Tag Archives: Biden

The Crime Rate

One of the most successful political tools employed by MAGA bigots is fear–fear of dark-skinned people, and especially fear of crime (which, of course, they attribute to those dark-skinned folks). When I venture into suburban areas, I frequently encounter people who express shock that I actually live in my city’s core. Aren’t I afraid? Can I walk the streets? Implicit in those inquiries are two assumptions–a frequently voiced belief that downtown areas are crime-ridden, and a more masked belief that “those people” who populate city centers are criminals.

Facts, apparently, are irrelevant. In a recent column, our Chief of Police noted that crime in downtown Indianapolis represents all of six percent of all crime in our city–a statistic that accounts for my complete lack of wariness when I walk (yes, walk) to the grocery, the dentist, the bank…

My city isn’t the only urban area that is safe.

It turns out that, despite the racist rhetoric of Trump and his enablers, American cities are not hell-holes. (At least they weren’t until ICE was loosed upon them.) As The Atlantic has recently reported, America is currently experiencing a remarkable improvement in public safety. Moreover, that improvement has occurred despite a police-staffing crisis. “In August, the FBI released its final data for 2024, which showed that America’s violent-crime rate fell to its lowest level since 1969, led by a nearly 15 percent decrease in homicide—the steepest annual drop ever recorded.”

Preliminary 2025 numbers look even better. The crime analyst Jeff Asher has concluded that the national murder rate through October 2025 fell by almost 20 percent—and all other major crimes declined as well. The post-pandemic crime wave has receded, and then some. According to Asher’s analysis, Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago, Newark, and a handful of other big cities recorded their lowest murder rates since the 1950s and ’60s. “

According to Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at Princeton who studies urban violence, America’s cities are as safe as they’ve ever been in the history of the country.

What is puzzling is that this low point in violent crime has accompanied a downturn in police employment–there were 6 percent fewer officers at the beginning of 2025 than at the beginning of 2020, according to a survey by the Police Executive Research Forum, thanks to retirements and departures.

There are many plausible explanations for the recent crime downturn: sharper policing strategy, more police overtime, low unemployment, the lure of digital life, the post-pandemic return to normalcy. Each of these surely played a role. But only one theory can match the decline in its scope and scale: that the massive, post-pandemic investment in local governments deployed during the Biden administration, particularly through the American Rescue Plan Act, delivered a huge boost to the infrastructure and services of American communities—including those that suffered most from violent crime. That spending may be responsible for our current pax urbana.

As a researcher at the University of Chicago put it,  ARPA sent billions of dollars to local governments to use as they saw fit. It turned out that “Investing in education, police, librarians, community centers, social workers, local nonprofits. Local-government employment rolls increased almost perfectly inverse to the crime rate.”

The article described the turn-around in Baltimore, a city that had experienced high crime rates for years, and noted that the approach used in Baltimore was only one “of scores of alternative public-safety ideas that were funded through ARPA.”

Cook County, home of Chicago and the nation’s second-largest county, put roughly $36 million into efforts such as Healing Hurt People Chicago, a trauma-recovery program for crime victims. Mecklenburg County, home of Charlotte, North Carolina, used ARPA to fund a “youth peace summit” and advertise a gun-lock-distribution program. Some ARPA money also bolstered police and sheriff’s departments directly.

The article emphasizes that the monies local governments directed explicitly to crime reduction represented a small percentage of ARPA funds supporting other uses, like summer jobs for teens, blight reduction, and green spaces.  The largest category of ARPA spending was in “government operations”—funding local services and putting people back to work.

It turns out that when local governments have sufficient funding to support more extensive local infrastructures, crime declines. As one mayor put it, “There are so many factors that influence those crime statistics—parademic-response time, jobs programs, conflict-resolution techniques at violence-interrupter organizations, investments in neighborhood conditions. A thousand fathers for that victory of crime reduction.”

The last of ARPA grants will be gone this year. (Many have already been cut by the Trump administration.) We’ll soon see what really works to reduce crime–unleashing the ICE Gestapo on urban people of color, or adequately funding local governments.

Comments

False Equivalence

Most of us learned early in our lives that pointing out the misdeeds of others wasn’t going to persuade our parents to forgive our own misbehaviors. Evidently, a lot of political actors either never learned that lesson or have forgotten it, because one of the favored arguments of today’s partisans are accusations of false equivalence.

As Frank Bruni recently noted in an essay for The New York Times, those claims tend to claim a symmetry that doesn’t exist.

They’re equivalences not merely false but fantastical. They ignore the severity, the prevalence, the consequences of the misconduct in question. Imagine defending a suitor who’s a serial arsonist because the other guy has a jaywalking citation; both bachelors are lawbreakers, after all. That’s the perverse moral arithmetic of more than a few Trump apologists.

