Across the Great Divide

The Safety in Beauty.

Spend it on cops

I find it deplorable that the mayor and City Council have approved $500,000 for the installation of 10 artistic water fountains when we clearly do not have enough police to keep the city safe and many of our roads and other infrastructure are in poor condition.

How many more police could we have on our streets for that $500,000? I would personally prefer the romance of safety and security.

SUSAN PETERS, MINNEAPOLIS

Given the choice between a beautiful place and a place with the most cops, which would you choose?

Of course, choosing beauty should not be either/or. In fact, making the place you live more beautiful is a strategy for fighting crime and neighborhood decline. More people are attracted to aesthetically pleasing spaces, and with more people come greater safety. (Note the gang banger types started to congregate around the soulless City Center, not Peavey Plaza next to Orchestra Hall.)

When you travel to other places, what delights you and makes you want to return?

When you take a picture on your trip, it's not of the police — unless they are wearing oddball uniforms or the tour guide tells you not to take their picture.

Our auto-scaled cities,  electronic door-locked commutes, prepackaged culture and big box branded commerce have desensitized us to the small detail, the grace note, the accident, the gifts left by strangers long dead, who wasted their money on beauty instead of centurions. They, too, are investments in community infrastructure.

But to answer Susan Peters, Mayor Rybak's budget for 2007 did include $3.4 million for 43 additional police officers. I don't know what the recurring costs will be after they are recruited, vetted, equipped, trained and paid salary and benefits, but for the first year, that's $79,000 per officer.

The fountains come out to $2,000 a year each, over 25 years, and if Rybak's plan to sign up more suburban cities for Minneapolis water adds just St. Louis Park or Eden Prairie (both have nasty drinking water), it'll all come out in the wash.

Next-to-Final Message from Command on Planet Von Mises.

If we had come in peace, you would not have taken us seriously.

So I hope you can see now why it was necessary to incinerate Iran and surgically depopulate Sweden. (It's best, we've found, to demonstrate more than one WMD technology, as you call it, and to make it very clear we are not choosing sides.)

If you fail to follow through with our mandate, there will be no flowers of supplication left on Earth to strew in our path when we return five years from now. Just so there is no misunderstanding...

But peace is what we bring. Peace and the liberation of mankind through the free market.

We do not like to intervene. It goes against our philosophy. But have tried voluntary compliance with other planets, and frankly, it did not work out.  Freedom is not such an easy thing to bear after many generations of living under the yokes of oligarchies, social democracies, republics, dictatorships, democracies, communes, guilds, unions, tribes and religious cults. To expect human societies to cast off government restraint and embrace the free market as their sole protector was simply too much to ask.

We know that now.

We had great hopes when we secretly installed Ronald, and Grover has been an effective change agent on a smaller scale, but the others have been a disappointment. We thought with Rudy, Mitt and Ron all in position, America at least, would be able to stumble forward with one of them. Cindy was a mere afterthought, a back up, and Jesse and Arnold, entertaining as they are, represented a little R&D project that is hereby discontinued.

As for George, let's just say he's coming with us.

And so we will grant you five years to correct your trading systems, remake your schools, manage your infrastructure, keep your air, water and land clean, move yourselves efficiently and safely, and decide how to handle crime, birth, illness, insanity and death. As for wars, I hope you understand those will be pointless, and defense is out of the question.

As a visual aid, Tehran will continue to smoke for five years, and any living thing passing between Kiruna and Malmo will succumb to the residual toxins. We are sorry about Copenhagen, but as you may appreciate, your arbitrary borders are unintelligible from space.

Fail to implement a total free market system, and our return will not be a demonstration project. We have no interest in hundred-year occupations.

We trust you will greet us as liberators next time. Of course, there is no other option.

Father of Quebec's Health Care System Turns Against His Baby?

Mitch Berg took some time out from his Second Amendment blogging to tackle a subject he appears to know less about: Canadian health care.

He quotes liberally from an editorial about a Task Force on the Funding of the Health System that hinges on the fact that Claude Castonguay, who was instrumental in establishing Quebec's system back in the 1960s, did his job as chair.

Mitch says, "Read the whole thing." But he doesn't mean read the report [ summary.pdf]. He means read the Investors' Business Daily piece that has been floating around the conservative blogs as some sort of proof that the Canadian health system sucks.

