POTUS Threatens To Cut Federal Funding To Democrat-led Cities

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 4 years ago

   
     Sept 2, 2020 --- President Donald Trump issued a five-page memo to direct federal officials to search for ways to cut funding from several Democrat-run cities, that are experiencing ongoing violence and protests.
   
   In the  memo, sent to AG William Barr and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought, President Trump claimed that cities including Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; New York City, New York; and Washington, D.C. have "allowed themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones."
   
   The President clearly pushing forward  with his "law and order" campaign message, the president's memo directs Vought to conduct a full review of the above-mentioned cities' use of federal funds  " these cities Mayors and Governors permit anarchy, violence, and destruction." President Trump also asks to issue guidance in the next month on how he could restrict federal grants.
   
   The memo also instructs Barr to develop a list of jurisdictions in 14 days that “permitted violence and the destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract these criminal activities.
   
   President Trump stated -- "Without law and order, democracy cannot function," the memo reads. "Americans cannot exercise their rights, including their rights to peaceful expression, assembly, and protest.  Property is destroyed, and innocent citizens are injured or killed...For the past few months, several State and local governments have contributed to the violence and destruction in their jurisdictions by failing to enforce the law, disempowering and significantly defunding their police departments, and refusing to accept offers of Federal law enforcement assistance."
   
   This move comes after months of protests across the U.S. against police brutality and racial injustice.
   
   Thoughts on the President's move to attempt to hold funds to some of America's major cities in the wake of unchecked crime and violence.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Here is a shoot from the hip thought. I think the memo is a bad move.
      
      Speaking generally to the issue of restricting Federal money, and not to specific grants of Federal money, I think it is wrong
      
      I don't like these cities, (of the discussion), actions either, but  I don't think it is right to pursue broad monetary sanctions as punishment for not doing what "you," (as in the president), think should be done.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Do you feel taxpayers should pay for an ideology that conducts law and order in such a haphazard way? That practice  Law and order that does little to protect its citizens and property?
         
         Presidents are elected for many reasons to name a few --- to keep citizens safe and to also spend our tax dollars wisely.  Would he be neglecting his job if he did not address this latest violence in Democratic cities? It's apparently a fact due to our laws the President can't send in help without the Governors requesting that help.  I realize we are accustomed to presidents that ignore many problems.  However, it's apparent Trump is trying to solve the violence in another way, not ignoring the problem, but trying another tactic to stop the unrest.
         
         Is his method illogical or uncalled for?  Not sure...  I prefer he take measures to stop the violence. Rather than rewarding an ideology that promotes violence to run unchecked.  In my view, the ideology the Dem Governors are using is corrosive and dangerous to our society as a whole.
         
         "I don't like these cities, (of the discussion), actions either, but  I don't think it is right to pursue broad monetary sanctions as punishment for not doing what "you," (as in the president), think should be done."
         
         This is not just how "things should be done"... Do you realize how many have been killed and livelihoods lost?  I feel you are being to off-handed casual about the actual problem. 
         Were not considering a new name for a building or a statue being removed. We are looking at unchecked violence and an ideology that supports it... So I would think it important to consider "how things should be done".  We need to consider as a country do we support this ideology, and pay for such destruction when someone wants to hit the streets and commit such violence in the name of protest.
         
         The Governors and the citizens that support this form of the stand-down law enforcement  Have every right to do so. However, they should understand when the bill comes due they are responsible for it. As well they are responsible for the death, and loss of businesses in their cities. I have rights too... And I don't want to be associated with the violence or its aftermath.

         replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "POTUS Threatens To Cut Federal Funding To Democrat-led Cities"
      ------
      Sharlee, is that what Trump really wants to say? Does he want to cut funding to cities solely based upon the party affiliation of its elected representatives? It is most provocative and basely paritisan on his part.
      
      He makes himself into the Fomenter in Chief rather than the leader that he could be.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         "Sharlee, is that what Trump really wants to say? Does he want to cut funding to cities solely based upon the party affiliation of its elected representatives?"
         
         He offered clear reasoning for his request to hold funds --- " permitted violence and the destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract these criminal activities."
         
         IT would appear partisan due to the cities mentioned are all Democratic cities. However, his reasoning is very clear --- He will not support Mayors and Governors that promote violence, and destruction.
         
