“Defund the Police” is a Twist on the “Guns and Butter” Debate.
How a scary name is causing concern about a simple and routine idea.
Chip C. Woltz. June 9, 2020
In the last several days, much has been said about the “Defund the Police” movement, and it is being discussed like this is a new concept. While I can’t speak for what this phrase means to each individual, I think in general the word “Defund” is an unfortunate misnomer, and is used mostly for shock value. Polls have shown that Defund the Police has very little support, and I assume this is due to the scary implication that someone wants to eliminate law enforcement. Knowing that the world will always have bad people doing illegal things, it is a certainty that we will always rely on law enforcement to protect society.
When I see signs saying “Defund the Police”, I interpret the signs to mean “Re-allocate the budgetary pie such that certain social programs get more of the pie, and public safety (law enforcement and incarceration) is allocated less of the pie. So more for education, child care, job training, healthcare, affordable housing, mental health services, etc. and somewhat less for law enforcement. The issue is really one of budget prioritization — — how do you want to spend your precious and finite resources? If you re-allocate some budget money from the police budget to job training, when you call the police for help, they will still respond, but their cruiser may be a year older.
The concept is that if we do a better job of educating, feeding, housing, and providing jobs for our citizens, then less law enforcement and incarceration should be necessary. This is not a simple equation, and does not happen overnight, but the idea is worthy of discussion and serious consideration.
There are probably not many public debate topics older than this one. No doubt the leaders and legislators in ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia, China and the Mayan Empire all had to wrestle with this same issue: How much of our resources should go into food production, water supply, street construction, education, buildings and monuments — — and how much should be spent for maintaining order, soldiers, weapons, and conquest. In high school economics, we learned about the “guns and butter” debate, and it seems like this defund discussion is just a slight twist on this perennial debate.
The term “guns and butter” originated at the beginning of WWI when the National Defense Act of 1916 directed the “Secretary of Agriculture to manufacture nitrates for fertilizers in peace and munitions in war”. Some people have interpreted this as referring to the trade off between products for civilian life versus products for the military. But I think a broader view would be defense and public safety spending versus social spending. Perhaps the famous Army General and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed it best: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Many towns across the US allocate approximately 30–40% of their budget for public safety. I do not know what the correct balance should be for the budget of NYC, NY, Little Rock, Arkansas, or any other town, but clearly it is reasonable for each community to evaluate these budgets in the wake of current events to determine if they are happy with the allocation of resources, and the results of their investment in public safety. In the end, the people of their town must be the top priority, and that must include both public safety and social programs. The trick is in maintaining the right balance. For those who are more radical and indeed wish to completely defund law enforcement, I would ask that you please watch about ten episodes of “Forensic Files” to remind yourself why an organized society must have a diligent and competent police force. Perhaps we could learn something from some of the safe cities in Europe and Asia where the proportion of the budget spent on public safety is typically much smaller than in US cities.
