’t be any government money in education are going to be pissed.

    1. Choice lowers cost, improves performance and expands freedom. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      1. The perfect is either with us… or it’s against us.

        1. The perfect keeps shit from getting. Something I’ve struggled with.

          1. Geting done:)

          2. Multiply amount of freedom*probability of success.

            Vouchers are small number times big number.

            Separation of school and state is big number times teeny, tiny number.

    1. Just don’t start replying to yourself. That’s Eddie territory.

      1. As opposed to P Brooks, who never responds to anybody.

  6. Mammal in chief responds to opposition. Serious propaganda outfits touts presidential grumpy cat face


  7. Boehner said, choking up on the House floor.

    I laughed.

    Private school graduate Barack Obama sends his daughters to private school and does all he can to try keep others from having a private school education. There are no bad optics here.

    1. That’s pretty standard on the left. Choice for me but not for thee.

      1. Like when they completely destroyed the inner cities with forced busing. Hey, let’s ship all the white working class folks children across town to attend the worst performing schools in the highest crime neighborhoods while we send our kids to private schools. They won’t leave and take that tax base and all the jobs with them.

        1. Of course that story is incomplete without mentioning that those same black neighborhoods were doing much better less than a decade earlier until the left got involved and started paying poor people to stay poor and poor mothers to stay single. They created the problem and then in an attempt to clean up their mess, they made it worse. So predictable they are.

  8. “Back in 2009, when it looked like Obama was going to successfully kill the D.C. voucher program…”

    Barack Obama is an angry, hateful, ideologically rigid, shit stain of a human being. He will go down in history as a skid mark in America’s underpants.

    You have to wonder about his psychology, too. Obama takes advantage of the people who see him as the fruition of the civil rights struggle, on the one hand–and then he sells those very people’s children them down the river for the benefit of the teachers’ unions.

    In order to act like that, you’d think he couldn’t possibly identify personally with poor African-Americans in Washington DC, but the more plausible explanation is even more disturbing than that. Maybe Obama is just a vengeful psychopath. After all, he doesn’t seem to identify with any other group of Americans either. I think he’d sell us all down the river if he thought it might enhance his “greatness”.

    1. “He will go down in history as a skid mark in America’s underpants.”

      The left writes the history books so probably not.

      1. Some of that reluctance to look critically at sacred cows will disappear with time and the baby-boomers.

        1. I’m not sure that I share your optimism but I do hope you are correct.

          1. It will but it will take a long time. Look how long it took for people to look back on FDR’s legacy and started to suggest that he might have been a fuck up. Same with JFK.

            40 years from now we might actually be able to have an honest look back at the Obama legacy.

            1. Historian’s and the media vith still fawn over both if them. Yeah, you and I know they were terrible but I’m not sure if that’s being conveyed elsewhere.

              1. I wonder how your auto-correct came up with “vith”. 🙂

                1. This phone has the worst auto-correct I’ve ever seen. Half the time it’s not even close. But algorithms are going to drive my car?

                2. Too many Lily Von Schtup and Col. Klink impersonations via text.

                    1. Klink-y?

                  1. I’m Tired

                    1. But what’s your limit on schnitzengruben?

                    2. If it bears any resemblance to Rahmschnitzel served with Sp?tzle, I have no upper limit.

                    3. Baby, please, I am not from Havana!

            2. Hell, fuckin’ Woodrow Wilson still has good cachet. They just think he was too idealistic & sick?like he’d’a done better if he’d been healthy & more pragmatic.

              1. And Oliver Holmes! Darn, now you got me started.

        2. That is why FDR is reviled now on the left.

    2. It’s very likely that the bubble he lives in prevents him from understanding or even seeing the effects of his actions. Obama is an utterly vain person, and not nearly as intelligent as his worshippers make him out to be, but I don’t think he’s callous to human suffering.

      Hillary on the other hand, is totally comfortable with causing suffering if it helps her attain money and power. It’s amazing that Obama will probably be followed by someone even worse than himself, just like Bush2 was.

      1. NO!

        Hillary is no where near as bad as Obama. Not even close.

