Homeland Security Slashes New York Funding 40%!!! Hello, Logic Please??

[eclectics]

The Bush Administration's Department of Homeland Security has decided to slash funding for Terrorism Protection for New York City by 40% and by 36% for New York State as a whole. Maybe someone can explain the logic of cutting funding for one of the most probable future terrorist targets while giving our (I'm a New Yorker in case you can't guess) funding to Milwaukee and other less populated cities. Nothing against Wisconsin but come on now! Makes me a bit peeved to say the least. My Congressional Representative (a Republican) is outraged and called it a "knife in the back". He has threatened to demand hearings on the matter but an administration spokesman said it is a done deal. Anyone else think this is ridiculous?

 

[wdw4us2]

I believe they are assigning the funds to other areas that have not received adequate funding since 9/11. Orlando was the main area that has not been funded - so maybe that's where the money is going.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just a possible explanation.

 

[Quinn222]

First bit there is "Bush Administration..." You won't find any logic. They also cut all funding (to zero) of a succesful program that cuts fuel consumption in large commercial vehicles.

 

[eclectics]

I believe they are assigning the funds to other areas that have not received adequate funding since 9/11. Orlando was the main area that has not been funded - so maybe that's where the money is going.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just a possible explanation.

I'm all for cities who are percieved as a likely threat to get adequate funding. Orlando certainly meets that criteria, but please don't take it from a city that needs it desperately!

 

[Missy1961]

I'm all for cities who are percieved as a likely threat to get adequate funding. Orlando certainly meets that criteria, but please don't take it from a city that needs it desperately!

I'm with you. If the money were going to Los Angeles, Orlando, Boston, I'd understand it better.

 

[Charade]

Can you prove that NYC actually needed all that was allocated? But I know, it's Bush, so it's got to be a bad idea.

 

[Island_Lauri]

But I know, it's Bush, so it's got to be a bad idea.

Very true. And how else is he going to pay for all those tax cuts?

 

[eclectics]

Can you prove that NYC actually needed all that was allocated? But I know, it's Bush, so it's got to be a bad idea.

I'll resisit what I really want to say and simply state that President Bush promised the citizens of New York that the Feds would fund our protection needs and now he he reneging on that promise. Enough New Yorkers died on 9/11. I don't have to prove anything.

 

[charlie,nj]

hey eclectics....if anything ever happens again (God forbid) you can jump on a boat and come over to Chilltown (Jersey City) my hood or even The Brick (Newark) we will protect you.

1010 WINS - On-Air, Online, On Demand

Posted: Wednesday, 31 May 2006 9:09PM

Huge Boost for NJ


WASHINGTON (1010 WINS) -- The two cities targeted in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will receive far less counterterrorism money this year in what the Homeland Security Department described Wednesday as an effort to spread funding to other communities facing threats. However, states like New Jersey saw a 76 percent increase in funding.

Officials noted a $119 million cut in the total funds available for the 2006 fiscal year from last year. In all, 46 cities will share $710 million in Homeland Security grants to prevent and respond to terror attacks and, to a lesser extent, other catastrophic disasters like hurricanes. The department said the total does not reflect an additional $25 million for nonprofit groups, and other minor costs.

The New Jersey cities of Jersey City and Newark will receive a total of $34.3 million in anti-terrorism grants for fiscal year 2006, a 76.8 percent increase from the previous year, officials said Wednesday.

Jersey City and Newark are among the 46 cities nationwide declared by the government to be at high risk of attack, and will share in the $740 million pool of security money.

Last year, the state's congressional lawmakers were outraged when the Department of Homeland Security gave the two cities a combined $19.4 million, a decrease from the previous year when the cities got roughly $56 million.

``At the end of the day our job is to make sure that we apply resources in an appropriate manner across the full breadth of this nation so that we get the maximum benefit out of those dollars,'' Homeland Security Undersecretary George Foresman told reporters in Washington.

