Photo Credit: Richmond Times Dispatch

By Dick Hall-Sizemore

There are often cries of anguish or outrage on this blog and elsewhere over the increases in spending proposed in budget proposals and then authorized by the General Assembly. Some of this criticism of increased spending is justified, but, sometimes, the increase is the result of circumstances beyond an agency’s control. Sometimes, stuff just costs more.

Replacing State Police cruisers is a good example of this quandary. For many years, the State Police used the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. When Ford stopped production of that model in 2011, the State Police began using the Ford Taurus Police Interceptor.  (It took me a little while to get used to seeing the State Police in those smaller cars.) Next, Ford discontinued production of the Taurus in 2019. After testing Dodge and Chevrolet vehicles as potential replacements, the State Police selected the Ford Police Interceptor Utility. (This is a modified SUV and it explains why I have been seeing local police driving SUVs, which was a little disconcerting.)

As reported by the Richmond Times Dispatch, the budget problem arises because the SUV is 50% more expensive that the former Taurus Interceptor. According to the State Police, the cost of the Taurus was $25,706 and the cost of the SUV is $38,798. There is an additional cost for all the communication and security equipment that has to be installed in each vehicle. In the past, when an older vehicle was replaced, the agency would transfer the equipment from the old vehicle to the new one. However, the different interior design of the SUV results in “mounting and fitment issues” that prevent the department from using the old equipment in the SUVs. The cost of new equipment is about $7,400. In summary, each new SUV replacement vehicle results in $20,500 additional costs.

The State Police replaces about 350-400 vehicles each year, so this additional cost for the SUVs will add up fast. The Governor’s introduced budget included $9.5 million to cover these additional costs. Both the House and Senate have proposed lower amounts, $7.2 million by the Senate and $7.5 million by the House. (The legislature disagrees with the replacement schedule proposed by the State Police and thus have cut the agency’s request.)

In summary, the Appropriation Act will include approximately $7.5 million in additional funding for the State Police to enable the agency to do what it is doing now.  This additional money will not buy additional trooper positions or additional vehicles. It will do nothing to enhance the ability of the agency to carry out its duties. And it is not a one-time expense. In future years, the State Police will be spending about $7.5 million more each year to replace the same number of vehicles.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

253 responses to “More Money, Same Level of Service”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    State Police may do their own customizing–paint, logo, etc. The agency has a large maintenance shop.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    State law (Sec 15.2-968.1) authorizes local governments to install traffic light cameras. Here is a fact sheet from VDOT: https://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/photored_faq.pdf

    As for enforcement of speed limits by camera, the state has taken a major step in that direction. The GA passed legislation last year authorizing camera enforcement in work zones. Based on the experience from this limited authorization, there could well be legislation in the future to expand it. https://landline.media/virginia-law-allows-speed-cameras-in-work-zones/

    One of the concerns about enforcing speed limits by camera is the use of automated license plate readers. There are a lot of privacy issues surrounding those devices.

    If the state does start widespread use of cameras to enforce speed limits, I expect the State Police to argue that it still needs the same number of troopers for response to accidents and other incidents.

  3. Just wait until they are required to buy electric vehicles.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The bad guys will be driving them too — high speed chases at 55 mph…

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        OJ

        Can’t outrun the Motorola, but I did outrun a State Trooper on Rte. 460 outside Crewe in a Pinto. It was all timing.

      2. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
        Anonymous_Bosch

        Police will be able to stop any vehicle that is online. It is the obvious end point to where technology in cars is going. It is likely that an officer will be able to communicate with the computer that is operating the suspect vehicle and tell it where to pull over. Once every car has autopilot, individual speed will be limited to the speed limit and traffic flow anyway. Future technology will actually reduce the need for traffic cops and by extension their vehicles.

        1. The security for the electronics of cars has historically been poor.

          Hacking my home devices is bad enough, but messing with moving vehicles would present a whole new level of potential for terrorist or hostile governments.

          1. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
            Anonymous_Bosch

            “…has historically been…”
            There is absolutely no reason to suspect that cars and traffic won’t be subject to increased levels of autonomous control. Technology has done nothing but make cars and roads safer and that will certainly continue. Evidence would suggest that people would be safer in cars that weren’t controlled by humans, who have a terrible safety record. Cars that were controlled by autopilot and constantly communicated with vehicles near it could dramatically decrease accidents. No drunk cars, no drivers on their phones, no drivers falling asleep, no distracted drivers who didn’t see that other car passing in a no pass zone, no teen drivers…I’d prefer an unknown terrorist threat to my well known neighborhood terrorists.

  4. Just wait until they are required to buy electric vehicles.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The bad guys will be driving them too — high speed chases at 55 mph…

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        OJ

        Can’t outrun the Motorola, but I did outrun a State Trooper on Rte. 460 outside Crewe in a Pinto. It was all timing.

      2. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
        Anonymous_Bosch

        Police will be able to stop any vehicle that is online. It is the obvious end point to where technology in cars is going. It is likely that an officer will be able to communicate with the computer that is operating the suspect vehicle and tell it where to pull over. Once every car has autopilot, individual speed will be limited to the speed limit and traffic flow anyway. Future technology will actually reduce the need for traffic cops and by extension their vehicles.

        1. The security for the electronics of cars has historically been poor.

          Hacking my home devices is bad enough, but messing with moving vehicles would present a whole new level of potential for terrorist or hostile governments.

          1. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
            Anonymous_Bosch

            “…has historically been…”
            There is absolutely no reason to suspect that cars and traffic won’t be subject to increased levels of autonomous control. Technology has done nothing but make cars and roads safer and that will certainly continue. Evidence would suggest that people would be safer in cars that weren’t controlled by humans, who have a terrible safety record. Cars that were controlled by autopilot and constantly communicated with vehicles near it could dramatically decrease accidents. No drunk cars, no drivers on their phones, no drivers falling asleep, no distracted drivers who didn’t see that other car passing in a no pass zone, no teen drivers…I’d prefer an unknown terrorist threat to my well known neighborhood terrorists.

  5. One more log for this fire. I unfortunately have a bit too much current experience with this very subject.

    Above and beyond the base price of the specialized vehicles plus the cost of equipping and painting/striping them is the cost of the fuel and maintenance.

    Although the old Crown Vics were not terribly fuel efficient, the Taurus Interceptors were not that bad. the same can not be said for the Explorers which are typically averaging 15 mpg or less.

    And then there is the maintenance issue. These SUVs were not designed for the torturous use that is PD patrols and use. They quickly become garage queens, constantly having electrical, tuning and suspension issues addressed, sometimes month after month.

    And then there is the matter of tires. As the SUVs are significantly heavier and generally require a larger tire, they wear out those soft, speed rated pursuit tires at an alarming and expensive rate.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I would concur. The SUVs are going to be higher maintenance and while there is talk of hybrids , I don’t put much stock in Ford (or CHevy) hybrids which are largely HINO – Hybrids in name only.

      All the more reason to use automation to deal with the miscreants and scofflaws and get them to pay their fair share of these costs!

      Red light running, aggressive driving, cell phone idiocy, is rampant.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Camera-driven tickets! Great idea until you ask the voters what they think. They don’t like at all…. 🙂

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Some do! 😉 . People’s personalities seem to come out when they drive and we have way too many ” get out of my effing way or else” louts.

          My luck, I get behind slo-mo then Mr. Big Butt comes up and tailgates.

          A POX on BOTH!

          Can’t tell you how many times I come up on folks screwing with their cell phones…. others running red lights… etc… so sure they won’t like enforcement… scofflaws generally don’t.

          1. Funny, I just have this mental of image of Larry behind the wheel, what I derisively refer to as “Old Man in a Hat”. Usually peering just above the steering wheel of an old Pickup or Buick and driving 10-15 mph below the speed limit in the left lane. Nothing personal Larry, just the immediate image that comes to mind.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Wrong image Mom. I typically at or above the speed limt.

            I can be 10-15 over the limit and some azz will tailgate. They’re all no different than the slow-mo folks in terms of attitudes towards others. same issue – problem is how you respect others.

            the problem I have is that we’re sharing the road with each other but most don’t drive that way… they azzes….

            nothing personal but…. 😉

        2. djrippert Avatar

          Voters don’t like them because they never come with the benefit of lowered spending on police, lower police budgets and lower taxes. Given the current state of video technology you could enforce just about every traffic law without ever involving a human. Trust me. Late last year I started a video processing company with two partners. We’ll be live in the US sometime between April and June. Until then, we’re keeping a low profile while we work on the products. We have three main businesses – contract programming for embedded systems, a software-as-a-service video processing platform (transcoding, compression, monetization, etc) and an advanced projects group. We already have coding contracts and our advanced projects group has been working to implement rudimentary computer vision on Raspberry Pi’s used for indoor advertising.

          The revolution in technology occurring in the real world outside of government is striking to the point of being a bit scary. An aggressive effort to implement advanced technology in government would, by my guess, reduce the costs of government by at least 25% (not including entitlements / transfer payments). But nobody in Richmond cares. Just keep taking more and more money and keep doing things the same old way.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well, in a way, it’s two different issues.

            So if McDonalds threatens to use technology to lower it’s costs, does that mean the’ll lower the price of big Macs?

            😉

            If DOD uses technology to reduce manpower costs, does that mean they’ll lower next years budget request?

            😉

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        The Ford Interceptor Utility comes in a hybrid model. Virginia State Police say they are not interested in that yet.

        As for maintenance, State Police reported that their research showed that the other two interceptor models available, Dodge Charger and Chevy Tahoe, had higher maintenance costs.

    2. “And then there is the maintenance issue. These SUVs were not designed for the torturous use that is PD patrols and use. They quickly become garage queens, constantly having electrical, tuning and suspension issues addressed, sometimes month after month.”

      That is interesting. I had been led to believe Ford was developing a true “Police Interceptor” version of the SUV, with improved suspension, engine performance and other “hardened” upgrades, specifically to address the torturous use to which the police put a vehicle. Is that not the case?

