The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

On the offensive last Friday in Minneapolis, an angry President confidently told a group of police officials, "We're going to get you a crime bill." That pledge will be redeemed but not because Bill Clinton promised it. The President's own political weakness was largely responsible for the House's meting out the death penalty to the crime legislation last week. Resurrection will follow a different reality. As crime is the primary concern of most Americans, a failure to deliver relief could deliver to many members of Congress an early retirement in November. So at some point, something will win majority support. But crafting a bill that can pass is not the same as creating a bill worthy of passage.

If the test is, Which provisions will reduce crime?, the red meat in the $33 billion bill isn't worth chewing over. Neither the jolt of additional death penalties nor the "three strikes and you're out" scheme that Clinton adores -- the plan that would incarcerate for life those felons convicted of a third violent crime -- would significantly lower crime rates .

The $9 billion worth of prevention programs is harder to tar uniformly. "Hope in Youth," which awards $20 million for "multi-issue forums for public policy discussion," is unadulterated pork. On the other hand, the widely derided late-night sports programs ($40 million) are meant to duplicate the inner-city "midnight basketball" games that many cops praise for helping keep idle kids off the streets.

What is most worth saving in the bill? The ban on assault weapons, which won't cost taxpayers a cent. The building of more prisons, which will cut the number of plea bargains and ensure that those who should remain behind bars do so. And most important, the hiring of 100,000 new cops.

Serious crime fighting emphasizes the certainty of capture. Criminals calculate the odds of apprehension and rightly conclude that for the most part, crime pays. As recently as a decade ago, arrest rates for homicide exceeded 95%, even in the big cities. They're now down to 50%. The robbery arrest rate is down to 24%; it's 13% for burglaries. Of all the reasons advanced for these depressing statistics, the most telling is this: there are currently 3.3 violent crimes committed for every police officer, exactly the opposite of the ratio 25 years ago. Whatever the value of prevention programs, would-be criminals will be deterred only when jail is the likeliest consequence of their behavior. The solution is more cops, but at the moment, the pending bill earmarks only enough money to hire about 20,000 officers annually -- and after five years, the federal aid runs out. Many localities short of cash (which fairly describes most of them) are leery of hiring cops they will have to lay off when the funds dry up. A true anticrime bill would rework the spending splits and emphasize adding police above everything else.

Late last Friday, a top White House official read the House Republican leadership's willingness to negotiate as a prelude to caving in. "They're afraid," he said. "We may just send the same bill up there over and over and force them to vote against it again and again. Let's see how eager they are to be tagged soft on crime." Clever politics? Maybe. Good policy? Hardly. There's still time to do it right, still time to pass a bill the President can finally accurately tout as the "biggest, toughest and smartest" ever.