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

[LukenDC]

I just copied the following quote from the Washington Post. The entire article may be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101364.html

"New York's grant plummeted from about $207 million to $124 million. A DHS risk scorecard for the city asserted that the home of the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge has "zero" national monuments or icons.

"As far as I'm concerned, the Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York," Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press. "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."

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

I was just watching the nightly news and the city right outside of where I live (moderate sized metro area) made it onto the 'threat' list. It's scary, but it made us eligible for Homeland Security money.
A friend works for USDHS and said that distribution is based on threat risk (from terrorist 'chatter' as well as potential impact based on city's assets--airports, industry, highways, etc) and the area's requested disaster preparedness plans... in other words, how they would disperse the money for the good of the job at hand (security).
He believes that the 'slash' has occurred because NY has already implimented some of the more expensive changes and upkeep wouldn't be quite as costly. Therefore, the upcoming budget is taking that money and seeing that it is being dispersed to the next greatest risk areas. Sounds logical to me.

 

[eclectics]

I am not advocating stopping the funding for smaller cities. They are not unimportant. I never said that. I just don't agree with slashing a likely target cities funding by 40%. If certain monetary priorities were changed there would be enough funding for all and we wouldn't have to have this argument. I just used Milwaukee as an example. Yes you deserve funding. Should you get as much as say, San Diego? No, imho. I don't hate Milwaukee (and yes, I've heard of Chicago). In a nutshell, we shouldn't have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Lastly, the terrorists seem to like making a statement by hiting the same target until they get it right, at least in their twisted perception. Remember, the Twin Towers was hit in 1993 also. I am totally convinced NYC will be on the list again.

 

[jfulcer]

I just copied the following quote from the Washington Post. The entire article may be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101364.html

"New York's grant plummeted from about $207 million to $124 million. A DHS risk scorecard for the city asserted that the home of the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge has "zero" national monuments or icons.

"As far as I'm concerned, the Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York," Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press. "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."

Wow, is Peter King up for re-election or something?

 

[jfulcer]

I am not advocating stopping the funding for smaller cities. They are not unimportant. I never said that. I just don't agree with slashing a likely target cities funding by 40%. If certain monetary priorities were changed there would be enough funding for all and we wouldn't have to have this argument. I just used Milwaukee as an example. Yes you deserve funding. Should you get as much as say, San Diego? No, imho. I don't hate Milwaukee (and yes, I've heard of Chicago). In a nutshell, we shouldn't have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Lastly, the terrorists seem to like making a statement by hiting the same target until they get it right, at least in their twisted perception. Remember, the Twin Towers was hit in 1993 also. I am totally convinced NYC will be on the list again.

But what if there's not enough money to pay Peter and Paul and John and Yoko and all of them. Shouldn't Peter get a little less so that Paul can get some too? Shouldn't Peter realize that his employer doesn't have enough money to pay everyone and needs to share even if his job is bigger and more important?

 

[eclectics]

But what if there's not enough money to pay Peter and Paul and John and Yoko and all of them. Shouldn't Peter get a little less so that Paul can get some too? Shouldn't Peter realize that his employer doesn't have enough money to pay everyone and needs to share even if his job is bigger and more important?

The sad part is there is enough money. It's just being spent elsewhere. Wisely? That's subjective. I believe there are plenty of pork barrel projects that don't deserve to see the light of day, but that's just my opinion. States shouldn't have to fight each other to get adequate protection. Blue or red, big city or small city, we are all Americans and everybody in this country deserves 100% of their terrorism funding needs. Period.

 

[ChrisnSteph]

Bush + Logic = two words that don't go together.

And I'm Republican.