      By the way, a stock Crown Victoria was not really up to police duty, either.
      Over time, though, Ford did an excellent job of developing upgrades (particularly to the suspension and handling) so that the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor was a real “police car”. There is a world of difference between the “old-man” car that was the Crown Victoria, and the upgraded police car. I have driven a stock Crown Vic and apart from passenger comfort, it was not impressive in any way. On the other had, I once had use of a retired Police Interceptor for a few months. The car had 145,000 sheriff’s-department-service miles on it, but it was surprising how much better that car performed than a stock Crown Vic. The thing handled like a giant go-cart – it instilled great confidence entering curves at high speed. Acceleration and engine performance were [nearly] a match for my ’96 Mustang GT, and I think the transmission way literally have been bullet proof..

      You could pitch that car into a round-about, kick the back end out about 45 degrees and throttle-steer all the way around the circle to your original entry point. I cannot tell exactly how I know that, but suffice it to say I was very impressed with that car.

      Apart from its outward appearance, it was nothing like a stock Crown Victoria.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        I saw a few years back where Ford was upgrading the door skins on the Explorer to them more “bulletproof”. That kind of armor doesn’t come without it’s weight.

        Even last year Ford released a software update for the Explorer to combat COVID-19.

        https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2020/05/27/ford-heated-sanitization-software-police-vehicles-coronavirus.html

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I think you are correct, Wayne. Here is Ford’s website on its police vehicles with the specs. https://www.ford.com/police-vehicles/

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    “The vehicles have a top speed of 150 mph and can reach 60 mph in 5.77 seconds.”

    Electric cars usually accelerate faster than IC engine cars.

    Some part of the State Police have been using SUVs for some time now in some parts of the State. We’ve seen them for a couple years down US 29 towards NC where they sit in the medians on the long stretches.

    Yep, the increased costs for the same thing struck me also.

    And get ready for increased costs for VDH, VDOE and VEC, electricity, gasoline. Gasoline from pipelines from Texas!

    What’s a penny-pinching taxpayer to do?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What you saw on your travels were probably sheriffs’ deputies. The State Police first assigned SUVs to troopers in November of last year.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        https://www.policemag.com/tags?tag=electric+vehicles

        Some serious info on electric pursuit vehicles. The bad news is next they will want Teslas. 🙂

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          In the late 70s, the NC State Troopers tried out VW Rabbits. They were quite pleased with speed an handling. In the early 70s Alabama ran AMXs.

          1. SC State Police (and even at least one barracks in Virginia) had some hopped-up Mustang GTs for a few years during the mid-80s to early 90s.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Maybe, pretty sure they were State Police though – had the colors… and ID on the side… They may have been trying them out… they looked like Tahoes.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          They did test the Tahoe. I don’t know if that meant taking them out on patrol or just trying them out on their test track at Ft. Pickett.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Any additional cost for special two-tone paint jobs? Can’t be a proverbial black&white unless you are a black & white.

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            State Police may do their own customizing–paint, logo, etc. The agency has a large maintenance shop.

          3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Which comes under a different budget?

          4. “Can’t be a proverbial black&white unless you are a black & white.”

            Or in this case, a blue & gray…

        2. The State Police Motor Carrier Safety Division has been using SUVs for several years. I don’t think they are special “interceptor” editions, though.

          Last November was when they started using them as regular patrol vehicles.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    “The vehicles have a top speed of 150 mph and can reach 60 mph in 5.77 seconds.”

    Electric cars usually accelerate faster than IC engine cars.

    Some part of the State Police have been using SUVs for some time now in some parts of the State. We’ve seen them for a couple years down US 29 towards NC where they sit in the medians on the long stretches.

    Yep, the increased costs for the same thing struck me also.

    And get ready for increased costs for VDH, VDOE and VEC, electricity, gasoline. Gasoline from pipelines from Texas!

    What’s a penny-pinching taxpayer to do?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What you saw on your travels were probably sheriffs’ deputies. The State Police first assigned SUVs to troopers in November of last year.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        https://www.policemag.com/tags?tag=electric+vehicles

        Some serious info on electric pursuit vehicles. The bad news is next they will want Teslas. 🙂

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          In the late 70s, the NC State Troopers tried out VW Rabbits. They were quite pleased with speed an handling. In the early 70s Alabama ran AMXs.

          1. SC State Police (and even at least one barracks in Virginia) had some hopped-up Mustang GTs for a few years during the mid-80s to early 90s.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Maybe, pretty sure they were State Police though – had the colors… and ID on the side… They may have been trying them out… they looked like Tahoes.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          They did test the Tahoe. I don’t know if that meant taking them out on patrol or just trying them out on their test track at Ft. Pickett.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Any additional cost for special two-tone paint jobs? Can’t be a proverbial black&white unless you are a black & white.

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            State Police may do their own customizing–paint, logo, etc. The agency has a large maintenance shop.

          3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Which comes under a different budget?

          4. “Can’t be a proverbial black&white unless you are a black & white.”

            Or in this case, a blue & gray…

        2. “Can’t be a proverbial black&white unless you are a black & white.”

          Or in this case, a blue & gray…

        3. The State Police Motor Carrier Safety Division has been using SUVs for several years. I don’t think they are special “interceptor” editions, though.

          Last November was when they started using them as regular patrol vehicles.

  8. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Breathes there a man with soul so dead that his right foot doesn’t twitch at the sight of a Crown Vic in the mirror.

    The SUV is justified because a Taurus was torture to anyone taller than 5’5″… and especially for a donut packed 40-year old cop.

    1. Ford should have continued making the Crown Vic Police Interceptor for sale to federal, state and local governments. I have yet to meet a Trooper or Deputy who did not love those cars. The best thing I’ve heard them say about the Explorer is that it has all-wheel drive so it’s better on snow.

      Every law enforcement officer I have queried on the subject (about 30 of them in the last 5 years) thinks the Crown Vic was the best police car ever mad. Most of them did not like the Taurus, nor did they care for the Chargers that some police forces used a few years back.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        Taurus unless they were the early 90’s S.H.O.’s were junk. Their handling was pour and the power output wasn’t there either.

        1. The SHO Taurus had high-speed handling issue, in my opinion. It was certainly not the most confidence-inspiring vehicle I has ever driven.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            “WayneS | February 22, 2021 at 1:15 pm | Reply
            The SHO Taurus had high-speed handling issue, in my opinion. It was certainly not the most confidence-inspiring vehicle I has ever driven.”

            Well the Yamaha racing engine was better than what Ford was producing at time. I think the Taurus platform in general had awful handling issues, my cousin hydroplaned (not to say any vehicle does go against hydroplaning) in one and totaled it.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Handling issues? Shoot! Easy fix. Train cops using Sunbeam Tigers. If they live, they can drive anything.

  9. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Breathes there a man with soul so dead that his right foot doesn’t twitch at the sight of a Crown Vic in the mirror.

    The SUV is justified because a Taurus was torture to anyone taller than 5’5″… and especially for a donut packed 40-year old cop.

    1. Ford should have continued making the Crown Vic Police Interceptor for sale to federal, state and local governments. I have yet to meet a Trooper or Deputy who did not love those cars. The best thing I’ve heard them say about the Explorer is that it has all-wheel drive so it’s better on snow.

      Every law enforcement officer I have queried on the subject (about 30 of them in the last 5 years) thinks the Crown Vic was the best police car ever mad. Most of them did not like the Taurus, nor did they care for the Chargers that some police forces used a few years back.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        Taurus unless they were the early 90’s S.H.O.’s were junk. Their handling was pour and the power output wasn’t there either.

        1. The SHO Taurus had high-speed handling issue, in my opinion. It was certainly not the most confidence-inspiring vehicle I has ever driven.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            “WayneS | February 22, 2021 at 1:15 pm | Reply
            The SHO Taurus had high-speed handling issue, in my opinion. It was certainly not the most confidence-inspiring vehicle I has ever driven.”

            Well the Yamaha racing engine was better than what Ford was producing at time. I think the Taurus platform in general had awful handling issues, my cousin hydroplaned (not to say any vehicle does go against hydroplaning) in one and totaled it.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Handling issues? Shoot! Easy fix. Train cops using Sunbeam Tigers. If they live, they can drive anything.

  10. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    I am actually shocked the GA hasn’t slashed the Police State budget in an effort to defund.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Nope. In fact, the Senate has passed a bill that would give the agency a dedicated source of revenue for salary increases–an additional $4.00 fee on your annual car registration.

      1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
        Baconator with extra cheese

        But I can delay that now by 3 months every year… so I avoid the resgistration fee once every 4 years. Right?
        The libertarian in me is getting down with some of this wokeness!
        I can’t wait until I can pull off the road and whip it out anywhere whem they decriminalize public urination. What a time saver! No need to find a rest stop or exit…
        Hell defund the rest stops!

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Why pull off the road? Can’t you contort to reach the window and the accelerator at the same time?

          1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
            Baconator with extra cheese

            When I was in college we had a funnel system and tube for road trips..
            As an adult I favored wide mouth 32 oz Gatorade bottles….

          2. John Harvie Avatar
            John Harvie

            Be careful to avoid hitting the electric window switch.

  11. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    I am actually shocked the GA hasn’t slashed the Police State budget in an effort to defund.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Nope. In fact, the Senate has passed a bill that would give the agency a dedicated source of revenue for salary increases–an additional $4.00 fee on your annual car registration.

      1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
        Baconator with extra cheese

        But I can delay that now by 3 months every year… so I avoid the resgistration fee once every 4 years. Right?
        The libertarian in me is getting down with some of this wokeness!
        I can’t wait until I can pull off the road and whip it out anywhere whem they decriminalize public urination. What a time saver! No need to find a rest stop or exit…
        Hell defund the rest stops!

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Why pull off the road? Can’t you contort to reach the window and the accelerator at the same time?