        The Clintons, at least, understand economics. They may attempt to buy power by doing things counter to sound economic policy, but they realize you can only go so far without killing the goose. Obama, OTOH, simply believes in magic.

        1. Can you imagine Bernie?

        2. I have a hard time disagreeing with this. We can survive rule by crooks, we can’t survive rule by even truly well-intentioned socialists (like that Tanzanian guy).

          1. Tasmanian Devil 2016

          2. We’ve survived a well-intentioned socialist for 7 years.

            Anyway, crooks are usually more competent at their dirty deeds and less concerned about their image or legacy. Imagine how much more damage Obama would have done if he had been able to work Congress rather than insisting his way or the highway. If Hillary Clinton had been president in 2009 when they had a filibuster-proof majority, union card-check and cap-and-trade would have been enshrined in the law alongside her version of Obamacare (which may well have been even worse).

            1. I think the point has been that he’s not well-intentioned.

        3. The Clintons, at least, understand economics. They may attempt to buy power by doing things counter to sound economic policy, but they realize you can only go so far without killing the goose.

          There is no evidence for this. President Clinton was a garden-variety leftist for the first two years before being forced to move to the center by the GOP taking over Congress. Even then he probably wouldn’t have balanced the budget were it not for the economy (and tax revenues) booming thanks to the end of the Cold War and the birth of the commercial Internet. And how quickly they forget Hillarycare from back in 1993, which may have been even worse than Obamacare had it passed.

          At a minimum, the Clintons recognize that there’s plenty more meat to carve off this goose before it gives up the ghost, and they’re going to get while the gettins good.

      2. I don’t think he’s callous to human suffering.

        Then why hasn’t he called off the drones?


  9. You would think, between DC being the home of both the federal government and of the largest collection of non-profit do-gooder groups dedicated to lobbying ‘informing and educating’ that government on the need for funds and programs for their do-goodery, that DC would be a shining example of what well-intentioned people, well-organized and well-funded, can accomplish to make the world a more perfect place – but it instead is a shithole. Is DC not a good example of what exactly the combination of good intentions and government force wind up producing? And why exactly is DC such a shithole with all that its got? No tax base because all the government and non-profits pay no property taxes and all those well-paid government leeches don’t actually live and shop in DC and therefore don’t contribute property and sales taxes? If they all love big government so much why the hell don’t they put their money where their mouth is and make DC an example of what a great job goverment can do? Seems to me they either don’t really believe the shit they’re spewing about how much they want to just help the common folk, or the shit they’re spewing just can’t produce results.

    1. “that DC would be a shining example of what well-intentioned people, well-organized and well-funded, can accomplish”

      It is the perfect example. Nothing more dangerous than a do gooder with power and money.

  10. Personal responsibility? Fuck that.

    Eventually, she realized that what she was grappling with was not just the night in question but also the failure of campus feminism to address those kinds of experiences. We tend to talk about consent “as an individual process,” she wrote, “not asking ‘What kinds of power are operating in this situation?’ but only ‘Did you or did you not say yes?’?” Feminists, she continued, “sometimes talk about ‘yes’ and ‘no’ like they’re uncomplicated ? But ethical sex is hard. And it won’t stop being hard until we ? minimize, as much as possible, power imbalances related to sex.”

    I fucked all those guys, but later I felt bad. It’s not my fault. They made me. Society made me. My daddy made me.

    I am a powerless victim of patriarchal oppression.

    1. Shounds like she should do more squats.

    2. Last winter, Reina Gattuso was a Harvard senior majoring in literature and gender studies and writing a biweekly column for the college newspaper, the Crimson. She covered a variety of subjects, among them her sexuality (she identifies as queer) and Harvard’s byzantine class hierarchies, and she wrote a regular feature called “Four Dollar Wine Critic.” In February, she dedicated her column to the subject of sexist sex


      Reina Gattuso went to Harvard, therefore she is important.

      1. There’s $200,000 well-spent.

      2. “Four Dollar Wine Critic”

        She set up this Web site?