 

[disneyfan67]

I am not advocating stopping the funding for smaller cities. They are not unimportant. I never said that. I just don't agree with slashing a likely target cities funding by 40%. If certain monetary priorities were changed there would be enough funding for all and we wouldn't have to have this argument. I just used Milwaukee as an example. Yes you deserve funding. Should you get as much as say, San Diego? No, imho. I don't hate Milwaukee (and yes, I've heard of Chicago). In a nutshell, we shouldn't have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Lastly, the terrorists seem to like making a statement by hiting the same target until they get it right, at least in their twisted perception. Remember, the Twin Towers was hit in 1993 also. I am totally convinced NYC will be on the list again.

I wouldn't worry too much about NYC because when Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2008, everything will be much better.There will be enough money to go around and the terrorists won't think twice about attacking America again. Everything will be smelling like roses. (Insert sarcasm)


Come on people lets have a little moderation here, shall we? I am in no way a fan of the current President but it's getting ridiculous how far some of you take your hate, and you know who I'm talking about. I thought it was bad when Bill Clinton was in office with some of the personal attacks he endured, but it was childs play compared to what I'm seeing now. A little moderation can go a long way. I don't know how some of you can live your lives with this much hate and despair. MODERATION IS THE KEY!

It's goverment and politicans and this kind of stuff goes on reguardless who's in power. There's just not enough money to go around and there never will be either. You have no idea how much money our goverment spends and where they spend it. Look at the Highway bill that was full of pork and was signed into law not too long ago, as an example. It boggles the mind how much is wasted and I get so tired of hearing about raising the taxes on the rich. No matter how you look at it, we the people are overtaxed at every level of Goverment, Federal and State. There's never enough money when it comes to Goverment programs!


We need so much in this country, as far as protection from terrorist attacks that I don't know where to start. It's not going to get any better when a new President gets into office because they all have different ways on where our money goes. I'm sure some of you won't be happy with those choices either. A word to all of you Bush haters out there. His time in office is ending soon and most likely a Democrat will be elected into office and the knives will be out for him or her and it won't be pretty. What comes around goes around and you do reap what you sow. If you think the Republicans are going to give Hillary or whoever a break, then you're kidding yourselves.

That's the problem with all this hatred, is that it never ends and just keeps going. The only difference is that the other side is doing it when they are out of the WH and we as Americans suffer for it. Sad it really is.

 

[Quinn222]

Actually tax cuts pay for themselves. Taxes lowered, more revenue raised. Happens every time. I don't know why liberals do not understand that.

Because we've all done that math and know it's not true.

 

[Charade]

Blue or red, big city or small city, we are all Americans and everybody in this country deserves 100% of their terrorism funding needs. Period.

And you well know that everyone will ALWAYS cry they're not getting enough. I believe that they should all get 100 percent of their terrorism funding needs. You seem to be claiming that a 40 percent reduction is 40 percent less than what they need. I asked for proof. You don't seem to want to go that route. If you can prove that they will be at a disadvantage with that 40 percent reduction, I'll join your protest. Fair enough?

 

[Kimberle]

I guess the homeland security "people" have been watching the Apprentice. They know that Lee & his team will be raising lots & lots of money for that nice firefighter lady.

 

[mrsltg]

I can understand the knee-jerk reaction and concern - I work in DC and apparently the sky is falling... Cutting a tremendous budget by 40% still leaves a HUGE budget. Frankly, I'm not sure it's all being spent on "Homeland Security". There is a lot of window dressing going on, and not just in NY and DC. I'd love to see an accounting of every penny spent. Were the projects successful? Is the purchased equipment outdated? Was it ever worth anything? Can an extra police officer stop a terrorist attack? My guess is no. This, like most budgeting issues, is much ado about nothing.

 

[Crankyshank]

Every city deserves some funding. The world does NOT revolve around the Northeast!

The Northeast is seeing quite a bit of slashed HS funding as well. Massachusetts, where the terrorists boarded the planes, saw a 30% cut in funding. Fortunately the city of Boston is getting some funding so Homeland Security isn't completely out of their minds.
My state (RI) is ranked 48 for funding. So the feds are giving higher priority to states outside of the northeast. We're getting a little over $7 million dollars which means programs are going to be cut and much needed security and communication upgrades won't be occurring because the state isn't exactly experiencing a booming economy and can't afford it.

