'Lock your doors, load your guns', Kentucky sheriff warns after suspending law enforcement

So what happens when local law enforcement shuts down due to budget cuts?

A sheriff in one Kentucky county is warning residents to police themselves after he says he was forced to shut down his office due to a lack of funding.

In a Facebook post, Martin County Sheriff John Kirk said his office did not receive a $75,000 payment it was owed from a fiscal court that should have been delivered last month.

“Folks, lock your doors, load your guns and get you a barking, biting dog,” he wrote. “If the sheriff’s office can’t protect you, who will?”

Kirk also said his office now is responsible for an additional $99,000 in annual expenditures.

Kirk temporarily ended all law enforcement services, laid off a bookkeeper and limited operational hours to 8 a.m. to noon on weekdays.

"My wife has worked many evenings and weekends free of charge to help the Sheriffs office stay afloat," he wrote. "She has a full time job and drives two and a half hours to and from her job everyday. She has saved the tax payers a fortune."

The Lexington Herald-Leader reported that part of the funding issue is due to a major decline in coal severance taxes in eastern Kentucky. The newspaper said that money from an economic assistance fund has dropped by 80 percent since 2012 — from $34 million to $7.6 million.

Kirk said state police would be responsible for answering any calls.
​

https://www.ksbw.com/article/lock-y...rns-after-suspending-law-enforcement/26348020

Yeah, state police, good luck with that. You'd have to tell them there was a mass murder spree in progress to get them to respond.

People in more populated city regions just take government services for granted, like they will always be there, dependable no matter what happens.

Yeah, try telling that to those living in the North. We had a snow storm and the roads were completely impassable for 5 days. I don't think the local police here are going to land a helicopter if I needed them. Maybe in other places, but they don't have the budget for that here.
(And I'm not sure it would even be safe to take a helicopter up right in the middle of a snow storm, but I could be wrong)

​

 

Good thing there's no meth problem in Kentucky.

 

So what the OP is demonstrating is the end result of GOP Spending Cuts!

A breakdown in Law and Order because the GOP refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to fund the government of We the People.

Obviously the GOP never understood the part about the government being FOR the People.

 

How is it that the left leaning population always seems to think the answer to all the problems in the US will be solved by taxing the rich. If your idea of Government for the People is taking money from those who have more than you then you I would say I want no part of that government or people.

 

I see, so obviously if we had bigger government we could be more completely reliant on that government.

And of course a helicopter or two is so affordable for a rural area without a big population...

Yeah, bigger government is needed when you make all the people more dependent. But I don't think you really have an idea how much money that costs.
Some of these states and rural areas don't have all the money in the world like coastal areas.

Once again, an example of city people being naive and thinking what works for them will work for everyone else, even though they constitute less than 1% of the area of the country. (Yes, over 50% of the population lives in less than 1% of the area)

 

Totally false and truly an uninformed reply as to what is actually happening.

 

So you have NEVER done the MATH for yourself?

When did the current National Debt begin? That would be under St Reagan who ALSO slashed tax rates for the wealthy.



Cutting the TOP tax rates has a DIRECT CORRELATION to the massive increase in the National Debt.

The math doesn't lie!

 

Your refusal to accept the hard reality of the GOP's Fiscal Malfeasance is not my problem.

 

Ironic PROJECTION duly noted for the record and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

Well your chart indicates it started before Reagan. The tax rate at any level will never be able to keep pace with government spending.

I personally favor a flat tax but suggest that to Democrats and stand back for their reaction.

 

There has always been a National Debt but the INCREASE began when St Reagan cut the top tax rates for the wealthy and all further GOP tax cuts have just exacerbated the problem.

A flat tax is REGRESSIVE and does way more HARM than good.

Government spending is NOT the problem.

Failure to tax the wealthy at the appropriate rate is the problem.

 

One thousand likes

 

Government over-spending is always the problem, and taxing the rich is never a solution, but you wouldn't understand that because you're not wealthy.

New York tried that idea and the wealthy pulled their money, business's and jobs out of New York and moved on, now Ney York is facing a billion dollar shortfall in tax revenue, what a stupid plan that was.

That plan will always bankrupt a city, a state or a nation.

 

It might work at the city or state level but it WON'T work at the national level because it doesn't matter where they go they still have to pay US Federal taxes.

But that is only something you would know if you were wealthy enough to live overseas.

