My own answer to this problem is that it is effectively an argument for class collaboration. Regardless of the nature of the police and anarchist's repudiation of it and them, advocacy for what might be understood (in ignorance) as a less reproachable application of State power—in this case economic reforms already taking place meant to create a budget for the State through attacking people's livelihoods—is advocacy for collaborating with the ruling class. The rationalization being that cuts being more thoroughly applied to the police will provide leeway for some institutions and amenities regulated by the state to avoid the axe and this, somehow, will amount to a general increase in the quality of life for working class people. I'm confused as to how that conclusion can be reached; the original proposer of this scheme seemed to collect a bunch of miscellaneous State owned services and employers that they deemed as being conducive, overall, to an easier life for proletarians and other dispossessed peoples. Libraries, trash collectors, etc.
Even if I didn't have such a strong inclination towards a given set of principles I'd still be unable to figure how this pro-austerity strategy would be justifiable or reasonable. Obviously, regardless of how clean the streets are and how available the library is the proletarian is still faced with alienation from production and the rule of ownership. And no application of the State's systemic power over human life and the options & decisions available to us is justifiable; even if the victims are militarized employees of State bureaucracy like police.
