Rick Santorum and Jean Le Penn

I admit that I know little of politics outside this country. Oh, I can often tell you the name of a president or prime minister but I don't know their politics. France is especially opaque to me. My few French friends are generally far more left than I am and they think of themselves as conservative. Still, if you read at all, you will likely recall Jean Le Penn.

Le Penn was (or maybe still is) the right wing scourge of French politics the election before Nicolas Sarkozy took the Presidency. The time was in the early years of this century and he was often quoted over here with some outrageous statement or another. At least it seemed outrageous when quoted. Is the man really that outrageous? I think you need to be French and have a good command of their language and politics to make that judgement. Why do I bring this up? Some of the 'quotes' attributed to Rick Santorum defy rational analysis. The man may be bright and just trying to sway the Tea Party contingent but he certainly gets my attention and not in a good way. How do you make Gingrich look like a moderate? Inject Santorum and Bachmann into the contest. Anyway, the point is that people not from these shores will only hear the outrageous statements attributed to our politicians. How the French feel is not too important, certainly no more important than my opinion of Sarkozy or Le Penn, but it does matter some.

Santorum's actual statements, unparsed by the left, may be less outrageous than what is filtering up but so far, he is turning me off. Would I vote for him over Obama? Of course but I would hate myself in the morning. Let's hope that Romney or Gingrich pull out the nomination. Romney is flexible and Gingrich, except for his very French-like infidelities, is now a moderate republican (at lease compared to Santorum and Bachmann).

Obama cuts spending for Afghan security

A hallmark of the plan to end the Afghan war by 2014 was last year's surge along with a beafed-up Afghan security force. So far, the Afghan forces have increased to362,000, approaching the 550,000 deemed necessary to secure the country. Now, the President's administration wants to cut spending for Afghan security forces by some 5 billion dollars to help close the deficit in this country. The amount of the reduction amounts to a 50% cut in funding for the Afghans.

While we all recognize that eventually the bill will have to be funded by the Afghans themselves, reduction in spending for security forces at this time is likely to destabilize the Afghan government and potentially put US troops at greater risk.

The amount of savings is minuscule compared to the proposed budget. At 5.5 billion out of 3.8 trillion, this is less than 2 tenths of a percent. While we all want to see even greater reductions than proposed by the President, this is penny wise and pound foolish.

How Many Police Officers are required in Albuquerque

As noted in the earlier and now deleted post, I got into a discussion last Sunday on the subject of the number of police officers per resident in the Albuquerque metro area. The Albuquerque Metro area includes the counties of Bernalillo, Sandoval, Valencia, and Torrance as well as the cities of Rio Rancho and Albuquerque and several smaller cities. The result, for the Albuquerque metro area is about 1.9 officers per thousand residents. Since this compares to 4.20 for New York City, I asked myself the question whether or not we had enough police in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.

To answer this question, we need to look at the crime rates here and in similar cities including New York. Interestingly, looking only at the city data, there are cities with higher crime rates and more officers per capita than ours. It is only when one steps back and looks at the cities' metropolitan areas that the data has any correlation. Looking at the metro areas tends to filter the data, like the high city of Dallas murder rate, somewhat by looking at the relatively calmer suburbs. Let me say that there are some really scary cities out there, like Dallas, Newark, and Compton!

When we filter the data through the metro areas, there is a strong correlation between number of police officers per capita and the crime rate. Based on this, I suggest that we need to increase the number of county and city officers by 25-50%. See the graph below:

The data for property crime is similar, showing a reduction in crime rate with an increased police presence. This is not to say that adding police will make a city as safe as New York. Some cities are particularly hard hit with crime. The city of Dallas, for example, with 2.81 police officers per thousand has a murder rate that is many times that of New York. Newark, New Jersey, part of the New York City metropolitan area, has a murder rate several times higher than New York City and has more police per thousand than New York. There appear to be environmental factors and possibly leadership issues that affect the outcome. One thing is certain, accepting the status quo is not the solution to the problem.

Here are the data for the cities in question and for their metro areas.

Now, if you accept that we could use more officers, what would be reasonable? Going to the number per thousand in the New Your metro area might be nice but I am certain most of us would get sticker shock. Also, this is the old west, many people have more means to protect themselves here than in New York and that is a good thing. Still, looking at the numbers, the means available toAlbuquerque citizens do not appear to be a significant force multiplier since the number of police per thousand is a little less than half of that in NYC and we have about double the crime rate.

Clearly, the number of officers per capita has an impact on crime rates.

I suggest that we take a near-term target of 3 officers per thousand. That would take us to 1,638 sworn officers in Albuquerque and 350 in the Bernalillo Sheriff's Department. Using the current Albuquerque budget with $163,105,000 in payroll for around 1,600 personnel, we would have to increase the spending to about $217,949,056 - say $220 million. This increase of $56.9 million would increase the City of Albuquerque budget 6.4%. So, the increase is not earth-shattering but it would be a shock. The Bernalillo County Sheriff's budget is $31.733 million currently for 350 personnel. To add 113 deputies, we would expect an increase of $10.25 million or 12.1% of the county budget.

Neither of these numbers account for any increase in capital expenditures associated with increasing the number of sworn officers so they are likely somewhat low. It appears that we would need to increase the city and county budgets by around 10% to increase the number of officers by 50%.

A worthy goal and a reasonable cost.

Obama and the Catholic Church

The recent ruling under the Department of Health and Human Services as a consequence of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, i.e. Obamacare, is getting tons of press. So, what should we think?

