An article in today’s Buffalo News finally discusses the cost of the Bucky Phillips search, the largest manhunt in New York State history. According to the article, the cost will probably be at least $10 million, and will likely be much more. Gene Warner wrote:
The five-month search for Ralph “Bucky” Phillips had a heavy human cost, taking the life of a young state trooper, seriously wounding two others.
It also cost the State Police millions of dollars, with some law-enforcement sources claiming the figure could top $10 million.
Several sources said they believe the total price tag will rise much higher.
“I would say it’s in the neighborhood of 10-plus million [dollars],” said one local official familiar with the manhunt. “It could be double that.”
Several sources said the manhunt’s cost, especially in the last eight days after the Aug. 31 shooting of two troopers, topped $200,000 a day and may have exceeded $300,000 a day
But, there’s still no official word on the cost, which really sucks–don’t the state police work for us? I understand that Bucky needed to be caught, but the price tag According to the article:
Throughout the massive search, State Police officials repeatedly refused to provide any details about the cost.
They still don’t have any cost figures.
“There’s really no way to quantify it,” said Lt. Glenn Miner, a State Police spokesman in Albany. “The only time we tally such costs for an event would be when we’re looking for reimbursement from the federal government or a municipality.
“It’s not something we’re trying to hide,” he added. “We just don’t have the numbers.”
The manpower was, of course, the biggest cost in the search. According to the article,
One official who deals with police budgets said troopers were making about $45 per hour of overtime. If some 280 troopers were working 12- to 14-hour shifts each day, that adds up to more than $50,000 just in daily overtime.
And that doesn’t include most of the fringe benefits.
Also, lodging and food for out-of-town troopers who filled many Chautauqua County motels, not just in the northern part of the county, added thousands of dollars to the daily tab.
Other sizable costs in the manhunt included fuel for the dozens of police cars on each shift; transporting troopers here from across the state; the costs associated with using helicopters and other special equipment; and any overtime paid in other State Police barracks that sent troopers to Western New York.
While this was mostly a State Police operation, several nearby police agencies also participated in the costly search. But their dollar costs were more in the thousands, or tens of thousands.
“Many of the local law-enforcement agencies took a huge financial hit because of Ralph Phillips,” said State Sen. Catharine M. Young, R-Olean. “I’ve been very concerned about that, because that shouldn’t be put on the backs of the local taxpayers, especially property taxpayers.”
Young said that nearly $250,000 has been allocated by the State Senate and the governor’s office to help reimburse local police agencies through the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services.
I was in Beijing last year and a lot of this stuff was already starting. Basically the Chinese government is preparing to host the Olympics by putting up a giant facade, making the country look like something its not to the outside world. When I was there, skyscrapers (for the most part completely empty) were being built everywhere, restrooms were being brought up to western standards, personal hygiene habits were being improved and there was talk of shutting down factories prior to the olympics to make the city’s perpetually gray polluted skies into a healthy shade of blue.
According to an article in today’s Daily Mail, Beijing’s efforts to put a false face on their city go even deeper. According to the article,
Beijing is considering hospitalising the mentally ill, relaxing restrictions on religious services and giving businesses and factories a holiday in preparation for the 2008 Olympics.
A city newspaper and local official said the city office overseeing Olympic preparations has discussed dozens of contingency measures needed for the games.
These range from limits on the use of cars to banning the posting of handbills around the city, the Beijing Morning Post said.
Other measures discussed were shutting down heavily polluting factories to clean up the air, giving most Beijing residents a 16-day holiday to alleviate traffic and allowing foreigners to worship in groups, which is officially outlawed, although the ban is rarely enforced.
A spokesman for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Environmental and Construction Headquarters Office, which conducted the meeting, confirmed the newspaper report but stressed no decisions have been made.
“Everything is still under discussion,” said the spokesman, Zhou Jiawang.
And apparantly Beijing has quite the history in this area. According to the article, Beijing has previously enacted extraordinary measures to reduce the chances of protest or spruce up the grimy capital’s appearance.
In 1993, during its failed bid for the 2000 Olympics, Beijing expelled beggars, forced the handicap to stay at home and closed smokestack industries when International Olympic Commission inspection teams visited.
Is social drinking the key to moving up the corporate ladder? According to a new study, it may be…
People who consume alcohol earn significantly more at their jobs than non-drinkers, according to a US study that highlighted “social capital” gained from drinking.
The study published in the Journal of Labor Research Thursday concluded that drinkers earn 10 to 14 percent more than teetotalers, and that men who drink socially bring home an additional seven percent in pay.
“Social drinking builds social capital,” said Edward Stringham, an economics professor at San Jose State University and co-author of the study with fellow researcher Bethany Peters.
“Social drinkers are out networking, building relationships, and adding contacts to their BlackBerries that result in bigger paychecks.”
The study was funded by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, and it contradicted research from 2000 released by the Harvard School of Health.
The researchers said that the study provides arguments agains policies that try to curb alcohol use at universities and in public venues:
“Not only do anti-alcohol policies reduce drinkers’ fun, but they may also decrease earnings,” the study said.
“One of the unintended consequences of alcohol restrictions is that they push drinking into private settings. This occurred during the Alcohol Prohibition of 1920-1933 and is happening on college campuses today. By preventing people from drinking in public, anti-alcohol policies eliminate one of the most important aspects of drinking: increased social capital.”
I think the study is really interesting–but I that last statement misses an important point. Social drinking may be important, but I doubt the kind of binge drinking that takes place on many college campuses does much to build social capital. I actually went to a dry college, but I chose to go there–prohibition had unintended consequences because the government made alcohol illegal for everyone. But, when colleges (especially private colleges) choose to put restrictions on drinking, prospective students are given more choices, something I would think most libertarians would be happy about.
I also noticed that the study doesn’t look into excessive drinking. Networking over a social drink or two may help you make contacts and move up the social ladder. But I don’t think anyone’s going to promote the guy who drinks too much at the company Christmas party and starts dancing around with a lampshade on his head. And alcoholism would definitely decrease one’s ability to maintain a job. I would surmise that there’s a point where alcohol consumption would tend to decrease income.
Anyway, I don’t know that the study is perfect…but its a good reminder of the importance of networking and social capital. And, its a good excuse for me to go to the next happy hour.