State and local officials also need to budget for disaster preparations, Foresman said, calling the federal grants `designed to help us address the extraordinary, not the ordinary.''

The money generally pays for training and equipment for emergency first responders.

But the cut was attacked by the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who represents the New York suburbs and vowed to hit back at the department.

``It's absolutely indefensible, it's disgraceful. As far as I'm concerned the Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York,'' Republican Rep. Peter King told the Associated Press.

AUDIO: Rep. Peter King blasts Homeland Security

``It's a knife in the back to New York and I'm going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision,'' King said.

The criticism for the cuts was also echoed by NY's Mayor Michael Bloomberg ``When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket,'' said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. ``They don't have a map of any of the other ... 45 places.''

AUDIO: Mayor Bloomberg Reacts

Homeland Security assistant secretary Tracy A. Henke said the biggest share of the dollars still would go to the nation's largest cities, with New York City winning the largest share $124 million, down from $207 million in 2005. The national capital region, which encompasses Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, will receive $46 million, compared to $77.5 last year.

Hurricane-ravaged New Orleans will receive half of what it got last year $4.6 million, down from $9.3 million although Homeland Security said the money was to help cities grapple with catastrophic disasters from Mother Nature and terrorists alike.

But several cities saw boosted bottom lines, including three that didn't get any money last year. Fort Lauderdale, Fla., won
$9.9 million for 2006 after receiving what Rep. Clay Shaw Jr., R-Fla., called a paltry share last year compared with Miami.

``I'd been telling Homeland Security, 'We want a divorce,''' said Shaw, who represents the Fort Lauderdale area. ``And we got it. ... As far as grants go, I think this is a very good result.''

The funding is part of an overall $1.7 billion Homeland Security grant program. Under the program, each state and U.S. territory gets some funding, this year totaling $550 million. Another $450 million will go to state public safety projects, medical responders and to help citizens prepare for disasters.

Until now, the grants largely have been awarded based on cities' populations. Homeland Security still is weighing population as a factor in the grants, but it is mostly awarding the money based on a city's threat risk and how effectively the city will use the funds.

The grants for cities make up the largest chunk of the funding, and has always been the subject of fierce lobbying by local leaders and members of Congress. The final awards often anger many officials who feel residents of their cities are slighted by not getting enough money or none whatsoever.


.

 

[NewJersey]

Frankly, I'm not surprised. I mean look at who is in the Oval Office.

 

[MorganLeFey]

I'm kind of torn. I am also a New Yroker, and I travel through Ground Zero every day to my job in Jersey City. Jersey City and Newark house a lot of the financial companies that moved out of lower Manhattan five years ago.

but I have to agree...bush stood at Ground Zero 5 years ago and made many promises to New Yrokers...promises he won't keep.

 

[DawnCt1]

Very true. And how else is he going to pay for all those tax cuts?

Actually tax cuts pay for themselves. Taxes lowered, more revenue raised. Happens every time. I don't know why liberals do not understand that. Furthermore, the money belongs to the tax payers, not the tax spenders in Washington. Something tells me that New York was over funded to begin with.

 

[eclectics]

hey eclectics....if anything ever happens again (God forbid) you can jump on a boat and come over to Chilltown (Jersey City) my hood or even The Brick (Newark) we will protect you.

1010 WINS - On-Air, Online, On Demand

Posted: Wednesday, 31 May 2006 9:09PM

Huge Boost for NJ


WASHINGTON (1010 WINS) -- The two cities targeted in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will receive far less counterterrorism money this year in what the Homeland Security Department described Wednesday as an effort to spread funding to other communities facing threats. However, states like New Jersey saw a 76 percent increase in funding.

Officials noted a $119 million cut in the total funds available for the 2006 fiscal year from last year. In all, 46 cities will share $710 million in Homeland Security grants to prevent and respond to terror attacks and, to a lesser extent, other catastrophic disasters like hurricanes. The department said the total does not reflect an additional $25 million for nonprofit groups, and other minor costs.

