Recession Thinning Ranks of South Carolina State Troopers

We aren’t the only state where police services are being limited by budget constraints and frankly a slower response time is better than no service at all.

Still, this is a problem:

South Carolina Public Safety Department director Mark Keel says people may notice a slowdown in trooper response time to highway incidents as continuing budget cuts are thinning the ranks.

Keel told The State of Columbia that there are 163 fewer troopers patrolling South Carolina’s rural highways and interstates than in 2008 and there is no money to replace them.

Some small rural counties may have to share a single trooper per shift and larger counties may have just three troopers patrolling the interstates and highways at night.

Last year, the average response time for the Highway Patrol was 30 minutes. Keel says he expects that will show an increase for this year and could get worse.

Like I said a problem, but one that has no easy solution. Raising taxes will only limit investment and no matter how business friendly our state is there’s only so much business that can be done in in this economy. Unless the economy as a whole picks up we’re all going to have to live with less service.

Comments

16 Responses to “Recession Thinning Ranks of South Carolina State Troopers”

  1. Ajax the Great on December 1st, 2010 2:30 pm

    Why not raise taxes on super-rich individuals, or at least close the loopholes they currently enjoy? That’s not the same as raising taxes on businesses. Consumer spending is 70% of the GDP, while investment is a mere 10%. Thus, the middle class drives economic growth due to their consumer demand, while the ultra-rich hoard their wealth.

  2. Rob Taylor on December 1st, 2010 3:09 pm

    Consumption doesn’t create wealth, we measure GDP in a way to make it look like growth when it isn’t.

    The “super rich” already pay between 50-70% in taxes, and the top 1% of our country pay 90% of the taxes, while almost 50% of the country receives tax “returns” when they pay no taxes. You can’t make others rich by making rich people poor.

  3. Ajax the Great on December 1st, 2010 3:29 pm

    The top 1% of the country also owns 42% of the nation’s wealth. They could damn well afford to pay more without it “making them poor.” (By the way, they pay 37% of the nation’s taxes, not 90% like you say) And your figures don’t take into account all the loopholes they take advantage of. By the way, the bottom 50% does pay significant taxes, since there is far more than just federal income tax.

    If we measure GDP “incorrectly,” what exactly is the “correct” way? Please enlighten me. Our economy is driven by consumption, and has been for most of our history. That provides companies with capital to further invest.

  4. Rob Taylor on December 1st, 2010 6:16 pm

    Ah, so you’re a Socialist. I get it now.

    This video explains why consumption doesn’t drive economic growth so is not an accurate measurement.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9kfMx8Llcc

    As for the taxes the poor pay – what are they? I’ve been on the bottom 50% and got more money back then I paid.

    The reason I do this and freelance rather than actually start a company and hire people is because people like yourself think that if I make money I owe it to someone else. Your way is the way they do it in California and NYC – and what’s going on there? I’m not a Libertarian but you should probably read Atlas Shrugged.

    Also, is it moral to take from one person to give to another?

  5. Ajax the Great on December 1st, 2010 7:52 pm

    “Ah, so you’re a Socialist. I get it now.”

    Call me what you want. I personally don’t consider it an insult or dirty word. Actually, my views are somewhere between Green and Libertarian–the terms “Progressive Libertarian” or “Compassionate Darwinist” are probably more accurate ways of describing my views.

    “This video explains why consumption doesn’t drive economic growth so is not an accurate measurement.”

    LOL. Typical junk economics by a neocon think tank. It’s kind of a chicken-and-egg question, growth vs. consumption, but without consumer demand nothing would be produced, thus making growth impossible.

    “As for the taxes the poor pay – what are they? I’ve been on the bottom 50% and got more money back then I paid.”

    FICA taxes (SS and Medicare), other payroll taxes, state/local income taxes (in some places), sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes (included in rent), and other embedded taxes. And I’m in the bottom 50% and DO pay significant federal income taxes, since I don’t have any kids or anything else to deduct.

    “The reason I do this and freelance rather than actually start a company and hire people is because people like yourself think that if I make money I owe it to someone else. Your way is the way they do it in California and NYC – and what’s going on there? I’m not a Libertarian but you should probably read Atlas Shrugged.”