The editorial itself hangs a few anecdotes on a very thin thread attached to an appealing hook — that the architect of the system has

concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

The quotes come from two different places in the Task Force's 314-page report. It's a stretch to say the Chairman "said" them. And while the report proposes various measures to increase freedom of choice — such as forming cooperatives and paying more to get a procedure done sooner — it's also a reach to splice the two statements together with "he prescribes a radical overhaul."

In fact, the report describes changes in the context of Quebec's current public health system:

The Task Force does not call into question any of the basic principles of the existing system. As part of the social contract it is proposing, the Task Force identifies changes that, in terms of principles, are consistent with efforts previously made and initiatives already taken.

However, these are major changes. The Task Force is showing the way for profound transformations, compared to what we currently do and the obligations of each citizen as regards the health system. They draw on best practices noted throughout the world. The Task Force recommends that they be implemented in an orderly and gradual way, over a period of five to seven years.

And it also reaffirms the principle of a public system using language that is not GOP-approved:

Of all our public programs, the health system is the most significant expression of the
solidarity that unites all citizens to respond collectively to the basic needs of every human being.

I haven't read the entire report, but I've read enough to know it hardly represents a repudiation of the fundamental public health system.

1. The report covers only the Quebec system, not the entire Canadian system. Other provinces already allow some of the reforms proposed in the report.
2. The primary focus of the Task Force was improving the quality of care and access while addressing  unsustainable cost growth — the same issue facing all health systems globally.
3. The  Task Force cites the model reform efforts of other social democracies, not what's going on south of its border, and its objective was to "ensure the long-term viability of a system we are all strongly attached to, but which cannot be maintained without rigorous effort and a collective awareness of the issues at stake."
4. The "crisis" is "a crisis of confidence: our system is costly compared to our collective wealth, and is not as productive as it could be."

The report poses hard questions and makes recommendations that can be lifted out of context to make them seem like more than an evolutionary response to health care realities. American reformers should certainly consider its findings. But it is also a report specific to Quebec, its history and politics, none of which the IBD piece is interested in revealing.

This is not the first time this week Mitch got caught doing a drive-by post based on a too-quick read. Here he defends Michele Bachmann's $2 a gallon gas claim based on testimony about a different issue and a different bill.

 

News Flash: Investigation is Biased Because Kersten Says So.

Katherine Kersten has a blog, which must be a great relief to her Star Tribune editors. That gives their columnist an outlet for her more thinly supported pieces, like this one in which she criticizes findings by a law firm hired by a legislative committee to investigate how MnDOT policies and decision-making processes might have been a contributing factor in the I-35W bridge collapse.

Are you curious about their previous experience with bridges or transportation issues? Among the legal eagles at the lawyers’ “presentation” yesterday, according to the Star Tribune, were Bob Stein, who describes himself as “a nationally recognized authority in the areas of estate planning, trusts, and decedents’ estates.” And of course Tom Johnson, a former Minneapolis City Council Member and Hennepin County Attorney who, among other things, describes himself as an “advisor to numerous political candidates.”

— "News flash: Law firm hired by DFL legislators to investigate bridge collapse finds DFL was right!," Katherine Kersten's Think Again

Of course, if you're curious and expect more than perfunctory and partisan perspective, Kersten is not the source you would rely upon.

Here she hauls out her "quotes" technique to give an impression of "impartial research" to her "investigation." But check the link to Bob Stein's bio. You will note it lists two areas of practice, including "Complex Investigations." Tom Johnson's bio, should you click on the link, lists his political advising under community involvement. One wonders which former public officials do not advise numerous political candidates and why leading a large county attorney's office would not be relevant to investigating a highly politicized state department.

The knock on these gentlemen, in Kersten's book, is that they were paid out of DFL-controlled legislative committee budgets, and they have not larded their resumes with mention of bridges and transportation issues.

Never mind that the investigation they led was not into the direct cause of the bridge collapse, but is into management and organizational systems that may have contributed to overlooking technical problems. Never mind that the leaders of this sort of investigation don't do the technical heavy lifting. And never mind that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation is starting from the other end of the telescope.

And never mind that the NTSB that Kersten seems to think should have the final word built its reputation investigating airplane and rail accidents, not bridge collapses.