          1. John Harvie Avatar
            John Harvie

            Be careful to avoid hitting the electric window switch.

          2. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
            Baconator with extra cheese

            When I was in college we had a funnel system and tube for road trips..
            As an adult I favored wide mouth 32 oz Gatorade bottles….

  12. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    If the vehicles cost 50% more, just take a third of them off the highway. Problem solved.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Hot bunk… no more cop cars in the driveways overnight.

  13. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    If the vehicles cost 50% more, just take a third of them off the highway. Problem solved.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Hot bunk… no more cop cars in the driveways overnight.

  14. LarrytheG Avatar

    This is a super-easy, budget-friendly fix.

    Speed and Red light cameras.

    They’ll probably generate even more money than they need AND lives will be saved and property damage reduced and best of all new butts for the idiots.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      State law (Sec 15.2-968.1) authorizes local governments to install traffic light cameras. Here is a fact sheet from VDOT: https://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/photored_faq.pdf

      As for enforcement of speed limits by camera, the state has taken a major step in that direction. The GA passed legislation last year authorizing camera enforcement in work zones. Based on the experience from this limited authorization, there could well be legislation in the future to expand it. https://landline.media/virginia-law-allows-speed-cameras-in-work-zones/

      One of the concerns about enforcing speed limits by camera is the use of automated license plate readers. There are a lot of privacy issues surrounding those devices.

      If the state does start widespread use of cameras to enforce speed limits, I expect the State Police to argue that it still needs the same number of troopers for response to accidents and other incidents.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        On the automated license plate readers.

        They’re already pretty standard and in use for a variety of issues.

        And basically, all they really do is the same thing that a police officer would do – i.e. observe the plate, and query information systems as to owner.

        They’re in use right now to catch bad guys on the run… a good think in my view.

        But for speed limits and traffic signals, a regular camera is also needed to show the driver of the vehicle.

        Even if the State Police say they need the same number of troopers, I’m fine with that but increased automated enforcement will help pay for them and more closely charge those who cause the staff needs for enforcement.

        In addition, put a levy on registrations and vehicle purchases , etc, essentially a “use” fee rather than taxing folks.

        NN made a comment about troopers keeping cars at their homes rather than running them 24/7 but I wonder about that and if some study has been done justifying it as cost-effective (and possibly a good thing during emergencies if off-duty troopers are on-call for call up for said emergencies).

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          Vehicle usage is governed not only by county or state policy but Union agreements.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          In its budget submission, State Police addressed the issue of using one car by different troopers on a shift change, called it “hot seating”. They reject it for the reason that you indicate–troopers are actually on call all the time for emergencies.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar

        “If the state does start widespread use of cameras to enforce speed limits, I expect the State Police to argue that it still needs the same number of troopers for response to accidents and other incidents.”

        I would surmise you’re correct, Maryland employs cameras for speed. However, they are a civil fine only system and the footage is reviewed by non-officers. They would also have to employ more than a license plate reader, as you’ll have to photograph the driver to ensure you’re getting the correct person, which is a whole host of more problems.

        1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
          Eric the Half a Troll

          My experience with the Maryland cameras (which unfortunately I have) was that they do not photograph the driver. It is up to you to take it to court if you want to contend the ticket – not sure if the onus is on you to prove you were not driving the car. I think most people do not challenge it but instead just pay the penalty.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            Correct, they don’t photograph the driver so it’s only a fine not a moving violation. I think it’s what a $40 dollar fine but through that principal it’s to the vehicle not the individual.

            Arlington has lots of red light cameras as does the District.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Arizona sends a camera shot with the summons. A friend admitted once seeing the photo there was no way he could argue it wasn’t him!

            I’m support that. No problem. There is still LOTs of fertile ground to plow!

            People CAN drive fast but do so in a manner that is not aggressive or intimidating to others. It takes discipline and patience. Wait your turn for as long as it takes and then do your thing but at risk to getting caught for speeding.. Pays your money, makes your choice.

            The one’s I have zero sympathy for are the azzes that drive without a care to how they treat others in traffic – those guys – need some help on training and enforcement. It’s not about speed – it’s about scofflaw behavior. No problem burning their butts.

          3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Matt’s idea of the plate, not the cabin, saves marriages too.

            Think about it.

            Btw, business vehicles are exempt from PhotoRed.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nancy_Naive | February 22, 2021 at 12:22 pm |
            Matt’s idea of the plate, not the cabin, saves marriages too.

            Think about it.

            Btw, business vehicles are exempt from PhotoRed.”

            Not really by idea, but you’d be required to have a law enforcement officer review the photo ticket if you wished to make it a moving violation and ensure it was who would be getting the points.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Those work well, but the State has to stay on top of the localities. Fairfax got caught shaving the caution light times to increase revenues. They also killed people with an increase in rear-enders.

      PhotoRed works to save lives in two ways, one well documented. They will slow traffic. If you are doing the speed limit, it’s nearly impossible to run a PhotoRed unintentionally. The other way is it cuts the number of interactions of police with citizens. Bound to reduce police shootings.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Yes. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it and I do not trust the localities – that’s why I’d like to see a state standard and operation and use that money to fund the State Police. This is why we have the Dillon Rule – to put a hitch in the giddyup of the local yahoos…

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          By Constitutional provision, all fine revenue collected by the state goes to the Literary Fund. It could not be used to fund State Police.

  15. LarrytheG Avatar

    This is a super-easy, budget-friendly fix.

    Speed and Red light cameras.

    They’ll probably generate even more money than they need AND lives will be saved and property damage reduced and best of all new butts for the idiots.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      State law (Sec 15.2-968.1) authorizes local governments to install traffic light cameras. Here is a fact sheet from VDOT: https://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/photored_faq.pdf

      As for enforcement of speed limits by camera, the state has taken a major step in that direction. The GA passed legislation last year authorizing camera enforcement in work zones. Based on the experience from this limited authorization, there could well be legislation in the future to expand it. https://landline.media/virginia-law-allows-speed-cameras-in-work-zones/

      One of the concerns about enforcing speed limits by camera is the use of automated license plate readers. There are a lot of privacy issues surrounding those devices.

      If the state does start widespread use of cameras to enforce speed limits, I expect the State Police to argue that it still needs the same number of troopers for response to accidents and other incidents.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        On the automated license plate readers.

        They’re already pretty standard and in use for a variety of issues.

        And basically, all they really do is the same thing that a police officer would do – i.e. observe the plate, and query information systems as to owner.

        They’re in use right now to catch bad guys on the run… a good think in my view.

        But for speed limits and traffic signals, a regular camera is also needed to show the driver of the vehicle.

        Even if the State Police say they need the same number of troopers, I’m fine with that but increased automated enforcement will help pay for them and more closely charge those who cause the staff needs for enforcement.

        In addition, put a levy on registrations and vehicle purchases , etc, essentially a “use” fee rather than taxing folks.

        NN made a comment about troopers keeping cars at their homes rather than running them 24/7 but I wonder about that and if some study has been done justifying it as cost-effective (and possibly a good thing during emergencies if off-duty troopers are on-call for call up for said emergencies).

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          Vehicle usage is governed not only by county or state policy but Union agreements.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          In its budget submission, State Police addressed the issue of using one car by different troopers on a shift change, called it “hot seating”. They reject it for the reason that you indicate–troopers are actually on call all the time for emergencies.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar

        “If the state does start widespread use of cameras to enforce speed limits, I expect the State Police to argue that it still needs the same number of troopers for response to accidents and other incidents.”

        I would surmise you’re correct, Maryland employs cameras for speed. However, they are a civil fine only system and the footage is reviewed by non-officers. They would also have to employ more than a license plate reader, as you’ll have to photograph the driver to ensure you’re getting the correct person, which is a whole host of more problems.

        1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
          Eric the Half a Troll

          My experience with the Maryland cameras (which unfortunately I have) was that they do not photograph the driver. It is up to you to take it to court if you want to contend the ticket – not sure if the onus is on you to prove you were not driving the car. I think most people do not challenge it but instead just pay the penalty.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            Correct, they don’t photograph the driver so it’s only a fine not a moving violation. I think it’s what a $40 dollar fine but through that principal it’s to the vehicle not the individual.

            Arlington has lots of red light cameras as does the District.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Arizona sends a camera shot with the summons. A friend admitted once seeing the photo there was no way he could argue it wasn’t him!

            I’m support that. No problem. There is still LOTs of fertile ground to plow!

            People CAN drive fast but do so in a manner that is not aggressive or intimidating to others. It takes discipline and patience. Wait your turn for as long as it takes and then do your thing but at risk to getting caught for speeding.. Pays your money, makes your choice.

            The one’s I have zero sympathy for are the azzes that drive without a care to how they treat others in traffic – those guys – need some help on training and enforcement. It’s not about speed – it’s about scofflaw behavior. No problem burning their butts.

          3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Matt’s idea of the plate, not the cabin, saves marriages too.

            Think about it.

            Btw, business vehicles are exempt from PhotoRed.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nancy_Naive | February 22, 2021 at 12:22 pm |
            Matt’s idea of the plate, not the cabin, saves marriages too.

            Think about it.

            Btw, business vehicles are exempt from PhotoRed.”

            Not really by idea, but you’d be required to have a law enforcement officer review the photo ticket if you wished to make it a moving violation and ensure it was who would be getting the points.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Those work well, but the State has to stay on top of the localities. Fairfax got caught shaving the caution light times to increase revenues. They also killed people with an increase in rear-enders.

      PhotoRed works to save lives in two ways, one well documented. They will slow traffic. If you are doing the speed limit, it’s nearly impossible to run a PhotoRed unintentionally. The other way is it cuts the number of interactions of police with citizens. Bound to reduce police shootings.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Yes. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it and I do not trust the localities – that’s why I’d like to see a state standard and operation and use that money to fund the State Police. This is why we have the Dillon Rule – to put a hitch in the giddyup of the local yahoos…

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          By Constitutional provision, all fine revenue collected by the state goes to the Literary Fund. It could not be used to fund State Police.

