"Jack Dunphy" is the pseudonym for an LAPD officer who blogs.
Today, he laments what's bound to happen when Oakland fires 80 cops. His choice for the lament , National Review's blog The Corner, is an odd one. The conservative magazine was founded by the godfather of the movement, William F. Buckley. It's a publication ardently opposed to the federal government giving aid to states and cities so they don't have to lay off cops. Then again, maybe National Review is the perfect place for him to be explaining what will happen to Oakland -- and, L.A. as well, the LAPD union would argue -- in these lean budget times.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Dunphy writes: Facing a budget shortfall, the city of Oakland is about to lay off 80 police officers. This is hardly a wallop they can shrug off in a city where the murder rate is more than three times the national average. So, in the event that last-minute negotiations fail to avert these layoffs, citizens in Oakland are being informed that if they should suffer any of the misfortunes on a list of 44 situations that once brought a police response, no officer will come to their door to take a report, much less try to do something about it. Reports about incidents on the list will have to be made online, police say.
(Although Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has said cuts to manpower levels of the police department are off the table, the union says cuts in overtime and in the number of civilian employees have effectively amounted to cuts in police manpower.)
Jonathan Chait, the tough essayist and blogger for The New Republic, considers Dunphy's post: The liberal position is that the federal government, which can borrow money, should give money to state and local governments in order to minimize such dislocations. The conservative position is that such grants are wasteful big government. I'm not sure Dunphy is aware that he's making the case for the liberal position.
Given that we don't know who Dunphy is, it's hard to say. Maybe he's trying to persuade National Review readers to re-consider.