Bruni notes the dishonesty of claims that Trump is no worse than Biden–claims that send me up the wall. Biden was an institutionalist; his longstanding public service had given him a respect for the norms of American governance, the independence of the Department of Justice and the authority of the co-equal branches of our government. And the fact that Biden surrounded himself with highly competent officials meant that when he suffered the ravages of age, the country wasn’t plunged into chaos; the clown car that is the Trump administration has no ability to temper the damage done daily by Trump’s ignorance and increasingly obvious dementia.

As Bruni points out, nothing that occurred during the Biden administration is even remotely analogous to Trump’s purge of Justice Department lawyers who have been unwilling to pursue his improper thirst for vengeance–his insistence that lawsuits be brought against those who crossed him despite the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing.

The Trump supporters who swallowed the Big Lie that the 2020 election was “rigged” argue that partisanship, rather than  wrongdoing, motivated the legal cases against him. As Bruni writes,

To accept that magical thinking, you must erase the photographs of classified documents keeping company with a commode at Mar-a-Lago. You must delete the recording of Trump telling Brad Raffensperger, the top election official in Georgia, to figure out some way to reverse Biden’s victory there in 2020. And you must persuade yourself that Trump’s emphatic proclamations that the 2020 election was being stolen, his haranguing of former Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the election results and his support of Big Lie conspiracy theorists were just politics as usual. That’s a sequence of moral calisthenics so arduous they burn more calories than an hour at CrossFit.

Bruni offers many other examples; he focuses especially on the “relentless, boundless and unabashed Trump’s monetization and merchandising of his political station.” It’s worth clicking through and reading the entire, sorry story.

The wrongheadedness of these efforts to draw false and phony equivalences is part of the larger effort to normalize behavior that is abhorrent, criminal and decided uncivil. The truth of the matter is that, in the history of this country, there has never been a President or an administration remotely like this one. (“Tricky Dick” Nixon was, indeed, a crook–but at least he had a sense of propriety that motivated him to pretend that he wasn’t.)

The offenses that Bruni focuses on, and the many–many–others that we read about daily, are unprecedented. Much of what this administration is doing is blatantly criminal. But allow me to indulge in my own version of a false equivalence by suggesting that Trump’s crass and boorish language and behavior–his utter lack of any civility–may be equally damaging to the body politic.

No former President has used the sort of demeaning language that Trump routinely employs; no former public servant would have survived an episode in which he called a reporter “piggy.” It isn’t simply the looney, misspelled and ungrammatical tweets–it’s the utter lack of propriety and respect, what we used to call (dismissively, to be sure) “political correctness” that is taking America into a gutter of animus and our public discourse to the level of a third-grade playground.

Granted, the loss of civility isn’t killing people– RFK, Jr., the DOGE cuts, and the Big Beautiful Bill are doing that. But the decline of civility isn’t a small matter; it’s an invitation to barbarism, to attitudes and behaviors inconsistent with a civilized society.

When we finally eject this abominable administration and begin the necessary legal and policy remedies, we also need to insist that our elected officials demonstrate the civility required by a democratic polity. (Good grammar would be a plus…)

Comments

A Timely Reminder

There’s a tendency to lose focus on past Trumpian insanities while fixating on the most recent ones–and insanities come daily from our mad would-be king. But as we approach the next arbitrarily-set date for the institution of his further, higher tariffs, it’s probably a good time to revisit the impacts of one of his biggest and most damaging misconceptions. In a recent column, Michael Hicks patiently explains why we citizens will pay for that misconception, and why the costs Americans will have to absorb due to Trump’s tariffs are worse than additional costs attributable to inflation.

As Hicks writes, “the average American family will pay about $2,500 more this year because of tariffs. But unlike inflation, your wages won’t rise to compensate. That’s because tariffs work differently than inflation.”

Inflation is a decline in the value of currency over time. It happens because there is too much currency in circulation. That extra money can enter the economy through a growing deficit, as happened after the 2020 CARES Act, the 2021 American Rescue Plan and—the most inflationary of these—President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. 

When certain tax and spending policies meet monetary growth ( a result of miscalculations by the Federal Reserve), the result is inflation. Inflation affects all goods and services, including wages. (During the last inflationary bout, wages actually grew more than prices for the average private sector worker.) Not so with tariffs.

Tariffs work very differently. Tariffs are taxes on imports and range from 10% to 55%, depending on the country of origin, the product in question and the president’s hormone level.

Hicks reminds readers that American consumers pay tariffs–not the countries producing the goods, despite Trump’s insistence that tariffs are a fiscal punishment for the countries exporting the merchandise. 