  16. One more log for this fire. I unfortunately have a bit too much current experience with this very subject.

    Above and beyond the base price of the specialized vehicles plus the cost of equipping and painting/striping them is the cost of the fuel and maintenance.

    Although the old Crown Vics were not terribly fuel efficient, the Taurus Interceptors were not that bad. the same can not be said for the Explorers which are typically averaging 15 mpg or less.

    And then there is the maintenance issue. These SUVs were not designed for the torturous use that is PD patrols and use. They quickly become garage queens, constantly having electrical, tuning and suspension issues addressed, sometimes month after month.

    And then there is the matter of tires. As the SUVs are significantly heavier and generally require a larger tire, they wear out those soft, speed rated pursuit tires at an alarming and expensive rate.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I would concur. The SUVs are going to be higher maintenance and while there is talk of hybrids , I don’t put much stock in Ford (or CHevy) hybrids which are largely HINO – Hybrids in name only.

      All the more reason to use automation to deal with the miscreants and scofflaws and get them to pay their fair share of these costs!

      Red light running, aggressive driving, cell phone idiocy, is rampant.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Camera-driven tickets! Great idea until you ask the voters what they think. They don’t like at all…. 🙂

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Some do! 😉 . People’s personalities seem to come out when they drive and we have way too many ” get out of my effing way or else” louts.

          My luck, I get behind slo-mo then Mr. Big Butt comes up and tailgates.

          A POX on BOTH!

          Can’t tell you how many times I come up on folks screwing with their cell phones…. others running red lights… etc… so sure they won’t like enforcement… scofflaws generally don’t.

          1. Funny, I just have this mental of image of Larry behind the wheel, what I derisively refer to as “Old Man in a Hat”. Usually peering just above the steering wheel of an old Pickup or Buick and driving 10-15 mph below the speed limit in the left lane. Nothing personal Larry, just the immediate image that comes to mind.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Wrong image Mom. I typically at or above the speed limt.

            I can be 10-15 over the limit and some azz will tailgate. They’re all no different than the slow-mo folks in terms of attitudes towards others. same issue – problem is how you respect others.

            the problem I have is that we’re sharing the road with each other but most don’t drive that way… they azzes….

            nothing personal but…. 😉

        2. djrippert Avatar

          Voters don’t like them because they never come with the benefit of lowered spending on police, lower police budgets and lower taxes. Given the current state of video technology you could enforce just about every traffic law without ever involving a human. Trust me. Late last year I started a video processing company with two partners. We’ll be live in the US sometime between April and June. Until then, we’re keeping a low profile while we work on the products. We have three main businesses – contract programming for embedded systems, a software-as-a-service video processing platform (transcoding, compression, monetization, etc) and an advanced projects group. We already have coding contracts and our advanced projects group has been working to implement rudimentary computer vision on Raspberry Pi’s used for indoor advertising.

          The revolution in technology occurring in the real world outside of government is striking to the point of being a bit scary. An aggressive effort to implement advanced technology in government would, by my guess, reduce the costs of government by at least 25% (not including entitlements / transfer payments). But nobody in Richmond cares. Just keep taking more and more money and keep doing things the same old way.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well, in a way, it’s two different issues.

            So if McDonalds threatens to use technology to lower it’s costs, does that mean the’ll lower the price of big Macs?

            😉

            If DOD uses technology to reduce manpower costs, does that mean they’ll lower next years budget request?

            😉

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        The Ford Interceptor Utility comes in a hybrid model. Virginia State Police say they are not interested in that yet.

        As for maintenance, State Police reported that their research showed that the other two interceptor models available, Dodge Charger and Chevy Tahoe, had higher maintenance costs.

    2. “And then there is the maintenance issue. These SUVs were not designed for the torturous use that is PD patrols and use. They quickly become garage queens, constantly having electrical, tuning and suspension issues addressed, sometimes month after month.”

      That is interesting. I had been led to believe Ford was developing a true “Police Interceptor” version of the SUV, with improved suspension, engine performance and other “hardened” upgrades, specifically to address the torturous use to which the police put a vehicle. Is that not the case?

      By the way, a stock Crown Victoria was not really up to police duty, either.
      Over time, though, Ford did an excellent job of developing upgrades (particularly to the suspension and handling) so that the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor was a real “police car”. There is a world of difference between the “old-man” car that was the Crown Victoria, and the upgraded police car. I have driven a stock Crown Vic and apart from passenger comfort, it was not impressive in any way. On the other had, I once had use of a retired Police Interceptor for a few months. The car had 145,000 sheriff’s-department-service miles on it, but it was surprising how much better that car performed than a stock Crown Vic. The thing handled like a giant go-cart – it instilled great confidence entering curves at high speed. Acceleration and engine performance were [nearly] a match for my ’96 Mustang GT, and I think the transmission way literally have been bullet proof..

      You could pitch that car into a round-about, kick the back end out about 45 degrees and throttle-steer all the way around the circle to your original entry point. I cannot tell exactly how I know that, but suffice it to say I was very impressed with that car.

      Apart from its outward appearance, it was nothing like a stock Crown Victoria.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        I saw a few years back where Ford was upgrading the door skins on the Explorer to them more “bulletproof”. That kind of armor doesn’t come without it’s weight.

        Even last year Ford released a software update for the Explorer to combat COVID-19.

        https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2020/05/27/ford-heated-sanitization-software-police-vehicles-coronavirus.html

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I think you are correct, Wayne. Here is Ford’s website on its police vehicles with the specs. https://www.ford.com/police-vehicles/

  17. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Be careful…. fines are criminalizing poverty and disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged communities and in Virginia this also means disproportionately Black and brown communities.
    Fines are a function of systemic racism and thus white supremecy.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Oh the fines should definitely be “means-tested” and should allow community service in lieu of money. I know right now who will choose money over service so it works out great!

      😉

      1. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
        Anonymous_Bosch

        That’s a great idea. We should definitely have a system of means tested justice. Kinda gives the “Scales of Justice” a new MEANing.

      2. “Oh the fines should definitely be “means-tested”

        Why? Don’t you support equal protection under the law?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          might depend on how you define ” equal protection ” ?

          1. I define it as the law being applied the same way to each individual.

            How do you define it?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Should have equal impact?

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            “LarrytheG | February 22, 2021 at 1:18 pm |
            Should have equal impact?”

            So you conclude that Justice should only be Social Justice (which is the definition you’re using), which vacillates depending upon who’s in office and what the current mode of the aggrieved is?

          4. “Should have equal impact?”

            I don’t see the word “impact” anywhere in the 14th Amendment. Can you point it out to me?

            Actually, I just checked. The word “impact” is totally absent from the United States Constitution.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            equal justice?

            Justice for All…Who Can Afford It
            Use of excessive fees, fines, and bail results in unequal access to justice for the poor.
            By Paulette Brown
            Share:

            What is the price of justice?

            America is supposed to adhere to the principle of “equal justice under law,” a concept dating back to ancient Greece and embedded in our society through the 14th Amendment. The phrase is so important to our legal system it is engraved on the U.S. Supreme Court building.

            But today, in far too many instances, an individual’s access to equal justice is based less on principle and more on ability to pay. Financial penalties—fees, fines and bail—have rendered justice unjust.

            Fees and fines that ignore a defendant’s ability to pay place an unfair burden on people of lesser means. Minor infractions can result in fees that spiral into thousands of dollars, and contribute to the United States incarcerating more individuals than any developed country. Bail set without consideration of financial circumstances results in the detention of the poorest, rather than most dangerous or highest flight risks as intended.

            …..

            The report referenced the case of a 67-year-old woman who received two traffic tickets in 2007 totaling $152. After more than eight years of fines and penalties—including two arrests and six days in jail—she had paid the city $550 and owed $541 more.

            Ferguson is not an anomaly. Across the country, nearly two thirds of all inmates in county jails are awaiting trial at a taxpayer cost of $9 billion. After release on bail or probation, many must pay private companies to monitor them. In South Carolina, a defendant has to pay almost $300 a month for an ankle-monitoring bracelet or return to jail.

            https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/diversity-inclusion/articles/2016/spring2016-0416-justice-for-all-who-can-afford-it/

          6. I’m curious about your “equal protection” means
            “equal impact” philosophy, Larry. I’d like to know how you would apply it in the following scenario?

            The police arrest two different “solo” serial killers on the same day. Each of these men has kidnapped, tortured and murdered five (5) people: two middle-aged men, two young women and one 4-year-old child. The victims are all from the same socio-economic background. The two groups of victims are essentially identical.

            One of the killers has managed to maintain a normal life, on the surface. This guy owns a successful business which employs 12 people in good paying jobs. He has a devoted wife, 3 kids and elderly parents he supports in upper middle-class comfort. Prior to his arrest, no one in his family had any idea what he had been up during the out-of-town weekend hunting trips he took, by himself, a couple of times a year. I fact, they are devastated by his arrest and still cannot believe he is the savage murderer the police say he is.

            The second killer is single, never been married, no kids, no siblings and his parents are dead. He has a minimum wage job at a fast-food restaurant.

            Now, please answer the following questions (remember, the law is to be applied so as to have “equal impact”, whatever that means):

            1) Should the killers receive the same punishment?
            2) If so, why?
            3) If not, why?
            4) If they are not to to be equally punished, punishment, which of the killers should receive the more severe punishment? Why?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            Wayne – the short answer is that money should not make the difference in justice.

          8. “Fees and fines that ignore a defendant’s ability to pay place an unfair burden on people of lesser means. ”

            So make monetary fines lower across the board, don’t raise them for some and lower (or eliminate) them for others.

          9. “Wayne – the short answer is that money should not make the difference in justice.”

            Right. You think an offender’s punishment should be dictated by the financial burden such punishment will have on him.

            Now that you are on that slippery slope, where does it end? What about the offender’s family? Should a man’s children have to starve or go without shoes for something their Daddy did? Which offenses should have punishments dictated by “equal impact” and which should not?