    CA and NYC are going under due to wasteful spending and insufficient revenue. Public employees are grossly overpaid there. And there are still loopholes for the uber-rich. That is not the same thing as what I advocate. And Atlas Shrugged (by Ayn Rand) is hardly an accurate portrayal of economics. Keep in mind that the top marginal tax rate was about 90% (instead of today’s 35%) in the 1950s and early 1960s, a period of high growth and low unemployment that many economists consider to be a golden age (at least economically). Atlas did not shrug then.

    “Also, is it moral to take from one person to give to another?”

    Depends on what it is, what it is used for, and who it really belongs to. In a nutshell, taxes are the price we pay for civilization. The rich benefit the most from government as they have more property/wealth to protect, so they should pay more. Even Adam Smith agrees with that. Also, the top 1% have also made the bulk of their money off the sweat and toil of the other 99%, and/or were born into money. And taxing the poor is like drawing blood from a stone, while the middle class is the real engine of economic growth.

  6. Concerned resident on December 2nd, 2010 2:47 pm

    Not all the rich have inherited their fortunes, some wealthy individuals (and their families) have built up their fortunes through dedication, motivation AND hard work.

    Why should someone who owns a factory/company that employs over 1,000 people pay more taxes than other people? These people SHOULD be given tax breaks because they provide employment for over 1,000 people in the community. Which means that over 1,000 people are paying local, state, and/or federal taxes. Adding up these individual tax payments of all the employees would actually be more than what the owner of the company is paying.

    In my opinion (which ain’t much… hehe) the middle class is not as large as people say it is; there are alot of people out there who live in large houses, drive fancy cars, wear the best clothes and have no money to pay for these creature comforts. They are not true middle class as their wealth is all credit.

  7. Rob Taylor on December 2nd, 2010 3:15 pm

    You’ll never convince a person who thinks others owe them something that taxing productive people to fund the lifestyles of those who CHOOSE not to do anything with their lives is wrong so don’t bother.

  8. Ajax the Great on December 2nd, 2010 5:05 pm

    “Not all the rich have inherited their fortunes, some wealthy individuals (and their families) have built up their fortunes through dedication, motivation AND hard work.”

    No, but the majority have either inherited a significant part of their fortunes (often used as “seed money” to generate the rest), and/or made most of their fortunes from the sweat and toil of other, less wealthy folks.

    “Why should someone who owns a factory/company that employs over 1,000 people pay more taxes than other people? These people SHOULD be given tax breaks because they provide employment for over 1,000 people in the community. Which means that over 1,000 people are paying local, state, and/or federal taxes. Adding up these individual tax payments of all the employees would actually be more than what the owner of the company is paying.”

    Under capitalism, the owners of such factories get to keep the majority of the fruits of the workers’ labor. It is only fair that the rich owners pay more than those who are doing the actual work that keeps the factory producing stuff. And like I said before, the rich benefit the most from the mere existence of a government, thus they owe the state a debt of gratitude, and should pay more to fund it.

    “In my opinion (which ain’t much… hehe) the middle class is not as large as people say it is; there are alot of people out there who live in large houses, drive fancy cars, wear the best clothes and have no money to pay for these creature comforts. They are not true middle class as their wealth is all credit.”

    And why is that? Why has the middle class been shrinking for the past few decades? Their wages have been lagging behind inflation since the 1970s, while the wages of the upper class have outpaced inflation. The middle class thus needed to borrow more and more money just to maintain the standard of living they enjoyed in the 1950s and 1960s. And until the crash of 2008, that is what has kept the economy growing despite an actually shrinking middle class.

    Why have the rich enjoyed record-high salaries while the real wages of the non-rich have actually declined? You’ll have to ask your buddy Ronnie Raygun and the Bushes. And Nixon too, for getting America off the gold standard. But to be fair, NAFTA (a bipartisan effort signed by Clinton) bears a great deal of the blame due to outsourcing jobs overseas to third-world countries.

    Let’s face it, trickle down voodoo economics does not work. Those who say it does in spite of all the evidence against it (i.e. the economy of the past few decades) can go stuff it.

  9. Ajax the Great on December 2nd, 2010 5:17 pm

    “You’ll never convince a person who thinks others owe them something that taxing productive people to fund the lifestyles of those who CHOOSE not to do anything with their lives is wrong so don’t bother.”