Although, the NTSB is world renowned in airline investigations, the last bridge collapse they investigated was in 2004 in Oklahoma when a tugboat rammed a bridge support -- not much question as to cause. Prior to that, you have to go all the way back to 1990, in Pocomoke City, Maryland. So, "gold standard" might be a little exaggerated in this case; actually, the jury is still out on "medal" awards.

According to House Transportation Committee chair Rep. Jim Oberstar, "there is huge skepticism about the objectivity of the board in conducting this inquiry." 

Oberstar's criticism of the agency comes at a time when the NTSB is stretched thin. The highway division of the NTSB that is investigating the 35W bridge collapse is the smallest unit of the agency. The agency's overall budget hasn't been increased in several years, but Chairman Rosenker didn't ask for an increase in funding for next year.

Both Rosenker and his predecessor have been criticized for politicizing the agency. It's also been criticized for its lack of expertise in transportation.

None of the current NTSB members has a background in engineering. Chairman Rosenker is a long-time Republican loyalist, going back to service on Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President. His official bio neglects that detail but plays up his decades-old experience as a lobbyist for the "American Safety Belt Council, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and the Safety Helmet Council of America. He later served as Director of Communications for the American Moped/Motorized Bicycle Association." whose safety expertise appears limited to lobbying for seat belt and helmet manufacturers. Dave Mindemann has more about politicization of the Board under President Bush.

Kersten also neglects to note that:

The day after the bridge collapse, Gov. Tim Pawlenty hired the firm of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates (WJE) to conduct a "parallel" investigation. This firm is now working hand-in-hand with the NTSB, under a contract administered by MnDOT. However, WJE is also under obligation to represent MnDOT in any litigation stemming from the collapse -- a clear conflict of interest that undermines the work of the NTSB.

The Office of the Legislative Auditor has also investigated the department and found it lacking. The non-partisan OLA findings helped push Molnau out the door as head of MnDOT.

Of course transportation funding and MnDOT itself are highly politicized; they simply became more so under Lt. Gov. Molnau's leadership and Pawlenty's approach to underfunding. And when all the reports are on the table, Minnesotans should have a pretty clear picture of the extent of the damage.

Advance News Flash: Kersten won't see it.

Pawlenty and the Health Care Honey Pot.

No one has covered Gov. Pawlenty's budget maneuvers and manipulations of the Health Care Access Fund better than Britt Robson. For an early example, see part III of this story, updated here, and most recently here.

Of course the reason both the governor and the Legislature proposed ambitious task forces in the first place — and the reason both task forces swallowed hard and came up with huge, radical reforms — is that health care costs are a cyclone destined to lay waste to government finances. Health care is projected to cost the state $50 billion by 2013 — or about $15 billion more than is currently spent on the entire general fund. Meanwhile, employers have seen the storm blowing in and are bailing out.

Employers bailing out of providing health insurance and Pawlenty bailing out the General Fund with proceeds from the medical provider tax as the storm approaches.  This is not an issue  we can solve through back door budget games.

The Fox is Customer of the Hen House, Afterall.

Steve Berg at MinnPost muses on the legacy of de/under-regulation.

But now, as the George W. Bush years draw to a close, the perils of underregulation seem evermore apparent: Dangerous toys imported from China; diseased cows slaughtered for meat, a Justice Department disinterested in white-collar crime, and a lax attitude at nearly every federal agency with initials — from the FCC to the FHA, from the FDA to the EPA.

"The market isn't the solution to pollution," quipped Michael Silverstein in the blog Moderate Voice, reflecting a widespread impression that the ideology of unbridled markets has overstepped its bounds in many areas.

Deregulation, like certain other conservative ideas, isn't so bad in theory, especially when you look at it in the short term and from a business point of view, as conservatives tend to do. Reducing regulatory restraints frees money and time and hastens new ideas. It drives down prices.

In this under-regulated world, the fox is the hen house's happy  customer.

There are no pirates, no earth scorchers, no purloiners, and if there are, by Jove, prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Which may work when the Malagasy freebooters are wearing eye patches, but not so well when they come from Manhattan sporting cuff links.