    2. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      This is complete crap. Break the law and you pay whomever you are.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Define “pay”. $20 or two chickens and an hour picking up trash.

  18. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Be careful…. fines are criminalizing poverty and disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged communities and in Virginia this also means disproportionately Black and brown communities.
    Fines are a function of systemic racism and thus white supremecy.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Oh the fines should definitely be “means-tested” and should allow community service in lieu of money. I know right now who will choose money over service so it works out great!

      😉

      1. “Oh the fines should definitely be “means-tested”

        Why? Don’t you support equal protection under the law?

        1. “Should have equal impact?”

          I don’t see the word “impact” anywhere in the 14th Amendment. Can you pint it out to me?

          Actually, I just checked. The word “impact” is totally absent from the United States Constitution.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          might depend on how you define ” equal protection ” ?

          1. I define it as the law being applied the same way to each individual.

            How do you define it?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Should have equal impact?

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            “LarrytheG | February 22, 2021 at 1:18 pm |
            Should have equal impact?”

            So you conclude that Justice should only be Social Justice (which is the definition you’re using), which vacillates depending upon who’s in office and what the current mode of the aggrieved is?

          4. “Should have equal impact?”

            I don’t see the word “impact” anywhere in the 14th Amendment. Can you point it out to me?

            Actually, I just checked. The word “impact” is totally absent from the United States Constitution.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            equal justice?

            Justice for All…Who Can Afford It
            Use of excessive fees, fines, and bail results in unequal access to justice for the poor.
            By Paulette Brown
            Share:

            What is the price of justice?

            America is supposed to adhere to the principle of “equal justice under law,” a concept dating back to ancient Greece and embedded in our society through the 14th Amendment. The phrase is so important to our legal system it is engraved on the U.S. Supreme Court building.

            But today, in far too many instances, an individual’s access to equal justice is based less on principle and more on ability to pay. Financial penalties—fees, fines and bail—have rendered justice unjust.

            Fees and fines that ignore a defendant’s ability to pay place an unfair burden on people of lesser means. Minor infractions can result in fees that spiral into thousands of dollars, and contribute to the United States incarcerating more individuals than any developed country. Bail set without consideration of financial circumstances results in the detention of the poorest, rather than most dangerous or highest flight risks as intended.

            …..

            The report referenced the case of a 67-year-old woman who received two traffic tickets in 2007 totaling $152. After more than eight years of fines and penalties—including two arrests and six days in jail—she had paid the city $550 and owed $541 more.

            Ferguson is not an anomaly. Across the country, nearly two thirds of all inmates in county jails are awaiting trial at a taxpayer cost of $9 billion. After release on bail or probation, many must pay private companies to monitor them. In South Carolina, a defendant has to pay almost $300 a month for an ankle-monitoring bracelet or return to jail.

            https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/diversity-inclusion/articles/2016/spring2016-0416-justice-for-all-who-can-afford-it/

          6. I’m curious about your “equal protection” means
            “equal impact” philosophy, Larry. I’d like to know how you would apply it in the following scenario?

            The police arrest two different “solo” serial killers on the same day. Each of these men has kidnapped, tortured and murdered five (5) people: two middle-aged men, two young women and one 4-year-old child. The victims are all from the same socio-economic background. The two groups of victims are essentially identical.

            One of the killers has managed to maintain a normal life, on the surface. This guy owns a successful business which employs 12 people in good paying jobs. He has a devoted wife, 3 kids and elderly parents he supports in upper middle-class comfort. Prior to his arrest, no one in his family had any idea what he had been up during the out-of-town weekend hunting trips he took, by himself, a couple of times a year. I fact, they are devastated by his arrest and still cannot believe he is the savage murderer the police say he is.

            The second killer is single, never been married, no kids, no siblings and his parents are dead. He has a minimum wage job at a fast-food restaurant.

            Now, please answer the following questions (remember, the law is to be applied so as to have “equal impact”, whatever that means):

            1) Should the killers receive the same punishment?
            2) If so, why?
            3) If not, why?
            4) If they are not to to be equally punished, punishment, which of the killers should receive the more severe punishment? Why?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            Wayne – the short answer is that money should not make the difference in justice.

          8. “Fees and fines that ignore a defendant’s ability to pay place an unfair burden on people of lesser means. ”

            So make monetary fines lower across the board, don’t raise them for some and lower (or eliminate) them for others.

          9. “Wayne – the short answer is that money should not make the difference in justice.”

            Right. You think an offender’s punishment should be dictated by the financial burden such punishment will have on him.

            Now that you are on that slippery slope, where does it end? What about the offender’s family? Should a man’s children have to starve or go without shoes for something their Daddy did? Which offenses should have punishments dictated by “equal impact” and which should not?

      2. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
        Anonymous_Bosch

        That’s a great idea. We should definitely have a system of means tested justice. Kinda gives the “Scales of Justice” a new MEANing.

    2. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      This is complete crap. Break the law and you pay whomever you are.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Define “pay”. $20 or two chickens and an hour picking up trash.

  19. FORD is good at hybrids, I wonder why that is not possible for a Police car?

    Lot’s of Priuses (Prii) have got tickets for going over 100 MPH

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Consumers Reports says reliability issues..

      The only company I trust with hybrids is Toyota…

      Have had Fords all my life but gave them up for Toyota – just too many problems as they got older… I wish they made a proper Van.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      As I just mentioned in a recent comment above, they do make a hybrid version.

      1. Thanks Dick…I like hybrids

  20. FORD is good at hybrids, I wonder why that is not possible for a Police car?

    Lot’s of Priuses (Prii) have got tickets for going over 100 MPH

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Consumers Reports says reliability issues..

      The only company I trust with hybrids is Toyota…

      Have had Fords all my life but gave them up for Toyota – just too many problems as they got older… I wish they made a proper Van.

      1. “The only company I trust with hybrids is Toyota…”

        That’s probably part of why GM wants full electric car mandates for USA instead hybrids and plug-in hybrids. But I have not heard FORD hybrids not holding up.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      As I just mentioned in a recent comment above, they do make a hybrid version.

      1. Thanks Dick…I like hybrids

  21. “The only company I trust with hybrids is Toyota…”

    That’s probably part of why GM wants full electric car mandates for USA instead hybrids and plug-in hybrids. But I have not heard FORD hybrids not holding up.

    Part of the issue with our throw away society is repair costs are so high (for appliances/etc) that we have to get new ones. In Europe they are starting to address that issue by making repairs cheaper and more advantageous. I could still have a Prius if we had better/less costly hybrid battery repair in our region, like some other regions.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Fords don’t hold up. Why would I trust them with adding hybrids to cars that already have reliability issues?

      I hear that Tesla now has reliability issues… Same old problem… American manufacturing…

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I have over 200,000 miles on my Mercury Grand Marquis, which is just a Crown Vic. Only problems I have had were related to normal wear and tear.

  22. “The only company I trust with hybrids is Toyota…”

    That’s probably part of why GM wants full electric car mandates for USA instead hybrids and plug-in hybrids. But I have not heard FORD hybrids not holding up.

    Part of the issue with our throw away society is repair costs are so high (for appliances/etc) that we have to get new ones. In Europe they are starting to address that issue by making repairs cheaper and more advantageous. I could still have a Prius if we had better/less costly hybrid battery repair in our region, like some other regions.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Fords don’t hold up. Why would I trust them with adding hybrids to cars that already have reliability issues?

      I hear that Tesla now has reliability issues… Same old problem… American manufacturing…

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I have over 200,000 miles on my Mercury Grand Marquis, which is just a Crown Vic. Only problems I have had were related to normal wear and tear.

  23. “The legislature disagrees with the replacement schedule proposed by the State Police and thus have cut the agency’s request.”

    Do you happen to know the replacement schedule proposed by the State Police?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      State Police currently replaces vehicles when the hit 130,000 miles. For the new vehicles, they assumed a 100,000 mile replacement schedule. That seemed to be related to the warranty that came with the cars. The GA wants them to stick with the 130,000 mile replacement schedule. https://budget.lis.virginia.gov/amendment/2021/2/SB1100/Introduced/FA/426/1s/

  24. “The legislature disagrees with the replacement schedule proposed by the State Police and thus have cut the agency’s request.”

    Do you happen to know the replacement schedule proposed by the State Police?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      State Police currently replaces vehicles when the hit 130,000 miles. For the new vehicles, they assumed a 100,000 mile replacement schedule. That seemed to be related to the warranty that came with the cars. The GA wants them to stick with the 130,000 mile replacement schedule. https://budget.lis.virginia.gov/amendment/2021/2/SB1100/Introduced/FA/426/1s/

  25. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    If the State Police wants SUVs, they should do what Hampton did. Open a cigarette sting operation that sold untaxed cigarettes donated by RJ Reynolds for two years without arresting anyone and use the profits to buy SUVs for HPD brass hats to drive.

    See “Hampton Police Bluewater sting”

    1. In that case, the sky’s the limit. They should try to get this vehicle put back in production:

      https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en/brand/masterpieces/lm002

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        I think I saw one was August Luxury Motorcars website a few months ago for $400k US.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Oh, so cheap at twice the price.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            They stopped making them in 1993 as their original list was 120k. Lamborghini is strange is how they release certain numbers and specs of their vehicles and where being the larger factor.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        They bought something like 25 cars including Escalades.

  26. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    If the State Police wants SUVs, they should do what Hampton did. Open a cigarette sting operation that sold untaxed cigarettes donated by RJ Reynolds for two years without arresting anyone and use the profits to buy SUVs for HPD brass hats to drive.

    See “Hampton Police Bluewater sting”

    1. In that case, the sky’s the limit. They should try to get this vehicle put back in production:

      https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en/brand/masterpieces/lm002

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        I think I saw one was August Luxury Motorcars website a few months ago for $400k US.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Oh, so cheap at twice the price.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            They stopped making them in 1993 as their original list was 120k. Lamborghini is strange is how they release certain numbers and specs of their vehicles and where being the larger factor.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        They bought something like 25 cars including Escalades.