Thus far, consumers haven’t really seen the higher prices that Trump’s tariffs will produce. That’s because, as Hicks explains, imports spiked in February, March and April as American businesses bought nearly five extra months’ worth of goods. That was in order to beat the tariff deadlines and avoid the extra tax. The surge meant that “many of the goods now on store shelves and being assembled into cars, computers and washing machines were bought before the tariffs, keeping price increases relatively low.”

The consumer price index—the main measure of inflation—rose 0.3% in the latest reading. That’s modest, but it came as the Federal Reserve was successfully reducing inflation. Prices have stopped falling and are rising again.

These higher prices are solely due to Trump tariffs. They are poised to worsen substantially as the stockpile of pre-tariff goods are sold by retailers or put onto cars, RVs and other American-made products. The cost of goods sold later this summer, and until tariffs are eliminated, will continue to rise.

This increase in prices and the consumer price index will look, feel and taste just like inflation. Journalists and even economists will call it inflation, but it’s not inflation. If it was inflation, we’d eventually see wages rising as well. But higher tariff costs don’t lead to higher wages; in fact, the opposite may occur.

The tariffs took the U.S. from 2.4% growth in the fourth quarter of 2024 to -0.5% in the first quarter this year. The economy continues contracting, which will reduce wage growth and maybe even reverse it. So, as prices go up, wages will decline for the average worker.

Trump keeps insisting that his tariffs will cause businesses to increase domestic production–to build factories in the U.S. There are a number of false assumptions underlying that prediction, and we are already seeing a drop, not an increase, in factory employment. Hicks notes that the two months of data that became available since Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs were announced show that the U.S. lost 14,000 factory jobs.

As he also points out, the slowdown in the economy this year follows a pattern that virtually all economists have identified as an outcome of tariffs–one reason for the global decline in their incidence. He also tells us that price increases due to the imposition of tariffs is not–at least technically–inflation. 

The technical name for rising prices during a weak economy is stagflation. And Hicks reminds us that stagflation is “what made the 1970s so miserable.”

Despite MAGA world’s constant dishonest attacks on Joe Biden, he presided over America’s robust economic recovery; he left Trump an economy that was globally envied. But then, Biden had assets Trump lacks–decency, a working brain, and a firm connection to reality. 

Comments

Things That Make Me Crazy

Can those who read this blog indulge me for three very personal rants?

We face so many major problems in this country right now (can we spell LA?) that it seems terribly self-indulgent to focus on a few annoying aspects of civic debate. On the other hand, I think at least a couple of the behaviors I find so exasperating are symptoms of the inability of We the People to productively address the bigger issues. (Anyway, that’s my justification and I’m sticking to it!)

#1. I recently posted about an emerging argument over regulation. Proponents of taking a closer look at our regulatory processes aren’t the knee-jerk GOP scolds who define “free market” as “free” from any government rules; the concern (as I said in that post) is to guard against over-kill. But I immediately got an email from an acquaintance saying, essentially, “finally, people are realizing that we need to get government out of the way!”

Now, I’ve known this particular correspondent for a long time, and he’s not stupid. But he drank the Kool-Aid back when the GOP’s plutocrats were insisting that government just needed to get out of the way and let good-hearted business-people run their enterprises as they see fit.

We’re beginning to see what that would look like, as planes fall from the sky.  Do we really want to get rid of FDA inspections to ensure that supermarket chickens are safe to eat?  Do we want to turn a blind eye to that factory discharging toxic waste into the local river? Stop requiring clinical trials before approving the sale of medications and vaccines?

Bottom line:  We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto! We don’t grow our own fruits and vegetables and go into the backyard to kill one of our own chickens for dinner. In a modern society, government regulations are essential.  As I said in my post, it isn’t an “either/or” proposition; policymakers need to determine what regulations are needed, and how much is too much. That’s a lot harder, of course, than spouting ideological idiocies.

#2. This platform, like so many others, is a place where people with different perspectives but generally similar civic goals come to argue about THE question: what should we do? What actions can citizens take in the face of an existential threat to the America we thought we inhabited? 

Those discussions may or may not be experienced as valuable, but one (probably inevitable) response drives me up the wall. It is the comment–in a lecturing tone–to the effect that such-and-such will clearly be ineffective, that it is simply “virtue-signaling” and unlikely to make any difference. It would be one thing if the person pouring cold water on a proposed activity ever followed up with a helpful, do-able suggestion–if the put-down was ever followed by a thoughtful “here’s what we should be doing instead,” but it never is.

One of the defects of Internet conversations is the absence of tone and body-language. Perhaps if we could see and hear the individuals who post these put-downs, they wouldn’t seem so sneering and self-important–but that is certainly what these “I know better than you and what you propose is stupid” comments convey.