Deregulation has a certain emotional appeal, too. Nobody, including liberals, likes to be told what to do or would prefer paperwork to getting on with a favorite task. Big government, wealth-confiscating socialist elitist that I am, I have been known to skirt a regulation or exceed a limit or two. Nothing to enrich myself or run over someone else, you understand, but to assert a little of that Western libertarian cussedness that has not been entirely wrung out of me by living about 40 years in the Midwest. No one wants to be regulated, except a few poor souls who fantasize about chicks in Nazi leather, not bureaucrats in Washington.

So the little folks sign up for the deal and for a while get their new subdivisions, cheap airfares, SUVs and low-cost Chinese products.

The story the other day about Maricopa, Arizona, is but one example of how the bag-holding is left to the suckers, the dreamers and the late-comers. By the time the fan becomes encrusted, the developer, the CEO, the fund manager, board member and the energy trader have collected handsomely, and if they are truly fortunate, are well beyond the statute of limitations.

If you chart the free market by how high the aggregate line on the growth graph travels, it all looks pretty good. But if you drill down to individual lives, communities and pieces of ground, the air gets harder to breathe and the food gets harder to stomach. You are paying some company 79 cents for one bottle of water you could refill 2,850 times for the same price at your municipal tap. You are sweating out a mortgage. You are sitting in the Chicago airport. You are calling the insurance company for the fourth time. You are still looking for a job. You are a trucker driving on an unprofitable run. You are...

In Case You Think I've Gone Gun Crazy...

Over at my grown-up blog, I have a post about how the governor is up to old tricks:

Suppose you are in a working family, just barely getting by, in a state where “compassionate” tax-cutters say they are looking out for you.

If you’re in Minnesota, you’ll hear right away about a sales tax cut that benefits you hardly at all, while in the fine print of the same budget proposal you might be among the more than quarter million households who would lose a tax refund worth at least 30 times that much.

There's also a piece about how Minnesota fares in a new study that grades state government management performance. (Hint: With grade inflation, the gentleman's C is now a B-.)

And an earlier post about the state's low appetite for government accountability — odd, given all the rhetoric about rooting out waste — was picked up today by MinnPost.

Military Wives' War Service is Often Out of Sight.

My father was on a destroyer in the China Sea when I was born. Four years later, I remember being told I was now the "man of the house" and needed to help my pregnant mother and my brother while my dad was deployed off the coast of Cuba.

I was too young to know what my mother was really going through, but I've had a few glimpses now, thanks to my nephew's wife, Gwen.

Today I read the military is considering changing policy so soldiers serving in South Korea can be accompanied by their families. It reminded me of this commentary about how the military lifestyle makes the pursuit of a career nearly untenable for military wives.

I know the challenges that Army wives face. I've been a lawyer and an Army wife for 10 years. In that period, I've moved seven times. I've taken four different bar exams and held five different jobs. My income has been taxed in at least five states. My children have had five different nannies. I think it's safe to say that military wives like me face career obstacles that few civilian wives could appreciate.

The author, Laura Dempsey, writes mainly about her personal and professional tribulations as an Army wife. But the challenges she faces as an attorney sounded different from what Gwen has dealt with as her husband, Ben, served in Iraq.

Missing from Dempsey's account was the type of huge supporting role Gwen was playing back at Ft. Hood, Texas.

I sent her link to the article and asked her to describe how spouses like her are asked to support our military. I thought everyone supporting our troops should be aware of those spousal sacrifices, too. It's a level of uncompensated service that's borne off the books and out of sight of the taxpayers. Her volunteer work, plus mothering three kids, doesn't just keep her from earning a living. It can represent a drain on the family finances.

Here are some excerpts from her reply.

You asked me for my take on the support that is somewhat expected from military spouses.  This is a complicated subject and very near to my heart.

My specific experience revolves around the program that the army has put in place to assist the unit in preparing families to be separated due to deployment as well as to create a bond between families in order to create a support system and good communication resources for when the soldiers are away. It is called the Family Readiness Group [FRG]. There is a group at each level in the hierarchy of the Army.

Here is how it works:  generally the Commander of a unit tasks the job of Family Readiness Group leader to his wife. If the Commander is not married, then another wife may volunteer to lead or the next officer in command's wife may be asked to step up (as in my situation)... The leader position carries a lot of responsibility because it isn't just the volunteer's reputation at stake.

I considered summarizing all ways Gwen and other FRG members are supporting the troops and their families. It was quite a list, but it didn't really capture the level of commitment involved. I think Americans need to hear more.