  27. djrippert Avatar

    From a comment posted earlier by Dick:

    “If the state does start widespread use of cameras to enforce speed limits, I expect the State Police to argue that it still needs the same number of troopers for response to accidents and other incidents.”

    That is an accurate description of the absurdity of government. Technology reduces the need for live, human beings called police manning speed traps. Does anybody say, “Great! Now we don’t need as many policemen and women and that’s good because the cost of police cars is rising.”? Of course not. Everything is additive in government. No amount of increased efficiency ever results in lower cost, budgets or taxes. That’s because the wing-wangs in government measure themselves based on how much of other people’s money they can confiscate through threat of force and use to build empires. Disgraceful.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Of course, if the state did do as you suggest, there would be hordes of people, including some on this blog, complaining about defunding the police.

      1. djrippert Avatar

        Not if it was done intelligently and transparently explained in terms of government efficiency. Defunding the police is a term used to mean less law enforcement capability. My point is that technology can be used to maintain the existing level of law enforcement capability with fewer policemen and lower costs. For example, why use police helicopters and planes when drones are far cheaper and at least as effective? The two Virginia State Policemen who died in the helicopter crash in Charlottesville would be alive today if the state police used drones.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Technology is used to cut costs and increase productivity by both government and the private sector whether it is Walmart or DOD.

          However, pointing out that neither DOD nor WalMart want to “give it back”.

          The govt wants to use the savings to improve their mission – State Police can always do “more” and Walmart and Dominion see it as their reward for improving productivity – and rewarding their investors!

          Higher Ed and Hospitals keep it to improve the services they offer, etc.

          Hardly ANYONE – govt or private sector often “gives it back”!

  28. djrippert Avatar

    From a comment posted earlier by Dick:

    “If the state does start widespread use of cameras to enforce speed limits, I expect the State Police to argue that it still needs the same number of troopers for response to accidents and other incidents.”

    That is an accurate description of the absurdity of government. Technology reduces the need for live, human beings called police manning speed traps. Does anybody say, “Great! Now we don’t need as many policemen and women and that’s good because the cost of police cars is rising.”? Of course not. Everything is additive in government. No amount of increased efficiency ever results in lower cost, budgets or taxes. That’s because the wing-wangs in government measure themselves based on how much of other people’s money they can confiscate through threat of force and use to build empires. Disgraceful.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Of course, if the state did do as you suggest, there would be hordes of people, including some on this blog, complaining about defunding the police.

      1. djrippert Avatar

        Not if it was done intelligently and transparently explained in terms of government efficiency. Defunding the police is a term used to mean less law enforcement capability. My point is that technology can be used to maintain the existing level of law enforcement capability with fewer policemen and lower costs. For example, why use police helicopters and planes when drones are far cheaper and at least as effective? The two Virginia State Policemen who died in the helicopter crash in Charlottesville would be alive today if the state police used drones.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Technology is used to cut costs and increase productivity by both government and the private sector whether it is Walmart or DOD.

          However, pointing out that neither DOD nor WalMart want to “give it back”.

          The govt wants to use the savings to improve their mission – State Police can always do “more” and Walmart and Dominion see it as their reward for improving productivity – and rewarding their investors!

          Higher Ed and Hospitals keep it to improve the services they offer, etc.

          Hardly ANYONE – govt or private sector often “gives it back”!

  29. LarrytheG Avatar

    WayneS | February 22, 2021 at 2:03 pm |
    “Fees and fines that ignore a defendant’s ability to pay place an unfair burden on people of lesser means. ”

    So make monetary fines lower across the board, don’t raise them for some and lower (or eliminate) them for others.

    means-tested ?

    1. Is there some part of “across the board” you are having trouble understanding?

  30. LarrytheG Avatar

    WayneS | February 22, 2021 at 2:03 pm |
    “Fees and fines that ignore a defendant’s ability to pay place an unfair burden on people of lesser means. ”

    So make monetary fines lower across the board, don’t raise them for some and lower (or eliminate) them for others.

    means-tested ?

    1. Is there some part of “across the board” you are having trouble understanding?

  31. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” WayneS | February 22, 2021 at 2:09 pm |
    “Wayne – the short answer is that money should not make the difference in justice.”

    Right. You think the financial impact of a person’s punishment on that person should be taken into account.

    Now that you are on that slippery slope, where does it end? What about the offender’s family? Should his kids have to starve for something their Daddy did? Which offenses should have punishment dictated by “equal impact” and which should not?”

    Once one agrees on the basic premise – the rest is to figure out the practicalities. You’ll never reach perfection but do your best.

    1. I don’t agree with the basic premise.

      I’ve got no problem with allowing fines to be paid over time, with the offender entering into an agreement which includes reasonable regular payments set so as to be affordable for the offender. And, as long as a person is paying down the fine(s) as set out in the agreement, his/her license should not be suspended nor should additional penalties be meted out. However, I think the amount of the fine should be the same for everyone who commits the same offense.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Doesn’t it go back to deciding HOW MUCH “fine” is “appropriate”?

        If someone makes 100K a year verses 25K – it does make a difference, installment payments or not.

        It’s sorta like arguing the “repressiveness” of taxes, no?

        1. “If someone makes 100K a year verses 25K – it does make a difference, installment payments or not.”

          So what?

  32. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” WayneS | February 22, 2021 at 2:09 pm |
    “Wayne – the short answer is that money should not make the difference in justice.”

    Right. You think the financial impact of a person’s punishment on that person should be taken into account.

    Now that you are on that slippery slope, where does it end? What about the offender’s family? Should his kids have to starve for something their Daddy did? Which offenses should have punishment dictated by “equal impact” and which should not?”

    Once one agrees on the basic premise – the rest is to figure out the practicalities. You’ll never reach perfection but do your best.

    1. I don’t agree with the basic premise.

      I’ve got no problem with allowing fines to be paid over time, with the offender entering into an agreement which includes reasonable regular payments set so as to be affordable for the offender. And, as long as a person is paying down the fine(s) as set out in the agreement, his/her license should not be suspended nor should additional penalties be meted out. However, I think the amount of the fine should be the same for everyone who commits the same offense.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Doesn’t it go back to deciding HOW MUCH “fine” is “appropriate”?

        If someone makes 100K a year verses 25K – it does make a difference, installment payments or not.

        It’s sorta like arguing the “repressiveness” of taxes, no?

        1. “If someone makes 100K a year verses 25K – it does make a difference, installment payments or not.”

          So what?

  33. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” WayneS | February 22, 2021 at 2:17 pm | Reply
    Is there some part of “across the board” you are having trouble understanding?”

    Nope.

  34. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” WayneS | February 22, 2021 at 2:17 pm | Reply
    Is there some part of “across the board” you are having trouble understanding?”

    Nope.

  35. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    I can certainly appreciate “method” of payment being means tested, i.e., installment. Even the IRS will set up payment schedules.

  36. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    I can certainly appreciate “method” of payment being means tested, i.e., installment. Even the IRS will set up payment schedules.

  37. LarrytheG Avatar

    The IRS explicitly means-tests a lot of taxes from basing the tax rate on income to what credits they provide based on your income.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      “LarrytheG | February 22, 2021 at 2:54 pm | Reply
      The IRS explicitly means-tests a lot of taxes from basing the tax rate on income to what credits they provide based on your income”

      So are you now admitting that taxes are a punishment for being successful?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        They’re far more punishing for being unsuccessful.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          “Nancy_Naive | February 22, 2021 at 3:25 pm | Reply
          They’re far more punishing for being unsuccessful.”

          Not really, a progressive tax codes rewards people for not being gainfully employed.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Nope. The progressive tax system is supported by the vast majority who don’t consider it punishment but instead paying your fair share.

        are we moving goalposts here? 😉 geeze!

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          “LarrytheG | February 22, 2021 at 4:57 pm | Reply
          Nope. The progressive tax system is supported by the vast majority who don’t consider it punishment but instead paying your fair share.

          are we moving goalposts here? 😉 geeze!”

          A fair share would be an equal allotment from all, my overall tax burden of 30% is not equal to someone who pays no taxes and still gets a $12k refund for breathing and breeding.

          You’re the one that brought up taxes and means testing, which using your own statement you’ve assessed that taxes are a penalty for being successful. That’s not moving any goal posts.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            10% tax on earnings is still a 10% tax paid and they must pay Social Security/Medicare and they also pay other taxes, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax.

            The earned income credit – only goes for earned income. If you don’t have earned income, you don’t get it. Conservatives and GOP support it.

            Medicaid and Obamacare are also keyed to how much you earn on a sliding basis.

            Most entitlements are keyed to income also.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar

            “LarrytheG | February 23, 2021 at 7:56 am |
            10% tax on earnings is still a 10% tax paid and they must pay Social Security/Medicare and they also pay other taxes, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax.

            The earned income credit – only goes for earned income. If you don’t have earned income, you don’t get it. Conservatives and GOP support it.

            Medicaid and Obamacare are also keyed to how much you earn on a sliding basis.

            Most entitlements are keyed to income also.”

            Larry my 30% burden doesn’t even encompass property tax and the whole host of other “taxes” I’m forced to pay.

            A flat tax is the only fair tax, but you don’t want to touch it.

            We’ve already been down this road where you don’t understand the EITC and how you suppose “Conservatives” support it, they don’t.

            https://prospect.org/economy/like-eitc-plenty-turns-out./

            The EITC keeps wages low and keeps people dependent upon the system, it’s not helping them out or forcing them to be paid what they are worth. Much like people who shirk e-verify, you keeping wages suppressed and perpetuating the broken system.

            Reagan’s coined worst 6 words of “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help” was true. The Government cannot create anything, they only take and redistribute.