        1. You know what else she’d do for four bucks?

          1. She’d conjugate verbs, that’s what!

        2. People who think our current society is so awfully-racist should be required to watch old TV advertisements from the 1970s for a month straight

          In particular, I submit this advert for Thunderbird, avec de jus de pamplemousse

          Maybe it won’t change their minds, but at the very least might provide them some perspective

          1. Even in our enlightened age, some ads are sexist or racist

            (and the first one is NSFW)

          2. That Thunderbird commercial was fantastic, and reminded me of this, which…would cause a slight uproar today.

      3. Based on that picture, if it weren’t for alcohol, she’d still be a virgin.


    3. Except that young women don’t always enjoy sex ? and not because of any innately feminine psychological or physical condition. The hetero (and non-hetero, but, let’s face it, mostly hetero) sex on offer to young women is not of very high quality, for reasons having to do with youthful ineptitude and tenderness of hearts, sure, but also the fact that the game remains rigged.

      The problem, as usual, is my penis and lack of foreplay and proper stamina.

      1. Sounds like these young women need to start hooking up with older men, like me for instance.

        1. Have you got any candy for them?

          1. Have you got any candy for them?

            It’s in the van.

            1. You know what else is in the van?…

              1. Hitler?

          2. I’m not old. I’m mature:)

        2. So you can steal their life essence?

          1. “When he said he’d been saving it up for years, I thought he meant his money!”

      2. People keep telling me Freud is discredited, but penis envy actually send like an apt descriptor here.

      3. “The hetero (and non-hetero, but, let’s face it, mostly hetero) sex on offer to young women is not of very high quality”

        It’s Harvard. They’re either too busy talking about sex, or conjugating Latin verbs.

    4. They’re so presumptuous in always assuming that the men in those situations never wake up the next morning and say what the fuck was I thinking. We just don’t blame the woman.

      1. Yes. This is obvious, but if a woman I am talking to says she identifies as “queer” or “genderqueer” I will calmly turn around and run away; it is a prudent decision.

        These women are obviously an outlier (and I say that as someone who has spent time with Vassar College folk), but the fact that they have influence over school and government policies is problematic.

        1. Oh, I’m with you. No way that would be worth it.

          Yeah, it’s sad the types of people that gravitate towards positions of influence and power. It’s even sadder that they attain it. Media does not help when treat these people as anything other than insane.

          1. Yeah, it’s sad the types of people that gravitate towards positions of influence and power.

            Not being concerned about enjoying life or having friends (as opposed to allies) does help with the power acquisition, doesn’t it?

      2. “men in those situations never wake up the next morning and say what the fuck was I thinking.
        AJB, why do you think I type one-handed?

        1. + coyote

    5. More ranting from emotionally disturbed, intellectual cripples? I would suggest that she get treatment and learn not to be such a tit, but unfortunately there is no cure for useful idiots.

    6. And it won’t stop being hard until we ? minimize, as much as possible, power imbalances related to sex.

      Um…last I checked, women hold the vast majority of the power when it come to sex. The power of yes or no.

      But…if I claim victimhood, I can increase my power as idiots will cater to my unrealistic demands.

      1. The male holds the power of yes or no too. In our culture it’s not as explicit since we expect the male to be the one asking rather than answering, but a male can always choose not to pursue.

        1. The male holds the power of yes or no too.

          Sure he does.

    7. When did sex become so complicated? I mean I know some of the straps on those harnesses can get confusing, but this “yes doesn’t really mean yes” bullshit is getting out of hand.

      I mean Jesus it’s just sex, it’s just consent, but the way these people talk you would think they were trying to discover the Theory of Everything or something.

      1. They are emotionally disturbed people. Look up their blogs, they all have them because they are self absorbed as hell (another sign of mental disturbance). They all admit to being depressed, bi-polar, borderline PD, ADD, OCD etc. It is a smorgasbord of crazy.

        Sex isnt complicated and neither is consent but these people’s wires are so criss-crossed and frayed that putting simple info in comes out as unintelligible claptrap.

        1. Smorgasborg….geez.

          I am mulling over whether more coffee or vodka will help.

          1. I just put some rumchata in my coffee?

            1. Slow down, big fella’. The OSU game ain’t till 8 pm EST.

              Awww fuck it. Im gonna go have some vodkas and watch college football all day long.