We collected supplies for all of the babies born in the unit and delivered the gifts to the hospital. We also organized meals to be delivered to the homes of all of our new moms as well as any local family members that became ill or had a death in the family or any other circumstance brought to my attention.

I had to attend all meetings and training sessions pertaining to the FRG group and dealing with the stressful deployment situation (usually 2-3 per month, about 2 hrs each and had to find and pay a babysitter each time) and then disseminate the relevant info to about 100 family members via email, phone or US post depending on their situation. 

I had to collect and organize accurate contact info for our families so that in the event of an emergency the correct people would be notified as well as to keep communication lines open. I had to make regular contact with each family member to make sure they were up to date and to try to help with any issues. 

I was part of the CARE TEAM for the unit which goes to the homes of family members whose soldier has been injured or killed to provide support (babysitting, making phone calls, a shoulder to cry on, etc). I was the liaison between the family member and the army. Any question or issue that they needed help with they would contact me about it first and I would either answer it or find the appropriate person and forward them on. 

As a group, we send care boxes to the unit for every holiday and at least 1 x per month. We visited all of our injured soldiers at BAMC (2 hrs south of here) or at our the Base's hospital. We went to memorial services, purple heart ceremonies, and also coordinated transportation for soldiers coming home for R&R leave or emergencies. 

When the soldiers were redeployed we made sure that all of the single soldiers living in the barracks had blankets, pillows, sheets, toiletries, etc. All of which were not provided by the Army and had to be paid for through fundraising by our group. We only had 30 soldiers in the barracks, but I know a few units had over 100. 

I personally went to every welcome home ceremony. Each event that required our group to pre-prepare boxes, or goody bags or even washing the sheets and blankets was held at my home. Each time I had to clean and prepare my home for guests and I also fed the whole group each time.

She also described a family that almost lost their baby during a series of medical setbacks. The father was in Iraq with Ben, and Gwen scrambled to coordinate communications so he could get home.

The baby was in very bad shape and I even worked with the brigade level FRG leaders to start making funeral arrangements. Then this family's other child fell ill...

To make a long story maybe a little less long, the soldier got home in record time, the baby survived, and I had a $360 cell phone bill. I also had to call in many favors from friends to babysit and run errands for me while I dealt with this situation. The friends that all helped me are also army wives dealing with deployed husbands, acting as single moms, some of them are also FRG leaders, and they all took time away from their families and FRG groups to help.

I know I'm forgetting things that we did. I'm sorry if it all seems a little scatter-brained. Even as I sit here writing to you, I need to be assembling gifts and award certificates for all of my volunteers for a recognition ceremony this weekend, and I need to pick up Will's glasses from the store, make dinner, help with homework, and still be nice to my husband when he gets home.  [Ben returned in December.]

It's all what you make of it. No one is forced to volunteer... just like you aren't forced to enlist.  If I didn't want to do it, I never would have stepped up. It's a lifestyle that Ben and I are committed to for the time being. 

By the way, I think its funny that Ms. Dempsey is complaining that her kids have had to have 5 different nannies. Nannies?  Really?  That is so far outside my bubble of understanding. Must not be too tough if she has a nanny. I want a nanny.

Just kidding.

– Gwen

Weekend Scene from Across the Divide.

Minnesota legislators haven't voted a raise for themselves — technically, for the next legislature — in ten years. Look at the furor over raising a gas tax that hadn't changed in 20 years; that would be nothing compared to the stink arising from legislators raising their pay above what a call center worker makes.

They have to go on record and pass a bill; they can't index their pay to inflation, either, because that would be "putting spending on autopilot."

So last session, they went in for a bit of subterfuge and increased their per-diem payments via a committee voice vote. Legislators who claim the per diem for every day the legislature is in session can double their pay. You can see  how much your legislators actually took home here.

King Banaian and I have had a couple off-line exchanges about legislative per diems, the gist of which is that it would be more honest if the legislature voted to raise base salaries above the current $31,140 and stopped using per-diem reimbursements as a de facto pay increase.

Now I see Barbara Banaian is advocating something similar, proposing a $5,000 pay bump and a return to previous per diem rates. Offhand, it seems reasonable, though I might suggest pegging per diems at the federal rate for Minneapolis/St. Paul and take the legislature out of the rate-setting game.

I suppose DFL legislators would sense a trap, but if King and I could agree on this, what about Pogemiller and Seifert?

