During Bill Clinton the practice of tying laws to funding became used, IE. in Hillary's "stalking" laws (v.a.w.a.) to superfund police & county lawyers, signed just after the white house blowjob literally.

Why should law promise money to do the law: why wouldn't the taxpayer demand courts do the law without "extra funding". It's the law already!

What if there's no stalking? The States and police get the money anyway by filing questionable reports, of course.

It was illegal then, and is still argued as illegal: to tie laws and funding together.

But this law and funding deal goes WAY BEYOND stalking. We're talking parks and buildings and everything in between. It's an accounting mess just separating the two to see what's in the bill.

And Counties lie, they lie like hell, they hire liars to "apply to whatever funding they can legally get away with at a cost less than it provides"

SCREWING the taxpayer in the process: of course

little red riding hood

"ice isn't paying us to arrest illegal aliens. we don't have to do any laws we don't want to"

EXACLTY GERRY, YOU CAN NOT DO ANYTHING FOR YOUR GOV PAY UNLESS PAID EXTRA IN JAIL TO EARN YOUR SNICKERS BAR !

EXACTLY

this merit based idea is great for police. we'll just give them NO PAY and pay them only by laws tied to funding when "conditions are met". conditional pay.

THERE'S A TREMENDOUS PROBLEM: IT'S PROVEN, IN CORRUPT DEMOCRAT AREAS, TO CAUSE POLICE TO ARREST INNOCENT PEOPLE TO REACH FOR CASH.

egcnn

nndhg

3gke6

The Federal Government stopped highway funding in states that didn't pass seat belt laws. That predated Clinton...

7ygch

bcyv4

just modernization, "move on", they said

(actually they claimed without doing this they couldn't make agencies follow the law - which is a terrible lie - agencies still don't follow laws)

hhdd3