              1. Oh, I’m not starting in earnest until later:) Planning on going out for the game. Might have the giant bottle of Victory 12 before I hit the bar. I guess I should throw in fridge right now:)

              2. Im gonna go have some vodkas and watch college football all day long.

                Do yourself a favor: watch the tape delay of the Rugby World Cup semi-final, 2:30pm Eastern, NBC.

                1. I had a rugby shirt once. J. Crew, I believe. Comfortable shirt, perfect for fall weather.

            2. Hell, I forgot.

              I have to go vote today. Every amendment on the ballot is about raising taxes, so that makes things easier. Check NO on all.

              Local Sheriff is ok, keep him. Joshua Joy Dara is running for state senate. I will vote for anyone but him.

              I heard there is a governor’s race too and nothing but shit to choose from.

              I will pick up more vodka on my way home.

              1. You can buy booze on election day?



              2. Mine’s in the mail; similar issues, except one which authorizes some people to do what they want with their property (with some ‘reasonable’ exceptions, doncha know)
                Ditto on most of the candidates: ‘Nobody for X’.

                1. “Mine’s in the mail”

                  Oh, your ballot – I thought at first you meant your vodka.

        2. To be fair, lots of sane people have blogs too.

      2. The sad thing is, consent does seem to be a legitimate issue on college campuses. Inexperienced, naive, presumptuous, and overeager hormone-addled kids who should GET OFF MY LAWN come together under circumstances in which sober reflection becomes an afterthought, sometimes literally the morning after. It’s a witch’s brew of young and recently liberated students packed together in campus housing, getting plastered. Of course there’s going to be miscues and mistakes. But to label anyone engaged in drunken debauchery a rapist, much less singling out men as uniquely culpable while infantilizing women as exploited ingenues, is explicitly, bar none, entirely, and totally the wrong way to go about addressing the problem. Consent education might have been a valid idea when a) it was didactic rather than punitive, and b) was proposed as an explicitly voluntary habit for both partners rather than a legally dubious obligation for just one. Worst of all, the “yes means yes” campaign has encouraged women to take no steps in protecting themselves against either rape or “rape” rape. Worser still, it engendered a hostile environment for young men in which the say-so of an accuser just as drunk as he at the time is treated as sacrosanct and his own defense a paltry afterthought.

        tl;dr, progressive institutions following progressive ethos creates predictable problems which progressives exacerbate with progressive policies. All of which ends up being totally regressive.

        1. I should amend that consent as an affirmative and ongoing policy is unenforceable horseshit, and that if one partner becomes uncomfortable with the situation s/he is responsible for ending it explicitly and forcefully. The impetus should be placed on refraining from engaging in behaviors which put a person in uncomfortable situations in the first place, but of course, the onus of “yes means yes” does exactly the opposite.

          1. (In fact, now that I have my dander up, I’ll go one step further: college feminism has inculcated in impressionable young women a sense of sexual liberation that many don’t actually feel. They’re encouraged to be as libidinous and carefree as their male counterparts because equality means parity, but are ill-equipped to handle the emotional impact of casual encounters and the responsibility of asserting their desires. As a result, some portion of these women find themselves unprepared for sex on traditionally masculine terms and deeply troubled by the implications of their own decisions. But campus feminism has an answer to this, too: rather than acceding to any responsibility in abandoning their disciples out in the wilderness, feminists have invented a new category of sexual expression, the dismal, bland, sexless policy of affirmative consent, in which women can now regain the reins over men by asserting their nonconsent after the fact. Affirmative consent is the feminist campaign to regain feminine control over sex without walking back the need to practice traditional feminine abstention.)

        2. This entire issue hinges on accepting the false premise that an individual isn’t responsible for their own actions.

          That is the notion these batshit crazy feminists need you to accept for ANY of their rhetoric to make any sense whatsoever. And that is the place to stop/attack it. Simply don’t accept their asinine premise.

          1. Yep. They’ve extrapolated from the theory of shared guilt the notion that responsibility is transferable from an aggrieved party to the supposed aggressor in situations in which the only difference between the two is whether one belongs to a grievance group. So drunkenness is exculpatory for women but evidence of guilt for men, despite both parties imbibing and both initiating. And this attitude will do nothing whatsoever to safeguard women, because drinking and sex will continue to be a custom forever.