         Why should tax dollars pay for cities that are being destroyed due to lack of proper Governing?  Trump has just about daily offered help to control the riots and destruction that these Mayors and Governors ignore. I must agree with his logic completely, and hopefully, he will be able to cut funds to these cities.
         
         Not sure why you feel he this action works to make him less of a leader? In my view, he is using common sense not only managing our tax dollars in a way that makes very good sense. , is not interfering with their decisions, but not supporting their nonsensical method of Governing. You do realize many American's would not appreciate this form of Governing or want their tax dollar pay for it? Parasitism, yes, however, it would seem that many Democrats do agree with letting violent rioters run their cities. They have that right. But they have no right to ask others to pay for their ideology.
         
            I for one don't want my tax dollars going to support such poor governing. It is evident citizens of these mentioned cities support their Mayors and  Governors, and the right to riot. That is their right and privilege. Let them pay to repair the destruction.
         
         Perhaps in your eyes, the President's request to hold funds to these Dem cities foments division. You are correct it does.  it may be time to realize there are many that do not associate with far-left ideology and are not willing to in any respect go along with it.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Miebakagh57posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            These state governors and mayors seems not in good working terms with President Donald Trump.                                                                  As they let their states and cities burnt, their would equally allow the tax dollar burnt to ash.                                                As noted, the governors were not asking for federal help, nor ready when being offered. Trump, I reason  is not willing to force or impose "authortarian" on these states.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Never a more true word was said. These Mayors and Governors are watching their citizen's tax dollar burn in the flames that burn businesses down. But, it has appeared the citizen are supporting their decisions.  I would think it makes no common sense. However, here in the US, we have little of that left.  It odd how quickly something that took years to cultivate is so easily be disregarded.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Miebakagh57posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Why should the people of these states support they governor to bring violence, riot, destruction, poverty, sickness and disease, and death?                                           That those not make sane sense to me.                                           Does  these Democratic states think that that in the next election, Republicans are coming in to take over and the best option is to leave the states destroyed for re-building?                                               Again, that did not make sense. The sensible thing is the people to take side with president. America belongs to all whether you are a new yorker or las vagan.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     It would seem after 100 days 30 some deaths millions in damage the Gov and Mayor would ask for help to bring order. I would suppose he could call the riots some form of the terror attack on the US Government, and send in Military. Not sure of that.  At this point, it has become political for both sides.

                     replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, he has made the threat. However, what I have been able to learn from reading is that at this point he is has asked AG Barr to determine where tax dollars are being spent in the States in question. He has not in any respect stipulated where he would cut funds. We will have to see what develops in the next weeks.
         
         My only objection would be if tax dollars go to rebuild the cities that the Governors openly let be torn down. Other than that, I would hope he did not cut funds that are not involved with the destruction of the riots.
         
         I think that cost should go to the citizens that feel the ideology a good one to promote and back.

         replyreport
2. 81

   GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

   If the Federal funds are directed to specific functions, such as street or sewer maintenance, why would you justify withholding them because a law & order function is what one has a problem supporting?
   
   What if the prosecutor's office decided to mandate the lowest possible penalties, (but still prosecuted), for lawbreakers, would you still support withholding funds because you didn't support the lighter sentences?
   
   However, if the Federal funding is specifically directed to a law & order function that the city has decided to not support, then I could agree with restricting those funds. Do we know that is the criteria in the president's memo?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "If the Federal funds are directed to specific functions, such as street or sewer maintenance, why would you justify withholding them because a law & order function is what one has a problem supporting?"
      
      Presidents are elected for many reasons to name a few --- to keep citizens safe and to also spend our tax dollars wisely.  Would he be neglecting his job if he did not address this latest violence in Democratic cities? It's apparently a fact due to our laws the President can't send in help without the Governors requesting that help.  I realize we are accustomed to presidents that ignore many problems.  However, it's apparent Trump is trying to solve the violence in another way, not ignoring the problem, but trying another tactic to stop the unrest.
      
      "I don't like these cities, (of the discussion), actions either, but  I don't think it is right to pursue broad monetary sanctions as punishment for not doing what "you," (as in the president), think should be done."
      
      This is not just how "things should be done"... Trump has not mentioned where he would cut funds. He is looking into where fed funds are being spent, and if he could justify holding funds to the mentioned cities.
      