*****

Governor Pawlenty's budget balancing plan includes — surprise! — a tax cut and spending down some of the surplus from last year that, had we listened to the taxes-is-stealing crowd, would already be invested in flat screen TVs and highway futures.

*****

Comcast Corp. admitted yesterday that it paid people to attend a government hearing. Company critics say the freelance attendees were there to crowd them out; Comcast says they were merely saving seats for employees.

The five-hour hearing Monday at Harvard University was organized by the Federal Communications Commission to address the issue of net neutrality, a hot-button topic for those who think there should be minimal restrictions on Internet traffic.

— Philadelphia Inquirer, via TradingMarkets.com [h/t End the Echo]

ISPs like Comcast are lobbying for the ability to charge content providers for higher download rates, which smaller and less mainstream users fear could lead to restricting their access to information. Clogging hearings with rent-a-drones sounds like Comcast has already started.

Who Ordered the Free Lunch?

One of the persistent arguments against a progressive tax system (higher earners pay a higher rate) is that the wealthy already pay the majority of taxes (true) but receive less benefit (let's discuss).

Why should they pay more when they appear to "consume" less government?

Cost/benefit arguments seem very rational on the surface, but  there's a problem with applying them to society. When we try to understand who actually benefits from a change in tax policy or from public-funded services, a lot depends on where we draw the lines — what we count as a cost, what we define as a benefit, and over what time period we measure the payback.

Here's a simple example.

My brother-in-law recently got an estimate on a system that would heat his water with solar power. After calculating the costs to install the system and deducting energy company rebates, he figured the system would pay for itself in 13 years. Using that number and his personal values about conserving energy and avoiding pollution, he can make a decision about whether to make the investment.

But suppose we were trying to make the same calculation for a national policy that would mandate heating domestic hot water.  A relatively simple decision gets complicated by diverse values, different financial situations, geographies with different amounts of available solar, the impact on costs if millions of homes demand solar systems, the impact on the power generating industry, the magnified environmental benefits, etc.

Calculating direct versus indirect benefits also invites disagreement.

Advocates for more highway spending who drive everywhere see no benefit to them of investing in transit. They discount the value of reduced fuel consumption, pollution and congestion, the cost avoidance of having to build more highway lanes or the benefits of more compact development patterns.

Advocates of lowering taxes on the wealthy point to the cost of entitlements that disproportionately go to the poor and middle class — and to the fact that the rich don't use more public school, roads or national defense than the next person.

On a per-capita basis, perhaps that's true. Rich and poor each have but one life to give to a terrorist, and a new Bentley consumes the same amount of road as a 1988 El Dorado on its last legs. But the high-asset individual has much more to lose from an attack — in destroyed property, disrupted business and diminished investment portfolio — so military, police and fire protection have much greater value.

David Cay Johnston's Free Lunch is full of examples of how benefits of government services and subsidies flow upward in ways that aren't always apparent. Take, for instance, law enforcement.

Conventional wisdom would say people living in "nice" neighborhoods subsidize the police services in poor neighborhoods with higher crime rates. Johnston says since 1980, the violent crime rate has fallen by a fifth and the property crime rate is down more than a third. America has more police today, in both absolute and per capita numbers. And yet, average response time to calls for help has slowed.

What gives? Johnston says:

In many cities and suburbs, one of every eight calls for police service comes from a company that monitors burglar alarms. Taxpayers spend well north of $2 billion to respond to these calls, a subsidy to the alarm industry, which is spared that expense. More than a fourth of this subsidy goes to a single corporation, Tyco International.

Tyco executives and its shareholders — plus other alarm companies — make approximately 24% profit by monitoring their installed systems and then "outsourcing" the labor of actually checking the house to the police.  Most of these calls turn out to be false alarms, and very few burglaries are stopped or solved as a result of these calls.

As more police resources are devoted to chasing false alarms, less time goes to following up on other crime. A ten-year study in Los Angeles found that for every dollar the police spent investigating murders, the "false alarm squad" spent $1.25. That's why many cities have instituted a penalty for homeowners whose alarm systems generate too many calls in a year.

No municipal budget has a line item for this service, no corporate P&L notes the value of the taxpayer subsidy, and most taxpayers think criminals are responsible for the rising cost of law enforcement.