      3. Jesus it’s just sex


        Why do people have to act like it’s so momentous? It’s just a nice thing people enjoy together. It gets you close together for a while, so it helps if you’re friends, & it might help make you friendly in the process, or not. It can make babies too, which is nice if you want babies, which is the best opp’ty you’ll ever have to get to know a person, i.e. from the beginning of their life.

  11. They’re so presumptuous in always assuming that the men in those situations never wake up the next morning and say what the fuck was I thinking.

    “Stop sucking my cock, or I’ll be forced to call a constable.”

    1. I would love to see her reaction if some dude took her right to the edge of climax and then stopped and said he changed his mind:)

      1. I am pretty certain she would turn the tables by claiming he raped her. Most of the bullshit rape accusations appear to be revenge for being emotionally rebuffed. See mattress girl, Jackie etc.

        There is no winning with these people. Avoid them like they are the plague because that is what they are.

      2. Mavis suddenly struck her legs out in front of her and dropped onto her back. “George! I can’t give without taking. Please, quick, while it’s still hard, get down here and slip it to me.”

        I looked down. Her lips were trembling. She was tugging the gold panties away from her black-escutcheoned crotch. My wet cock was already beginning to droop. I looked down at her and grinned.

        “No,” I said. “I don’t like girls who slap you one minute and get the hots for you the next minute. They don’t meet the criteria of my value system. I think they’re nuts.” Carefully and deliberately I stuffed my pecker back into my trousers and stepped away from her. It was sore anyway, like in the rhyme.

        “You’re not such a schmuck after all, you bastard,” she said through gritted teeth.

    2. Why did I sleep with this ugly wench?

      1. You were drunk?

          1. CLEARLY her fault. She got you drunk so you’d fuck her.

            Don’t you feel demeaned? You’ll likely be scarred for life. YOU WERE RAPED, BRO!

              1. I wish I could say I couldn’t relate to that story:)

  12. Unbelievable 🙁

  13. I’m warming up to this guy.

    Kasich: Kill The Federal Gas Tax, Shift Transportation Power To States


    “Kasich said, “Here’s how it works in Washington: You take your gas money, you send it to Washington, the politicians divide it up, come up with a bunch of pork and then they send less back to us. What do we need them to send it for? Let’s just keep (in the states) and we can tax ourselves and pay for our roads.””

    1. He is a complete idiot. Pure poison.

      1. Why? Last week he was talking about the need to reduce benefits spending. Seems like he’s one of very few adults in the room.

        1. He talks a good talk and was halfway decent as a freshman congressman. As governor of Ohio he has never met a big government program or a public-private hybrid fiasco he didn’t like. He also has an elitist attitude towards allowing people to make their own decisions. He is by far the worst republican running and I do realize what that means.

          1. Lengthy backstory on him.


            1. A much shorter Kasich/Woodchipper story that Reasonoids might appreciate. I believe this has been posted before.


              1. Okay that was really stupid of him. Also stupid to have labelled Fargo a ‘comedy’.

                1. Sorry for the late reply. Wife dragged me off to the voting booth.

                  Looks like the Almighty has it covered.

                  Every once in a while some politician will accidentally say the right things and a normal person is tempted to believe they are a good guy because we all want to believe things aren’t as bad as they really are.

                  Don’t fall into that trap Cytotoxic. Never forget: They are politicians.

                  1. True but good ideas are good ideas. What he said about entitlements REALLY badly needs to be said.

    2. He’s terrible

  14. Yesterday China lowered interest rates. In an under-reported move, “The central bank also scrapped its cap on deposit rates for China’s commercial lenders and rural cooperatives, a key move toward the government’s long-promised interest-rate liberalization.”


    Tim Worstall thinks that Chinese will now save less because they will get a higher interest rate and therefore not have to sock away as much. Then again this guy things QE ‘worked’ so he might not now his ass from his elbow on monetary matters.

