Is Bill Clinton partially to blame for the militarization of our police?
If you'll recall, in the 1990s, Bill Clinton pushed, during the early years of his presidency, to put more cops on the city streets - spilling billions of dollars into fighting crime. To a point, this made sense since the crime of the early 90s, especially among cities plagued by gang violence, was pretty high and becoming an increasingly challenging situation for communities.
However, that was also associated with the downturn in the early 90s economy, as the U.S. plunged into recession.
As the economy rebounded in the mid-90s, the crime rate dipped and, relative to where it was in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s, crime has been fairly low.
A lot changed, though, in the 1990s.
In 1990, the U.S. government only spent in value of $1 million in military equipment transferred to U.S. police. In 1995, at the height of Clinton's push to reduce crime, that number jumped to $324 million. Even today, the increase between 1995 and 2013, is marginal compared to the jump from 1990 to 1995.
That graph is startling.
But it does lead one to ask if the materialization of our police force in the mid-90s led to the sudden drop in violent crimes across the U.S.? If it did, do the ends even come close to justifying the means?
Just saw that graph and was like, "whoa...wtf happened in the 90s?"
= new reply since forum marked as read