The latest ruling by the Obama administration is consistent with the law pushed through congress AND the left-leaning side of the Democratic party. We should not be surprised. The ruling is consistent with the politics of the administration and the law. If you voted for this guy and/or the Dems who voted this thing into law, you got what you paid for.

Here are my thoughts. This is not a women's health issue as suggested by Barbara Boxer and so many on the left. This is an issue of religious freedom. The cost of contraceptives are not beyond the means of most people and requiring entities of a church to pay for things that are inconsistent with their beliefs is just wrong. If the entities had no health insurance, there would be no controversy. The fact that these entities provide health care for their employees should not force them into paying for things that violate their faith.

This is nothing but good for the Republican challengers. It also is something that Martin Heinrich, who voted for Obamacare, will have to address with the large number of Catholics in New Mexico during his Senate campaign. Now, the truth is that a majority of Catholics do not support the church's ban on birth control so it might be interesting in New Mexico.

Egypt - 2012

So, I read a NYT story today saying that 19 Americans were being charged with meddling in Egypt's politics. The actual charges are not known to me as the news stories are interbred and refer to other reports so I cannot comment directly on the charges.

My first reaction was to advocate cutting 100% of aid to Egypt and to call for a State Department restriction on travel to Egypt by US citizens. Then, I stepped back and took a look at our most southern neighbor, Mexico. Mexico has very strict rules against foreigners engaging in their political process and I am okay with that. How would we feel if Iran (say) was directing funds to any US presidential candidate? I feel that we need to step back on this. Now, if the Americans charged are being selected because of their perceived connections to the Obama administration, like the son of Ray LaHood (who is an idiot, IMO), we should put pressure on them (even though Ray LaHood is an idiot) ;cutting off foreign aid and restricting travel would be a good start. If they are guilty ...

Follow-up on 2012 Election

Just a quick note that Martin Heinrich, a Democrat, has an "A" rating from the NRA and was endorsed by them in the last election. Further, the man voted for a bill that would make all states adopt a consistent Concealed Carry Permits recognition in 2011. Not a bad guy for gun control. Still checking his votes on taxes.

The 2012 Election

A long time ago, my leanings were left of center. When I grew up, the GOP was the party of restricting freedoms, etc. Ronald Reagan was a pariah to me, mostly based on leftist comments - not based on substantive actions. Over the last 30years or so, most of the Democrats have moved so far left that they (to me) are the party of restrictions. Most of these folks have never met a tax they did not like, a gun-control regulation they did not like, or an income redistribution plan they did not support.

Those of us over 50 grew up in a country where we all paid taxes, we all wanted a job, and we all believed in the American dream. To this last part, the American dream, some of us felt disenfranchised in the early 70's but, barring slacker behavior or unhealthy drug use, have prospered with that dream over the last 30 years. When we grew up, college was cheap (compared to now) and jobs were plentiful. If you wanted to work, you could. There was some racial discrimination early but that is largely behind us. That is not to say that racism is gone but discrimination in the workplace and in college is mostly under control.

Life is good. So, why can a party that supports class warfare, increased taxation, and strict gun control thrive (i.e., the Dems)? I believe it is because some of us grew up with the Democratic mantra and have not properly questioned the current doctrine.

1. The US is the most free marketplace on the planet.

2. We have unbridled free speech and freedom of assembly (just ask the ^&#&^ Occupy protesters).

3. if you are over 40, life may be occasionally stressful but you probably have a job and can see to your next mortgage payment. If not, there are programs to aid you during your job search. If you are working, which is likely, you should have a pension plan. IRA, or 401K, which will aid you in retirement.

4. Currently there is a massive entitlement program called Medicare that will provide health care support in your senior years if Democrats don't kill it by restricting payments and Republican social engineering doesn't make unrealistic.

5. Life is good if you are over 40.

If you are under 40, the jury is still out.

1. We still have the greatest free market on the planet but sometimes it is difficult to find your way unless you are willing to drive he Dynamite trucks - i.e. there are huge gains for high risk but they come with huge downsides.

2. Education cost is at a 40 year high. Getting an education will cost about the same as a BMW where it cost your parents the price of a new Chevy or Ford.

3. If you do get an education and your parents cannot or will not pay, you will end up with a BMW payment as soon as you graduate. Also, with the recession and the Obama Administration's failure to act, jobs are scarce. If you pick the wrong major, you may need to spend another BMW for grad school in order to get to a sustainable position.

4. Clearly, the choices facing the under 30 crown are fraught with risks.

So, I am not unsympathetic but there are opportunities. There are means to get you there but the way is foggier than it was in my day. Still, if you stand back a little and pick your shots, life can still be good. Even if you have a multi-BMW student loan and no way to pay it off, there are still educational options that you can choose to get out of the problem. If you really stand back, life is still good. Perhaps you have to think a little harder about your options, but there is still a path forward.

This is a great country. Even the Democrats, who have lost their way because of the far left, have a path forward.

1. Quit pushing every tax that comes to mind.

2. Consider that the majority of Americans don't want gun control and want to be able to protect themselves.

3. Move to the center.

I could add a suggestion to flush some of your current so-called leaders but you will have to decide that.

For the GOP, quit the immigrant bashing. Reagan supported an amnesty. I don't think we need to go that far but we need to recognize the value that immigrants (some illegal) add to the economy. Given our current downturn, it would be healthy if they returned to their own countries if they are competing for jobs with citizens of this nation but if not, there should be a means to make them legal. We need a more-open immigration policy with fewer restrictions on worker visas.