    1. The guy blogging constantly about the idiocy of “People’s Qualitative Easing” thinks QE worked?

      1. He says they are fundamentally different based on where the money went.

  15. Self-driving car drives 1500 Km through Mexico. So much for ‘it can’t work’.


    1. Get back to me when they get one through LA rush hour any time.

      1. Even if it can’t do that, it can probably drive freight.

      2. To be fair, most human drivers are also incapable of doing that

  16. War on Copz

    Police anxiety in the era of ever-present cellphone cameras and viral videos partly explains why violent crime has risen in several large U.S. cities this year, FBI Director James Comey said Friday.

    Comey told several hundred students during a forum at the University of Chicago Law School that it’s critical to do more to address a widening gulf between law enforcement and citizens in many communities, particularly African-Americans.

    He said while there likely are multiple factors behind the spike in violence in cities, including Chicago, officers and others nationwide have told him they see “the era of viral videos” as a link.

    “I don’t know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year, and that wind is surely changing behavior,” Comey said.

    Whatever you do, don’t admit police accountability (or total absence thereof might be the problem.

    1. Go ahead and fuck right the fuck off, Comey. Stop and frisk may well have reduced incidents of violent crime in New York, but that doesn’t suddenly render 4A protections irrelevant. S&F and similar practices were only ever a bandaid for terrible economic and social policies, anyway.

      1. S&F did not reduce incidents of violent crime. We know this because, to the best of my knowledge, ceasing a lot of S&F did not result in an increase in violent crime.

        1. I guess I should have caveated that with even if we accept the premise that, because Comey is arguing that reducing anxiety on the part of cops, perhaps by formally criminalizing taping police interactions, would restore their eagerness to police inner cities. Well, fuck him: whether or not it would doesn’t mean we should.

          1. Could we reduce the anxiety they claim to have enough to stop them from preemptively killing & injuring people & animals?

            1. Only if we super duper pinky swear promise to quit holding them accountable for murder and reckless endangerment. Then they’ll behave.

            2. Only if we super duper pinky swear promise to quit holding them accountable for murder and reckless endangerment. Then they’ll behave.

    2. “Police anxiety in the era of ever-present cellphone cameras and viral videos partly explains why violent crime has risen in several large U.S. cities this year,”

      The core of this sentence is

      “‘Police anxiety…partly explains why violent crime has risen””

      One need not be an expert on law enforcement to immediately go, “WTF are you smoking”

      1) cops dont’ “prevent crime” = at best they might *dissuade* some crime in some places at certain times, but that is by their mere presence, not their levels of psychic comfort. Cops can sometimes, when lucky catch criminals in the act, but their main role is in documenting crimes after the fact.

      2) violent crime as a subset of crime overall is mostly conducted between people in the lowest classes against each other. it tends to grow during long periods of economic stagnation in those lowest classes

      so fuck you, FBI, its mostly the shitty economic policies in large urban areas which have served to make them super expensive and limited job options

      1. I wouldn’t totally dismiss the ability of cops to prevent crime. That was the idea behind Shattered Windows. While the data isn’t unanimous, it seems that SW helped save NY from being unliveable.

        1. But it only bandages over the problem that NYC is unlivable for many of its inhabitants without substantial subsidy, subsidies which engender criminality. Not to suggest it’s welfare alone that creates criminals, but it creates the conditions that creates criminals.

          1. “NYC is unlivable for many of its inhabitants without substantial subsidy, subsidies which engender criminality”

            NYC has lower crime rates than most small US cities that have no particular public housing at all. for 2 decades now.

            where do you get this stuff?

            1. I never suggested that it was prevalent now or as prevalent as it’s been in the past, only that, to the extent we want to attribute any drops to increased policing, it only serves as a way to paper over failed social policies that disrupt family formation and encourage dependence on the state. And, like you, I don’t think simply deploying more stasi to deal with the peasants magically engenders social harmony.

              I would guess that any legitimate drops in criminality came in the wake of increasing economic opportunity. But you’re right, I’m not as well-informed as you are.

              1. You’re probably not wrong on the very-macro level about the “Family formation” thing. I’ve seen the studies that point that stuff out, and its as good as most of the other broad-correlations to things like substance abuse and economic stagnation.

