[scrollbar]

Reposting my reply to this comment that you reposted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29504134)

If I read this article correctly then the author's point is that simply the passage of a bill to be enacted in the future is the cause of increased crime in the present, which seems like a shaky argument to me.

Also I'm noticing that the ABC7News article says

>More than $17 million will be diverted from the police to violence prevention and other services not involving police. Another $3.6 million will be put into the new MACRO program which will basically be a civilian crisis response program within the Oakland Fire Department addressing those in mental health crises.

This means that even assuming this is a net decrease of $20.6 million to budget, this is still giving back only ~half the net increase from this year's budget. So we should still be up $16 million or so vs. 2020

[ybessyehs654]

Again, this does not account for inflation (6.2%)

[scrollbar]

Also again, I don't see how inflation should apply to police budgets but not other budgets.

[ybessyehs654]

Sorry I don't seem to understand your argument. You're comparing the budgets in nominal terms without accounting for inflation. For example the $630 million this year won't be able to fund as many officers and services like the year prior due to inflation. Budgets are typically increased across the board to account for inflation.

[scrollbar]

Ah, thank you for clarifying, I understand now.

I still think this amounts to the argument "next year's budget cuts are increasing crime in my neighborhood now" which doesn't make sense to me.