The New Jersey cities of Jersey City and Newark will receive a total of $34.3 million in anti-terrorism grants for fiscal year 2006, a 76.8 percent increase from the previous year, officials said Wednesday.

Jersey City and Newark are among the 46 cities nationwide declared by the government to be at high risk of attack, and will share in the $740 million pool of security money.

Last year, the state's congressional lawmakers were outraged when the Department of Homeland Security gave the two cities a combined $19.4 million, a decrease from the previous year when the cities got roughly $56 million.

``At the end of the day our job is to make sure that we apply resources in an appropriate manner across the full breadth of this nation so that we get the maximum benefit out of those dollars,'' Homeland Security Undersecretary George Foresman told reporters in Washington.

State and local officials also need to budget for disaster preparations, Foresman said, calling the federal grants `designed to help us address the extraordinary, not the ordinary.''

The money generally pays for training and equipment for emergency first responders.

But the cut was attacked by the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who represents the New York suburbs and vowed to hit back at the department.

``It's absolutely indefensible, it's disgraceful. As far as I'm concerned the Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York,'' Republican Rep. Peter King told the Associated Press.

AUDIO: Rep. Peter King blasts Homeland Security

``It's a knife in the back to New York and I'm going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision,'' King said.

The criticism for the cuts was also echoed by NY's Mayor Michael Bloomberg ``When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket,'' said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. ``They don't have a map of any of the other ... 45 places.''

AUDIO: Mayor Bloomberg Reacts

Homeland Security assistant secretary Tracy A. Henke said the biggest share of the dollars still would go to the nation's largest cities, with New York City winning the largest share $124 million, down from $207 million in 2005. The national capital region, which encompasses Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, will receive $46 million, compared to $77.5 last year.

Hurricane-ravaged New Orleans will receive half of what it got last year $4.6 million, down from $9.3 million although Homeland Security said the money was to help cities grapple with catastrophic disasters from Mother Nature and terrorists alike.

But several cities saw boosted bottom lines, including three that didn't get any money last year. Fort Lauderdale, Fla., won
$9.9 million for 2006 after receiving what Rep. Clay Shaw Jr., R-Fla., called a paltry share last year compared with Miami.

``I'd been telling Homeland Security, 'We want a divorce,''' said Shaw, who represents the Fort Lauderdale area. ``And we got it. ... As far as grants go, I think this is a very good result.''

The funding is part of an overall $1.7 billion Homeland Security grant program. Under the program, each state and U.S. territory gets some funding, this year totaling $550 million. Another $450 million will go to state public safety projects, medical responders and to help citizens prepare for disasters.

Until now, the grants largely have been awarded based on cities' populations. Homeland Security still is weighing population as a factor in the grants, but it is mostly awarding the money based on a city's threat risk and how effectively the city will use the funds.

The grants for cities make up the largest chunk of the funding, and has always been the subject of fierce lobbying by local leaders and members of Congress. The final awards often anger many officials who feel residents of their cities are slighted by not getting enough money or none whatsoever.


.

Actually I don't have a problem with you guys getting money. The entire metro area should have sufficient funds. I can also see Orlando and Miami, Los Angeles, D.C. etc. but sorry, Milwaukee and Ft. Lauderdale don't seem to be potential likely targets. This shouldn't be a "pork barrel" everybody with their hands out mentality type of allocation. The majority of the funding should go to the cities that are the most likely targets (and I didn't even bring up the promised clean up money for NYC that never materialized). If this administration wants to shake things up, I think they should start with DHS and FEMA and not with a new chief of staff and a press secretary.

 

[NewJersey]

Actually tax cuts pay for themselves. Taxes lowered, more revenue raised. Happens every time. I don't know why liberals do not understand that. Furthermore, the money belongs to the tax payers, not the tax spenders in Washington. Something tells me that New York was over funded to begin with.