 

How do you see it as appropriate to tax the wealthy at a higher rate?

 

Because the government needs to be FULLY FUNDED and the only way to make that happen is to use PROGRESSIVE tax rates.

We have the LARGEST military expenditure and yet we BORROW to pay for it. If you don't want higher taxes then cut back military spending by 90%.

 

Maybe if the only way to fully fund government is to tax some people unfairly then maybe government need to rethink what it spends money on. Maybe if the rich are going to pay a disproportionate amount they should be entitled to better benefits then those are paying less. That's how it works on most things. I can't afford stake and lobster so I order chicken. But whatever I order I don't go to the well-to-do appearing gentleman at the next table and ask him to pay for my meal just because he can afford to. Your chart is like those that so many others like to post here in the PF. It shows what other countries are doing. I don't really care how much total tax revenue Czech Republic takes in.

I do agree we could save money by cutting back on the military. We could kill two birds with one stone. Bring the troops home and have them guard the border. That would save us having to spend money on a wall.

 

While we agree on cutting back the military spending you don't seem to understand that it is you and I who are SUBSIDIZING the steak and lobster meals of the wealthy.

Someone who earns $50k p.a. spends his entire income after taxes on living expenses with nothing left over for savings and investments.

Someone who earns $50 MILLION p.a. spends a small fraction of his income on living expenses with the BULK of it left over for savings and investments.

Why must the former live hand to mouth in fear of losing their job while the latter never has to worry about how they are going to pay their bills and put that steak and lobster on the table?

But you want them to CARRY the exact same TAX BURDEN even though it is clear that the latter won't even miss what they pay in taxes while the former can't eveb afford to send his kids to college.

There is a MASSIVE SHORTFALL in tax income to cover current spending and that can ONLY be eliminated by INCREASING taxes because ALL attempts by the GOP to cut spending have been a complete and utter disaster.

Please explain why you are demanding that the guy making $50k MUST pay more in taxes that he cannot afford just because you don't believe that it is "fair" to make the wealthy pay a higher rate unless everyone else pays more too?

 

If an area experiences an economic downturn, yes the police services, schools and everything else will go down the toilet. Ghost towns don't deserve to be supported by state and federal taxpayers----they deserve to rise or fall on their own.

 

Not sure how you see that I am subsidizing the wealthy.

Someone who earns 50K a year and is living hand to mouth is doing something wrong. I have never made 50K and I live well.

The idea of taxing someone more because they "won't even miss" it seems completely inappropriate to me. And whether someone can afford to "send his kids to college" is completely irrelevant. Sending children to college is not a necessity.

I was not demanding but suggesting. And my suggestion was not that someone pay "more". When you say "more" it makes it sound like I want the person making less money to pay a higher tax than the person making more. I am suggesting that everyone pay the same percent. Obviously the person making more money will be paying more but it will be fair based on everyone paying the same percentage. A flat tax.

 

Flat taxes are REGRESSIVE and yes, they are a way to SUBSIDIZE the wealthy.

If you are getting by on less than $50k then you don't have a family or a mortgage.

 

How do you see flat tax as subsidizing the wealthy?

I have averaged 12K per year over my adult life. I retired from full time work at 46, paid my home off at 50. This year at 60 I will start drawing on my retirement account. I'm married and my wife has not worked out side the home since we married (putting up with me is a full-time job). We have no children which I will admit has allowed us to live much cheaper.

Not sure how we got into a discussion about taxes in a gun control forum but if we are going to continue maybe we should move to a more appropriate thread or start a new one.

Rich

 

Thats less money than Klickitat County (WA) has saved by employing a 130 volunteer 'posse' for things like event security, traffic control and SAR.

Someone should link Kirk up with them for budget advice

 

IOW you are not the typical person with a family struggling to get by on $50k.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/22/flat-taxes-taxpayers-alliance

http://robertreich.org/post/11753807617

 

That is partisan BS.

Flat taxes actually increase the taxes the wealthy actually pay... and makes everyone equally responsible for funding the government.

For all the talk leftists make about "progressive" tax rates, and making the "rich" pay their "fair share", isn't it odd that they manage to incorporate so many tax loopholes that any accountant worth their salt can ensure that their oh so woke "progressive" wealthy elite clients never have to pay a dime in taxes but they can triumphantly show how they're "forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share"?

Laughable.