                NYC is just a terrible example to use re: anything to do with crime since 1990. It has been significantly safer than most of America for 20 years. Its one of the top-10 lowest-crime large cities on earth. If there were any truth to ideas about “Welfare Slums” or multicultural places breeding disharmony or any number of other popular theories with the Alt-Right’s neoracists, NYC should in theory be their case-study. Unfortunately it disproves almost every argument people try and make.

                Cyto is right that Stop&frisk; has/had zero connection to violent crime reduction. It wasn’t put in place until ~2000s and it was mainly about giving the otherwise-bored cops something to do in a place where crime was falling dramatically without any input from them at all. Stop and Frisk was basically a jobs-protection program that ginned up thousands of weed-arrests each year and helped the unions prevent bigger layoffs to the force.

                1. It’s an interesting debate to be having just now, with police authority finally being questioned and economic stagnation becoming the new normal. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that crime could be on the rise again, or will be given a generation of slow growth, and if the response is a return to Giuliani-style policing we just kick the can down the road while ensuring race relations remain an issue. Ultimately, the answer is economic liberty and reforming social programs. But in steadfastly opposing either, progressive cities will have to usher in more police state control.

                  1. “with police authority finally being questioned and economic stagnation becoming the new normal. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that crime could be on the rise again….if the response is a return to Giuliani-style policing we just kick the can down the road while ensuring race relations remain an issue.”


                    I think everything Progressives do by-definition produces counter-purposive results with ‘the poor’… its their fundamental M.O. – policy with right intent, and the opposite outcomes.

                    I think the rise of the minimum wage, financial regulations, and increased union-influence in particular are probably going to do more to accelerate the loss of small businesses in urban areas. Look at Cuomo trying to regulate Fast Food – one of the few places that actually hire poor blacks/latinos… or the (#*$@( nail-salon bullshit being pushed by the SEIU thugs

                    the unemployment rates in young minority populations is like 50%+. You can endure things like this when things are “changing”, but when things stay the same for a decade+, crime starts to rise.

                    1. The most recent MD&E largely addresses the progressive obsession with elite rather than mundane institutions: graduating with a degree from Harvard or Princeton warrants more consideration than building up a lucrative business from scratch, and so lefties tend to expend more effort and resources sending a few impoverished students to prestigious colleges rather than encouraging many entrepreneurs to forego a hugely expensive degree. Never mind that relatively few are capable of the former and many more are better served by the latter. It gets to the heart of why progressive policies fail: they want to engender more people like themselves, more elites with the right sensibilities and credentials, people who attain the lofty heights of social and cultural superiority the “right” way. And damn anyone else.

                    2. I remember a TV ad for some bank/insurance/finserv ~40 yrs. ago, approx., “My folks couldn’t afford college for me, so I had to work in a store. Today I own the place, & I’m going to make sure my son doesn’t have to do the same.” I’m like, “Huh? This character sounds like a success. What’s supposed to be better about getting a sheepskin that supposedly impresses people who’ll hire you to work for them instead of your becoming an entrepreneur?” The implication seemed to be that entrepreneurship was too hard, & that if you went to college you could then take it easy the rest of your life by being a bullshit artist paid to do little.

                2. In the case of welfare slums, is it possible that pre-existing violence is magnified by welfarism?

        2. You don’t know what you’re talking about

          That huge, statistically unexplained drop in violent crime 1990-1995 preceded the actual implementation of “Broken Windows” policing.

          Giuliani didn’t take office until 1994, and Bratton’s ideas weren’t actually in place until 1995 or so. There were some elements of the ‘petty crime enforcement’ in transit policing before then, but unless you believe subway graffiti influences murder rates, you’re shit out of luck

          At best, Guiliani-Bratton piggybacked on an existing trend and took credit. Which was sort of a thing in the 1990s. See = Al Gore

          1. Murder is not the whole story. There are lots of other pettier kinds of crimes. For instance, Britain has (officially) a lower murder rate than America but a VASTLY higher rate of assault. I think there may be good reason to believe that broken windows policing helped clean up a lot of vandalism, theft, etc.