Actually, it depends on the MPS (or MPC) which is the marginal propensity to save and the C is consume. Basically, if the MPS is say 0.7 then only 30% of the "refund" or more money in the pocket after taxes lowered, is going back into the economy. When taxes are lowered for the rich, the MPS is generally VERY high because they save it all. When taxes are lowered for the poor or credits given, etc, then the MPS tends to be small, therefore making the MPC (1-MPS) to be much larger. Basically, there are alot of factors that go into economics. I would suggest taking a course before saying "taxes lower...revenue higher."

I could go more into it but I won't.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I know...quite boring!

 

[eclectics]

Something tells me that New York was over funded to begin with.

I think you're close enough to Manhattan, Dawn, that God forbid if anything happened, I think you would want NYC to have every resource possible for whatever disaster (or consequence thereof) not to spread up to you in CT. Wouldn't you?

 

[jfulcer]

The Bush Administration's Department of Homeland Security has decided to slash funding for Terrorism Protection for New York City by 40% and by 36% for New York State as a whole. Maybe someone can explain the logic of cutting funding for one of the most probable future terrorist targets while giving our (I'm a New Yorker in case you can't guess) funding to Milwaukee and other less populated cities. Nothing against Wisconsin but come on now! Makes me a bit peeved to say the least. My Congressional Representative (a Republican) is outraged and called it a "knife in the back". He has threatened to demand hearings on the matter but an administration spokesman said it is a done deal. Anyone else think this is ridiculous?

What's wrong with Milwaukee getting some funding? While we're not A#1 target, shouldn't we be able to protect our cities? Shouldn't we be allowed to spend some of the money set aside to protect the country? After all, it's not the Department of New York Security. It's the Department of Homeland security.

Bet you've never heard the threats about terroists in Chicago have you? Nor do you know that there are tall buildings with banks and financial institutions in them in Milwaukee do you? My building (tallest in Milwaukee) holds terrorism drills where everyone in the building has to walk down all the stairs and evacuate the building. So we're doing that in vain? Must be, because according to your logic you're on all their lists. Well, now they KNOW that you are on their lists. Maybe they can go for the lower hanging fruit now eh? Jihad works just as well in Milwaukee as New York.

That's part of the problem with our government nowdays. It's all about 'Me Me Me' for your state's interests instead of 'We We We'. sheesh.

 

[becka]

Believe me I am not fan of Bush's but I don't like the mentality that only big cities should get most of the money. I think one reason that we are losing the war of terror is because we are always fighting "the last war" so to speak. Part of the reason 9/11 was so successful for the terrorists is because of a failure of imagination. If we spend most of our money and resources protecting New York they just pick another target. I really believe next time it will be a medium sized city that is hit because that seems to be the last place we (as a nation) expect it. A place where the money and resources have not been spent.

This does not mean that I do not think that New York and other large cities do not need the money but at the same time a nuclear power plant about 30 miles from my house also needs protecting.

 

[Teejay32]

Oklahoma City doesn't seem like a prime terrorist target either, but it was once. That colors my perception now. Every city should have some level of preparedness to deal with these things.

 

[N.Bailey]

In all honesty, they midas well cut funding as I'm sure they don't really do much to prevent another attack anyway.

Politicians are crooked for the most part and when they could make changes for the better, they'll take a bribe 99 out of 100 times. IMO, it's not a right or left wing conspiracy as both sides play the same game.

 

[Free4Life11]

Every city deserves some funding. The world does NOT revolve around the Northeast! Anyways logically, shouldn't the bigger cities have more money to fund their OWN security? More people = more taxes = more money to spend...A lot of smaller cities can't afford to raise taxes because if they did they wouldn't attract ANYONE and it would just be plain bad. Places like Chicago, New York, it doesn't even seem to matter what the taxes are since so many people live there as it is.

How much money does NYC get anyways??