[Tommy]

In this discussion, I'm on the side of those who blame politicians who get the cooperation of police whose budgets are determined by those same politicians. Here's an example that I observed at a small town city council meeting. It did not involve the police but it illustrates how politicians think.

A private company appeared before the city council with a proposal. The company argued that it costs the city government money every time it sends fire and police to the scene of an auto accident. The company said if the city would pass an approriate ordinance, it would oversee a program to bill the insurance companies of parties involved in auto accidents $150. The company would then share one third of its revenues with the city. The councilmen licked their chops at the prospect of having more money to spend without having to do anything, but were concerned that citizens would object to having to pay the city for having been in an accident. The company assured the council that it would not demand payment from individuals. So if a person had no insurance, or it its insurance company refused to pay, the company would write of the debt. The councilmen seemed happy with that answer.

When it came time for public comment, I spoke. I argued that it would not be right to apply selective enforcement of the ordinance only to those whose insurance companies voluntarily paid the fee. Thus, they could not avoid aggravating some citizens. Further, the fees paid by the insurance companies would ultimately come back as higher premiums paid by their customers. It was just a bad idea, I argued. The council liked the company's proposal and went to work passing the ordinance. I told them I would tell everyone I knew to advise their insurance companies not to pay.