            PPACA? You mean the $300 Billion dollar pork lined within the $1.9 Trillion COVID relief they want to pass? It still cannot operate without Government pumping it up. That’s what is known as a failure.

            What entitlements do I enjoy? SS won’t be around when it’s my time.

    2. That does not mean it is fair or correct, Larry.

  38. LarrytheG Avatar

    The IRS explicitly means-tests a lot of taxes from basing the tax rate on income to what credits they provide based on your income.

    1. That does not mean it is fair or correct, Larry.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar

      “LarrytheG | February 22, 2021 at 2:54 pm | Reply
      The IRS explicitly means-tests a lot of taxes from basing the tax rate on income to what credits they provide based on your income”

      So are you now admitting that taxes are a punishment for being successful?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        They’re far more punishing for being unsuccessful.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          “Nancy_Naive | February 22, 2021 at 3:25 pm | Reply
          They’re far more punishing for being unsuccessful.”

          Not really, a progressive tax codes rewards people for not being gainfully employed.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Nope. The progressive tax system is supported by the vast majority who don’t consider it punishment but instead paying your fair share.

        are we moving goalposts here? 😉 geeze!

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          “LarrytheG | February 22, 2021 at 4:57 pm | Reply
          Nope. The progressive tax system is supported by the vast majority who don’t consider it punishment but instead paying your fair share.

          are we moving goalposts here? 😉 geeze!”

          A fair share would be an equal allotment from all, my overall tax burden of 30% is not equal to someone who pays no taxes and still gets a $12k refund for breathing and breeding.

          You’re the one that brought up taxes and means testing, which using your own statement you’ve assessed that taxes are a penalty for being successful. That’s not moving any goal posts.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            10% tax on earnings is still a 10% tax paid and they must pay Social Security/Medicare and they also pay other taxes, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax.

            The earned income credit – only goes for earned income. If you don’t have earned income, you don’t get it. Conservatives and GOP support it.

            Medicaid and Obamacare are also keyed to how much you earn on a sliding basis.

            Most entitlements are keyed to income also.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar

            “LarrytheG | February 23, 2021 at 7:56 am |
            10% tax on earnings is still a 10% tax paid and they must pay Social Security/Medicare and they also pay other taxes, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax.

            The earned income credit – only goes for earned income. If you don’t have earned income, you don’t get it. Conservatives and GOP support it.

            Medicaid and Obamacare are also keyed to how much you earn on a sliding basis.

            Most entitlements are keyed to income also.”

            Larry my 30% burden doesn’t even encompass property tax and the whole host of other “taxes” I’m forced to pay.

            A flat tax is the only fair tax, but you don’t want to touch it.

            We’ve already been down this road where you don’t understand the EITC and how you suppose “Conservatives” support it, they don’t.

            https://prospect.org/economy/like-eitc-plenty-turns-out./

            The EITC keeps wages low and keeps people dependent upon the system, it’s not helping them out or forcing them to be paid what they are worth. Much like people who shirk e-verify, you keeping wages suppressed and perpetuating the broken system.

            Reagan’s coined worst 6 words of “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help” was true. The Government cannot create anything, they only take and redistribute.

            PPACA? You mean the $300 Billion dollar pork lined within the $1.9 Trillion COVID relief they want to pass? It still cannot operate without Government pumping it up. That’s what is known as a failure.

            What entitlements do I enjoy? SS won’t be around when it’s my time.

  39. LarrytheG Avatar

    Matt Adams | February 23, 2021 at 8:06 am |

    Larry my 30% burden doesn’t even encompass property tax and the whole host of other “taxes” I’m forced to pay.

    right, but it’s not like they pay NO taxes, they DO.

    “A flat tax is the only fair tax, but you don’t want to touch it.”

    rejected by many if not most including Conservatives. You pay according to your ability is more fair and less regressive.

    “We’ve already been down this road where you don’t understand the EITC and how you suppose “Conservatives” support it, they don’t.

    https://prospect.org/economy/like-eitc-plenty-turns-out./

    not far right folks, but still a lot of more moderate Conservatives.

    “The EITC keeps wages low and keeps people dependent upon the system, it’s not helping them out or forcing them to be paid what they are worth. Much like people who shirk e-verify, you keeping wages suppressed and perpetuating the broken system.

    Reagan’s coined worst 6 words of “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help” was true. The Government cannot create anything, they only take and redistribute.”

    Big philosophical debate but poverty is like highway congestion and crime – you don’t “fix it” – it stays with us and less people in poverty is the goal and it does work.

    “PPACA? You mean the $300 Billion dollar pork lined within the $1.9 Trillion COVID relief they want to pass? It still cannot operate without Government pumping it up. That’s what is known as a failure.”

    Do you mean ACA?

    “What entitlements do I enjoy? SS won’t be around when it’s my time.”

    yep , it will… as long as we collect FICA… SS, by the way is also means-tested AND it’s INSURANCE as much as it is an entitlement.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Umm PPACA is the name of the law, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I use it’s proper term to ignore any negative connotations that “Obamacare” would garner, because they wouldn’t be sound or rational.

      https://khn.org/morning-breakout/two-year-boost-to-aca-subsidies-added-to-stimulus-package/

      “yep , it will… as long as we collect FICA… SS, by the way is also means-tested AND it’s INSURANCE as much as it is an entitlement.”

      No it won’t, SS will run out in 2034 (I will be ineligible to collect at that time).

      https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-latest-estimate-of-when-social-security-will-run-out-of-money-2020-12-25#:~:text=After%20taking%20into%20account%20the,painted%20early%20in%20the%20pandemic.

      SS isn’t means tested, it pulls a tax away from me to which I’ll never be repaid what I pay in. It’s a ponzi-scheme.

      1. Mr. Adams, your statement about Social Security is not accurate. Social Security will still have funds but those funds will not be sufficient to pay everybody what their current payout estimates are. I have read in other documents (sorry I don’t have the citations for those documents) that the SS Trust Fund will only be able to pay out 78% of its otherwise mandated obligations. See this line from the Marketwatch document. “For several years now, retirees and near-retirees have had to squarely face the prospect that, unless Congress acts, Social Security at some point in the mid-2030s will not be able to pay 100% of the benefits that it is otherwise obligated to pay.” My bottom line: SS will be around post 2035, but I will only get about 75% of my current estimated payouts, absent any Congressional actions.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          By some date, they will BEGIN to reduce payouts and gradually decrease payout to about 74% if congress does nothing.

          But they have made changes over time normally and even now, they are increasing the retirement age and raising the income ceiling where FICA tax does not collect.

          The fabled Trust Fund itself is the result of Congress acting back during Reagan’s term when they foresaw the coming boomers and raised the tax and it brought in additional revenues then as payouts exceed annual FICA tax revenues, the fund was used to make up the difference. When it “runs out”, there will no longer be a way to make up the FICA tax shortfalls to payouts and payouts will have to start to begin to reduce.

          Social Security is an insurance annuity in that, first it will pay survivors benefits but second, you’ll receive Social Security for as long as you live regardless of how much you personally put into it.

          There is a lot of misinformation being put out by those who oppose SS on a concept/philosophical basis – rather than the truth and facts.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          Have the documents you’ve read take into account the year pandemic we just endured? The market watch article I linked is where my opinion was rooted, it wasn’t just pulled out of thin air.

          It’s a ponzi-scheme, you rob from peter to pay paul and you will run out of other peoples money as the population increases (it’s simple math).

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            it’s a pay-as-you-go fund. It works a lot like an insurance annuity.

            You get retirement money for as long as you live even if you get more in payout than you put in.

            There is plenty of authoritative information that undermines the disinformation put out by those who oppose the concept of SS.

          2. Yes, the Marketwatch article you cited did take into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It moved the date by when the Social Security Trust Fund would need to reduce its payouts from 2035 to 2034. If you are totally reliant upon Social Security for your retirement funding that year advancement matters.
            Mr. G: Please remember that from its inception, SS was an income transfer program from the active workers to the retired folks. People started getting SS checks without having put anything into the system. It is not an annuity becuase I don’t have a legal claim on a guaranteed stream of payments. See our conversation above about how that stream of payments will (unless Congress acts) be decremented in 2034. If SS were an annuity, that would not happen. Because it is an income transfer stream, that can happen.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            “The Social Security Annuity is a guaranteed lifetime income stream backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. In essence, it’s a government issued annuity. I always tell people that even if you think you hate all annuities, you already own the best inflation annuity on the planet”

            ” Social Security is the term used for the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in the United States,

            another good read:
            https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2017-01.html

            What distinguishes Social Security from a plain old income transfer program is that it pays benefits according to circumstances – no matter how much you paid into it.

            Like survivor or disability and it will pay you income for as long as you live – no matter how much you actually paid into it. AND, that ALSO means if you die before you get back all you paid into it – you do not get back the balance for your inheritance.

            That walks and talks like an insurance annuity which is how SS and most others classify it.

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Currently, for workers who began earning at or above the cap when the cap was put in place in the mid-80s, Social Security is a roughly +2% investment vehicle, neglecting the spousal benefit. For minimum wage earners with 40 quarters, the average annual return is well over 10%.

            By that I mean, that had a cap-level earner kept his payroll contributions and invested it where he earned just over 2% average annual return, then at 66, he would be able to duplicate his benefit until age 95.

            Could you do better? Undoubtedly. But instead of grousing, if you treat your SocSec as part of your investment portfolio instead of calling it a Ponzi scheme, then you (high earning professional) are free to adjust your total portfolio to higher risk, higher return investments.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            well.. try to get an investment or annuity that guarantees an inflation clause…

  40. LarrytheG Avatar

    Matt Adams | February 23, 2021 at 8:06 am |

    Larry my 30% burden doesn’t even encompass property tax and the whole host of other “taxes” I’m forced to pay.

    right, but it’s not like they pay NO taxes, they DO.

    “A flat tax is the only fair tax, but you don’t want to touch it.”

    rejected by many if not most including Conservatives. You pay according to your ability is more fair and less regressive.