      It well appears we are looking at unchecked violence and an ideology that supports it... So I would think it important to consider some options on how to stop the violence. The president can't send in help without being asked to. I would think cutting appropriate funds might help to stop the violence. The citizens will come to realize they will need to pay for the rebuilding of their cities or live in war zones. 
      
      The Governors and the citizens that seem to support this form of the stand-down law enforcement have every right to do so.  However, they should understand when the costs come due they are responsible for those costs. As well they are responsible for the death, and loss of businesses in their cities. I have rights too... And I don't want to be associated with this kind of nonsense the violence or its aftermath. 
      
      "Do we know that is the criteria in the president's memo?"
      
      From what I have read It appears President Trump has asked AG Barr to determine where Fed funds and grants that are being spent in the below-mentioned states. He has made no decisions on where or if funds would be held.
      
      He requested federal agencies detail 'all Federal funds provided to Seattle, Portland, New York City, Washington, D.C.
      
      It would appear Trump would then look at where the fund is being spent and consider the holding funds in a perhaps specified area or perhaps he would not hold funds if he felt the money was allocated to areas that had nothing to do with rebuilding the cities.
      https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/1 … win-cities
      
      "What if the prosecutor's office decided to mandate the lowest possible penalties, (but still prosecuted), for lawbreakers, would you still support withholding funds because you didn't support the lighter sentences?"
      
      No, I would not hold funds to a prosecutors' office for a policy they hoped to promote.  However, my point is the violence is an immediate ongoing problem that is causing unsafe streets loss of property, and death. 
      
      I have no problem with anyone's right to promote their ideology, I have a problem footing the cost with Fed funds. I doubt that many  American's would approve of footing the bill for a radical ideology such as letting one's city be destroyed.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe we aren't so far apart on this issue Sharlee. Your qualification of "where appropriate" is basically what I am also saying.
         
         I have not looked into the details of the president's memo, I have just heard what the media blurbs say, and my perception was that the president was looking for any Federal funds that could be withheld.
         
         I also agree that any 'rebuilding' costs that are directly associated with the cities' choice of actions should be the cities' responsibility. I surely wouldn't support Federal funding for damages caused by such actions as "CHOP" or "CHAZ" or that mayor's order to abandon a police precinct.
         
         My objection is to the concept of restricting funding as a penalty.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I have finally found the Memo. Here is a quote that seems to get to what Trump's thought process may have been.
            
            Sept 2, 2020 --- "The Federal Government provides States and localities with hundreds of billions of dollars every year, which fund a wide array of programs, such as housing, public transportation, job training, and social services.  These funds have been collected from American taxpayers who entrusted their money to the Federal Government to serve our communities and our citizens.
            
            My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones.  To ensure that Federal funds are neither unduly wasted nor spent in a manner that directly violates our Government’s promise to protect life, liberty, and property, it is imperative that the Federal Government review the use of Federal funds by jurisdictions that permit anarchy, violence, and destruction in America’s cities.  It is also critical to ensure that Federal grants are used effectively, to safeguard taxpayer dollars entrusted to the Federal Government for the benefit of the American people."
            
            It would appear he is not stipulating what funds would be held. It does appear he would be penalizing these states due to what he feels is poor governing on the part of the Mayor's and Governor's .in regards to not keeping law and order, and keeping their citizens safe.
            
            https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … an-cities/
            
            I would think at best he should put safeguards in place to make sure any funds be used for the purpose they were allocated. It is also questionable if the President has the power to hold funds allocated and approved by Congress.
            
            Oh well, the weather will soon turn cold, which could solve the problem without courts.

            replyreport
3. 84

   Sharlee01posted 4 years ago

   The Portland protesters celebrate their 100 night. In a nutshell, they have asked Governor Kate Brown to go home. Continue to demand the police be completly defunded.
   
   'Brown and other leaders issued a plea Friday for violence that has arisen in recent weeks to end ahead of the long Labor Day weekend. The governor on Sunday asked other area law enforcement agencies to help police the protests. But several agencies, including Clackamas and Washington counties, said they will deny the request, citing ongoing hostilities toward police."
   
   “The lack of political support for public safety, the uncertain legal landscape, the current volatility combined with intense scrutiny on the use of force presents an unacceptable risk if deputies were deployed directly,”
   
   https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/09 … aways.html

   replyreport