            1. why dont you go find some data that shows that some policing strategy “prevented” crime that was actually on a rising trend before they implemented it, and get back to us, oh-Master-of-Science

              1. There was a study in the Netherlands where an area that was left with graffiti and other ‘disorder’ was compared to an area that was cleaned up. They found that the ‘small stuff’ engenders more petty crime.

                Unfortunately it is behind the registration wall. I found it in Wikipedia.

                Also Guiliani was elected in 1993, although your point basically stands.

                I wouldn’t throw out BW but I think something else must have been a bigger factor in the crime decline of the time. Banning leaded gasoline is my favorite.

    3. Most of the whining I hear along these lines amounts to “We can’t get away with the shit we used to get away with”

  17. How is this a federal government matter again?

    HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Sometimes I amuse myself!

    1. Well, my understanding was that DC was an oddity.

  18. unless you believe subway graffiti influences murder rates, you’re shit out of luck

    I think we’ve all contemplated doing Banksy in at one time or another.

    1. no doubt.

      I really don’t think he deserves the annoying reputation he’s gotten (well, most of it) – he’s a horrible inveterate Prog and irritatingly political but many of his very-early projects were cute and have a interesting sense of humor. most of what he’s done since the early 2000s is just repetition of the same

      1. What’s all this about James Cameron?

      2. Whereas Shepard Fairey seems to fully deserve the annoying reputation he’s gotten.

  19. “unless you believe subway graffiti influences murder rates”

    The idea behind Shattered Windows was that tolerating small crimes (like graffiti) encouraged and lead to bigger crimes coming about. I remember reading some interesting experiments that supported this but they are hard to find.

    1. Broken windows policing means that if you call the cops because you were the victim of a major crime, they will come over and then try to find an excuse to arrest you for a petty crime. If they can’t find an excuse to arrest you they will leave, disappointed, and they won’t do a damn thing about the crime that was committed against you. Then they can’t fathom why they are resented and despised.

      1. Actually, no. “Broken windows” means going after actual petty crimes that the cops were too lazy and/or overburdened to pursue before major crimes went into free-fall. Our current prog overlords want to ditch it out of some combination of misguided 70s nostalgia and sticking it to Giuliani.

        What you’re describing certainly happens but is a different phenomenon.

        1. When they prioritize petty crimes, that doesn’t leave much in the way of resources to investigate major crime. So they let the major crimes slide. After all, they’re so busy preventing major crimes that they don’t need to bother with investigating them when they happen. Why put all those resources into investigating a major crime when they can prevent ten by going after petty criminals?

          1. The idea is that tolerance of petty crime leads to major crime. Not saying that is actually the case but that’s the idea.

    2. The only real impact of the “broken windows” (please, at least get the term correct) strategy was to get more cops on the street, and incentivize them to actively bust people for anything

      The increased the number of “street police” by about 50% (increasing total rolls by about 30% and moving lots of special-units into regular beat work) …. and increased their “busts/arrests/citations” by about double. They set individual requirements for officers to meet targets for # of busts per month. “More Policing of everything” in general is what happened.

      There has never been any convincing data showing that “what” they busted people for (petty crimes or serious ones) made any difference whatsoever. If you want to read about it, feel free. In general, what happened is that lots of cops were flooded into high-crime areas which were already in steep decline of crime-rates. As this happened, the economy also boomed in the late 1990s, cutting unemployment in half in the poorest areas, cementing the trend.

      Read Steven Levitt’s chapter in Freakonomics about NYC crime, ignoring the abortion-argument, for its handy take-down of the popular narrative that Guilani’s Po Po had anything to do with the crime-drop which was already well underway when he got elected.

      1. I will get around to reading this and reading critiques of the critique but I have to point something out right off the bat. This:

        4,600 low-income families living in highcrime public housing communities characterized by high rates of social disorder were randomly assigned housing vouchers to move to less disadvantaged and disorderly communities

        seems like a bizarre way to ‘study’ broken windows. BW is about cleaning up places so as to not encourage more crime in the area. This experiment involves shuttling people around. I will read more detail but they have an uphill struggle to convince me.

  20. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great m0ney. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I’ve been doing?
    ………. http://www.homejobs90.com

  21. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.