    “We’ve already been down this road where you don’t understand the EITC and how you suppose “Conservatives” support it, they don’t.

    https://prospect.org/economy/like-eitc-plenty-turns-out./

    not far right folks, but still a lot of more moderate Conservatives.

    “The EITC keeps wages low and keeps people dependent upon the system, it’s not helping them out or forcing them to be paid what they are worth. Much like people who shirk e-verify, you keeping wages suppressed and perpetuating the broken system.

    Reagan’s coined worst 6 words of “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help” was true. The Government cannot create anything, they only take and redistribute.”

    Big philosophical debate but poverty is like highway congestion and crime – you don’t “fix it” – it stays with us and less people in poverty is the goal and it does work.

    “PPACA? You mean the $300 Billion dollar pork lined within the $1.9 Trillion COVID relief they want to pass? It still cannot operate without Government pumping it up. That’s what is known as a failure.”

    Do you mean ACA?

    “What entitlements do I enjoy? SS won’t be around when it’s my time.”

    yep , it will… as long as we collect FICA… SS, by the way is also means-tested AND it’s INSURANCE as much as it is an entitlement.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Umm PPACA is the name of the law, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I use it’s proper term to ignore any negative connotations that “Obamacare” would garner, because they wouldn’t be sound or rational.

      https://khn.org/morning-breakout/two-year-boost-to-aca-subsidies-added-to-stimulus-package/

      “yep , it will… as long as we collect FICA… SS, by the way is also means-tested AND it’s INSURANCE as much as it is an entitlement.”

      No it won’t, SS will run out in 2034 (I will be ineligible to collect at that time).

      https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-latest-estimate-of-when-social-security-will-run-out-of-money-2020-12-25#:~:text=After%20taking%20into%20account%20the,painted%20early%20in%20the%20pandemic.

      SS isn’t means tested, it pulls a tax away from me to which I’ll never be repaid what I pay in. It’s a ponzi-scheme.

      1. Mr. Adams, your statement about Social Security is not accurate. Social Security will still have funds but those funds will not be sufficient to pay everybody what their current payout estimates are. I have read in other documents (sorry I don’t have the citations for those documents) that the SS Trust Fund will only be able to pay out 78% of its otherwise mandated obligations. See this line from the Marketwatch document. “For several years now, retirees and near-retirees have had to squarely face the prospect that, unless Congress acts, Social Security at some point in the mid-2030s will not be able to pay 100% of the benefits that it is otherwise obligated to pay.” My bottom line: SS will be around post 2035, but I will only get about 75% of my current estimated payouts, absent any Congressional actions.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          By some date, they will BEGIN to reduce payouts and gradually decrease payout to about 74% if congress does nothing.

          But they have made changes over time normally and even now, they are increasing the retirement age and raising the income ceiling where FICA tax does not collect.

          The fabled Trust Fund itself is the result of Congress acting back during Reagan’s term when they foresaw the coming boomers and raised the tax and it brought in additional revenues then as payouts exceed annual FICA tax revenues, the fund was used to make up the difference. When it “runs out”, there will no longer be a way to make up the FICA tax shortfalls to payouts and payouts will have to start to begin to reduce.

          Social Security is an insurance annuity in that, first it will pay survivors benefits but second, you’ll receive Social Security for as long as you live regardless of how much you personally put into it.

          There is a lot of misinformation being put out by those who oppose SS on a concept/philosophical basis – rather than the truth and facts.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          Have the documents you’ve read take into account the year pandemic we just endured? The market watch article I linked is where my opinion was rooted, it wasn’t just pulled out of thin air.

          It’s a ponzi-scheme, you rob from peter to pay paul and you will run out of other peoples money as the population increases (it’s simple math).

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            it’s a pay-as-you-go fund. It works a lot like an insurance annuity.

            You get retirement money for as long as you live even if you get more in payout than you put in.

            There is plenty of authoritative information that undermines the disinformation put out by those who oppose the concept of SS.

          2. Yes, the Marketwatch article you cited did take into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It moved the date by when the Social Security Trust Fund would need to reduce its payouts from 2035 to 2034. If you are totally reliant upon Social Security for your retirement funding that year advancement matters.
            Mr. G: Please remember that from its inception, SS was an income transfer program from the active workers to the retired folks. People started getting SS checks without having put anything into the system. It is not an annuity becuase I don’t have a legal claim on a guaranteed stream of payments. See our conversation above about how that stream of payments will (unless Congress acts) be decremented in 2034. If SS were an annuity, that would not happen. Because it is an income transfer stream, that can happen.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            “The Social Security Annuity is a guaranteed lifetime income stream backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. In essence, it’s a government issued annuity. I always tell people that even if you think you hate all annuities, you already own the best inflation annuity on the planet”

            ” Social Security is the term used for the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in the United States,

            another good read:
            https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2017-01.html

            What distinguishes Social Security from a plain old income transfer program is that it pays benefits according to circumstances – no matter how much you paid into it.

            Like survivor or disability and it will pay you income for as long as you live – no matter how much you actually paid into it. AND, that ALSO means if you die before you get back all you paid into it – you do not get back the balance for your inheritance.

            That walks and talks like an insurance annuity which is how SS and most others classify it.

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Currently, for workers who began earning at or above the cap when the cap was put in place in the mid-80s, Social Security is a roughly +2% investment vehicle, neglecting the spousal benefit. For minimum wage earners with 40 quarters, the average annual return is well over 10%.

            By that I mean, that had a cap-level earner kept his payroll contributions and invested it where he earned just over 2% average annual return, then at 66, he would be able to duplicate his benefit until age 95.

            Could you do better? Undoubtedly. But instead of grousing, if you treat your SocSec as part of your investment portfolio instead of calling it a Ponzi scheme, then you (high earning professional) are free to adjust your total portfolio to higher risk, higher return investments.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            well.. try to get an investment or annuity that guarantees an inflation clause…

  41. LarrytheG Avatar

    Matt Adams | February 23, 2021 at 9:02 am | Reply

    “Umm PPACA is the name of the law, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I use it’s proper term to ignore any negative connotations that “Obamacare” would garner, because they wouldn’t be sound or rational.

    https://khn.org/morning-breakout/two-year-boost-to-aca-subsidies-added-to-stimulus-package/

    Yep. Do you realize that if you have employer-provided, it too is subsidized by about 40%?

    “yep , it will… as long as we collect FICA… SS, by the way is also means-tested AND it’s INSURANCE as much as it is an entitlement.”

    No it won’t, SS will run out in 2034 (I will be ineligible to collect at that time).”

    Nope. It will never run out as long as FICA tax is collected. Almost a trillion dollars a year is collected in FICA tax.

    https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm

    “https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-latest-estimate-of-when-social-security-will-run-out-of-money-2020-12-25#:~:text=After%20taking%20into%20account%20the,painted%20early%20in%20the%20pandemic.”

    No, this is the trust fund , not what is collected each year. The trust fund is what has been collected in excess of payout over prior years.

    “SS isn’t means tested, it pulls a tax away from me to which I’ll never be repaid what I pay in. It’s a ponzi-scheme.”

    Nope. You will get back some or all or more of what you put into it depending on when you start collecting and how long you live but up to 85% of it could be subject to income tax depending on other income you may receive.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      “No, this is the trust fund , not what is collected each year. The trust fund is what has been collected in excess of payout over prior years.

      “SS isn’t means tested, it pulls a tax away from me to which I’ll never be repaid what I pay in. It’s a ponzi-scheme.”

      Nope. You will get back some or all or more of what you put into it depending on when you start collecting and how long you live but up to 85% of it could be subject to income tax depending on other income you may receive.”

      Umm no, no I won’t and it’s a ponzi-scheme.

      Let me have my money and invest as I choose, don’t tax me to give it to someone who can’t be trusted with their money. If railroaders can be exempted to pay into their own pension funds, there isn’t much a reason for others to not have that same opportunity.

  42. LarrytheG Avatar

    Matt Adams | February 23, 2021 at 9:02 am | Reply

    “Umm PPACA is the name of the law, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I use it’s proper term to ignore any negative connotations that “Obamacare” would garner, because they wouldn’t be sound or rational.

    https://khn.org/morning-breakout/two-year-boost-to-aca-subsidies-added-to-stimulus-package/

    Yep. Do you realize that if you have employer-provided, it too is subsidized by about 40%?

    “yep , it will… as long as we collect FICA… SS, by the way is also means-tested AND it’s INSURANCE as much as it is an entitlement.”

    No it won’t, SS will run out in 2034 (I will be ineligible to collect at that time).”

    Nope. It will never run out as long as FICA tax is collected. Almost a trillion dollars a year is collected in FICA tax.

    https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm

    “https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-latest-estimate-of-when-social-security-will-run-out-of-money-2020-12-25#:~:text=After%20taking%20into%20account%20the,painted%20early%20in%20the%20pandemic.”

    No, this is the trust fund , not what is collected each year. The trust fund is what has been collected in excess of payout over prior years.

    “SS isn’t means tested, it pulls a tax away from me to which I’ll never be repaid what I pay in. It’s a ponzi-scheme.”

    Nope. You will get back some or all or more of what you put into it depending on when you start collecting and how long you live but up to 85% of it could be subject to income tax depending on other income you may receive.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      “No, this is the trust fund , not what is collected each year. The trust fund is what has been collected in excess of payout over prior years.

      “SS isn’t means tested, it pulls a tax away from me to which I’ll never be repaid what I pay in. It’s a ponzi-scheme.”

      Nope. You will get back some or all or more of what you put into it depending on when you start collecting and how long you live but up to 85% of it could be subject to income tax depending on other income you may receive.”

      Umm no, no I won’t and it’s a ponzi-scheme.

      Let me have my money and invest as I choose, don’t tax me to give it to someone who can’t be trusted with their money. If railroaders can be exempted to pay into their own pension funds, there isn’t much a reason for others to not have that same opportunity.

Leave a Reply