> How is this not just positive spin on a doj money grab?

While the _best_ case scenario would be the entire notion of any asset sharing program be made outright illegal [0] because it has been shown to be corrupt, etc, etc - simply having it shut down is a good thing even if not for "good reasons" because at the very minimum, it means that if and when the program is reinstated, it will force conversation of the issue, something that has gone largely un-discussed in the American political landscape.

[0]: I personally would argue it should be illegal regardless of conviction, otherwise it incentivizes police forces and DAs to only go after high payout crimes

"it means that if and when the program is reinstated"

I'm saying it was never cancelled

Well now the argument can be made while the program is down. Why have the program if it's not doing it's thing?

In practice, either the program was a money grab, or terminating it was. Public opinion has been that the program was a money grab, incentivizing state+local to aggressively seize funds under federal law, to get the "equitable sharing" kickbacks. Without "equitable sharing", states+locals have no incentive to seize funds to seize funds to send to the Feds.

We'll see what happens when the DOJ realizes how much of that $1.2B was driven by state incentives, and their dirty golden goose stops laying eggs

Public opinion isn't even aware this exists.

Well, I think if you went to the streets and asked a selection of people for their opinions on most topics, the majority would be aware that there was even an issue.

I think that's generally the case.

Yes, sounds like congress defunded because of journalism and constituent feedback not Department of Justice ended the abusive program.

Current HN title is more accurate.

If that's true, then it's odd that the article doesn't explain this. If anyone can suggest a more informative article, we can change the URL.

Edit: The AP appears to frame the story more accurately: http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015-12-24/us-p.... Should we use this instead? It's rather short.

yeah this article pretty clearly states what I was trying to get across: "The Justice Department says it's not suspending or shutting down the program — just that it doesn't have the money to pay police departments right now."

Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-f..., and changed the title from 'Congress defunds DOJ Seized Asset sharing program' to that of this article.

"Equitable sharing", that's great.

I thought that was funny wording too.

I wonder if the person whose money was "forfeited" finds the sharing to be equitable.

It could be a let down the police easy.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Let+down+easy