#3.  I am OVER the Democrats who keep wallowing in “what went wrong” and “who was to blame” and “why the approach of those of you on the (insert ideological position) is dooming our chances in the future.” I am especially over the focus on Joe Biden, and the utterly stupid accusations of a “cover up”–as Robert Hubbell has pointed out, a “cover up” of the cognitive state of a man who was appearing daily at campaign events, delivering addresses to Congress where he outwitted the entire Republican caucus, providing interviews to major media outlets, and guiding America through a period of stable foreign relations and successful domestic policy. Biden aged in office –and we all saw that–but he was a transformational and incredibly effective President. Should he have withdrawn sooner? Probably. But for goodness sake, GIVE IT A REST. 

Meanwhile, we have a President whose election was at least partially due to the refusal of the mainstream press to give anything close to equal time to his embarrassing stupidity, his obvious mental illness (not to mention his age-related decline from what wasn’t a high bar to begin with). Even the aspects of his “character” (note quotation marks) that do receive coverage–his racism, his felonies, his rapes, his constant lies (are his lips moving?), his “out and proud” corruption –are still being normalized and sane-washed. WHY?

Okay. I’m done. Thanks for indulging me. I think I feel better.

Comments

Borowitz Shames Legacy Media

Sometimes it takes comedy to cut through the fog and propaganda. Back in the day, my husband and I were devoted watchers of The Daily Show–a time when Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert skillfully skewered the pompous and self-important. (Admittedly, these days, we look at those we thought of as the “bad guys” with something approaching fondness. Compared to Trump and his collection of nutcases and incompetents, they look positively cuddly…)

Recently, the satirical Borowitz Report took on the legacy media’s obsession with President Biden’s decline while in office–an obsession fed by a book accusing his staff of “hiding” the effects of aging. His take was perfect.

In a bombshell report that stirred controversy on Tuesday, a prominent conspiracy theorist claimed that Joe Biden concealed his health problems by making the American economy boom for four straight years.

“Biden thought he could hide his health issues by making the U.S. economy the envy of the world,” the conspiracist, Harland Dorrinson, said. “Low unemployment, a surging stock market, and a stable dollar all played their parts in the cover-up.”

Strengthening NATO and bolstering relationships with allies were also key components of Biden’s elaborate scheme to hide his health woes, Dorrinson said.

“Biden kept the media distracted by making the US trusted and respected around the world,” he said. “Trump would never do that.”

The Biden presidency wasn’t perfect, but it was transformational, repairing the international damage done during Trump’s first term and growing the economy “from the middle out” as he liked to say. Perhaps, as he faded, some of those advances were managed by the highly competent people around him, but they were real. The government worked. Rather than focusing on the substantial progress being made, however, the legacy media jumped on every gaffe, every stumble. 

That disproportionate attention to the ravages of age would have been less offensive had the same degree of attention been paid to Trump’s far more obvious mental illness and decline. But the same media that criticised Biden unmercifully has continually sane-washed Trump.

I agree with Robert Hubbell, who finds the differences in coverage maddening and incomprehensible. Noting the recent “tell-all” book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson claiming that Biden’s advisors “covered up” his “decline,” he wrote:

Let’s put aside for a moment that several of the key figures who allegedly witnessed events described in the book have said publicly, “Not true. It didn’t happen.”

Let’s put aside for a moment that Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson were writing a book about an alleged “cover up” when they were actively reporting on Joe Biden’s presidency, but never mentioned the “cover up” that they were allegedly discovering through 200 interviews.

Let’s put aside the implausability of the notion that one could “cover up” the cognitive state of a man who was appearing daily at campaign events, delivering addresses to Congress where he outwitted the entire Republican caucus, providing interviews to major media outlets, and guiding America through a period of stable foreign relations and successful domestic policy.

If it was a “cover-up,” it didn’t prevent major media outlets from reporting daily on Joe Biden’s age, stutter, stiff gait, and alleged gaffes.

Hubbell does agree that there was a coverup.

Donald Trump was, and is, cognitively impaired. And that fact is being covered up by the media every single day.

We all know it. The press knows it. His advisors know it. But the media gives a fraction of the coverage to Trump’s much more serious manifestations of cognitive decline than to the anonymous reporting in Jake Tapper’s sensationalized book.

Hubbell is absolutely correct when he says that the coverage media is giving today to claims about a former president who guided our nation through one of the most successful presidencies in the modern era is shameful when compared to the normalizing coverage of an “obviously cognitively impaired president who is violating the Constitution on a daily basis and running an administration that seems to be an open cesspool of graft.”

As Norman Orenstein observed, “I have a hard time watching journalists high five each other over books on WH covering up for Biden. A diversion from their own deep culpability in Trump’s election. False equivalence, normalizing the abnormal, treating Trump as no real danger were the norm, not the exception.” 

Hubbell is entirely correct when he accuses the legacy media of failing America–of failing to provide appropriate coverage of the threat posed by Trump. “And they keep doing it. To their everlasting shame.”

Comments