    A gross oversimplification if there ever was one IMHO. I never claimed that the uber-rich owe ME anything personally. Nor are all the uber-rich anymore “productive” than the middle- and lower-class workers they employ (and all too often exploit) for the primary goal of further enriching themselves. FYI, most lower-class folks do not CHOOSE their life situation anymore than they can choose their parents. The top 1% control so much of our nation’s resources that they essentially write the rules for our economy. Jobs can be downsized and outsourced at the drop of a hat these days, and the skyrocketing cost of (increasingly necessary) higher education makes bettering oneself harder than it has been in over half a century. Granted, there are some real parasites at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder (which I do NOT condone), but dollar for dollar they pale in comparison to the parasites at the top since those at the bottom don’t exactly run the show in our society.

  10. Rob Taylor on December 2nd, 2010 6:58 pm

    Right, what Marx said. The rich shouldn’t be allowed to do with their wealth what they want so that people like you can sit around and demand to be cared for. Got it.

    I started out at the bottom, in a single parent Black household. Don’t pretend to know what you’re talking about on this. My mother is now a social worker for NYC, I work for myself. We rose from poverty by choosing not to stay there – and not listening to people like you who want us to stay poor.

  11. Ajax the Great on December 2nd, 2010 7:23 pm

    You really think people like me want you to stay poor? LOL! If I was somehow able to completely eradicate poverty, I would do it in a heartbeat. Of course, that leaves the question of who would clean the sewers and stuff, but that’s beside the point. And it is good that you are no longer poor. If you don’t realize that the rich benefited the most from your (former) poverty, I guess there is no hope of eventual enlightenment for a dyed-in-the wool conservative like you.

  12. Rob Taylor on December 2nd, 2010 7:38 pm

    No, if you could eradicate wealth you would, you’ve said as much. You’re just promoting class warfare because it ultimately benefits the shiftless and lazy to have a society that looks on the ambitious and successful as evil.

    How does someone benefit from others being impoverished? The impoverished cannot buy goods. Only Marxists benefit form poverty, because they use class resentment (as you’re doing) to get the poor to assail the rich, rather than teaching the poor how to become independent from people like you.

    But eventually, as NY and California prove, class warfare fails. My greatest pleasure in life soon will be seeing sheltered,, effete White liberals starving in the streets as their wealth is destroyed by the reckless neo-Marxism of the current government. What will you do when your loans are gone and parents can pay to keep you in school? Starve.

    After getting high, of course.

  13. Ajax the Great on December 2nd, 2010 7:58 pm

    FYI I am not a Marxist, just someone who believes in social justice. I never argued that all successful people are evil. It is you that have been bamboozled by the neocons and the elites. Class warfare? From the top down. And of course they benefit from poverty. Kings need peasants. Who else will do the jobs that the rich would never even touch, the same work that is done FOR the rich? And the middle class does most of the buying of the goods that are produced.

    Just curious, how much do you make as a professional blogger? And how many other poor folks would be able to follow in your footsteps and get out of the gutter by doing so?

    “What will you do when your loans are gone and parents can pay to keep you in school? Starve.”

    My parents don’t pay a dime to keep me in grad school. I am a grad assistant who gets paid by the department to do research and TA duties. The only loans I have are from undergrad, and the total of those is not even in the five figures. And when I get my Ph.D., I will be more likely to get a well-paying job.

    “After getting high, of course.”

    And you had to say something like this despite it being completely off topic. Much like Godwin’s Law predicts the likelihood of mentioning the name of Hitler or the Nazis (or their dirty deeds), you always seem to bring it back to drugs, regardless of the topic. I guess you can call that Taylor’s Law. LOL!

  14. Ajax the Great on December 2nd, 2010 8:02 pm

    Oh yeah, and there is a big difference between sharing wealth and destroying it. I support the former, not the latter. Who says you can’t spread AND create wealth at the same time? Only the greedy elites and their lackeys do.

  15. Rob Taylor on December 2nd, 2010 8:04 pm

    Hair splitting Marxist rhetoric. We’ll see what happens to you when the dollar is finished with it’s collapse.

  16. Ajax the Great on December 2nd, 2010 8:11 pm

    And you can thank the Feral Reserve for that, as well as Nixon for going off the gold standard.

Leave a Reply