 

[kydisneyfans]

I don't think anyone should receive money as the terrorism threat is gone with the disposal of Saddam Hussein.

We have better things to do with our money like give Donald Trump and multi millionaire sports figures tax cuts so they provide more jobs for peons like you and I.

 

[Charade]

We have better things to do with our money like give Donald Trump and multi millionaire sports figures tax cuts so they provide more jobs for peons like you and I.

Did you ever get a job from a poor person? Poor people don't run businesses and don't hire people. Running a business may put someone into the "poor" house but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[Paging Tom Morrow]

The trade we New Yorkers made by ousting Alfonse D'Amato and electing Hillary Clinton is coming back to hurt us now. Sometimes it better to vote to keep someone you don't necessairly agree with then to lose the political capital he/she has. Such a cut would likely not have happened if D'Amato was still near the top of the Senate.

 

[DawnCt1]

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?

Consider that level of funding not only went towards human resources but durable goods, equipment, radiation detection devices, etc and once those materials are purchased, the maintainance and replacement doesn't have to be as much as the initial investment. Those funds can be looked at and diverted to other areas where the need is greater. There aren't an infinate number of dollars and money spent needs to be be accessed on a regular basis.

 

[eclectics]

I wouldn't worry too much about NYC because when Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2008, everything will be much better.There will be enough money to go around and the terrorists won't think twice about attacking America again. Everything will be smelling like roses. (Insert sarcasm)


Come on people lets have a little moderation here, shall we? I am in no way a fan of the current President but it's getting ridiculous how far some of you take your hate, and you know who I'm talking about. I thought it was bad when Bill Clinton was in office with some of the personal attacks he endured, but it was childs play compared to what I'm seeing now. A little moderation can go a long way. I don't know how some of you can live your lives with this much hate and despair. MODERATION IS THE KEY!

It's goverment and politicans and this kind of stuff goes on reguardless who's in power. There's just not enough money to go around and there never will be either. You have no idea how much money our goverment spends and where they spend it. Look at the Highway bill that was full of pork and was signed into law not too long ago, as an example. It boggles the mind how much is wasted and I get so tired of hearing about raising the taxes on the rich. No matter how you look at it, we the people are overtaxed at every level of Goverment, Federal and State. There's never enough money when it comes to Goverment programs!


We need so much in this country, as far as protection from terrorist attacks that I don't know where to start. It's not going to get any better when a new President gets into office because they all have different ways on where our money goes. I'm sure some of you won't be happy with those choices either. A word to all of you Bush haters out there. His time in office is ending soon and most likely a Democrat will be elected into office and the knives will be out for him or her and it won't be pretty. What comes around goes around and you do reap what you sow. If you think the Republicans are going to give Hillary or whoever a break, then you're kidding yourselves.

That's the problem with all this hatred, is that it never ends and just keeps going. The only difference is that the other side is doing it when they are out of the WH and we as Americans suffer for it. Sad it really is.

If you are going to talk about hate, I suggest you reread your own post. Enough there to fill a little book.

 

[eclectics]

And you well know that everyone will ALWAYS cry they're not getting enough. I believe that they should all get 100 percent of their terrorism funding needs. You seem to be claiming that a 40 percent reduction is 40 percent less than what they need. I asked for proof. You don't seem to want to go that route. If you can prove that they will be at a disadvantage with that 40 percent reduction, I'll join your protest. Fair enough?

Did you ask for proof on 9/12/2001? Nothing has changed. If you want a detailed spread sheet I suggest you write to Mayor Bloomberg and ask him. Interesting that you would begrudge New York and demand accountability but the millions that were wasted by FEMA got nary a wimper.

 

[eclectics]

Consider that level of funding not only went towards human resources but durable goods, equipment, radiation detection devices, etc and once those materials are purchased, the maintainance and replacement doesn't have to be as much as the initial investment. Those funds can be looked at and diverted to other areas where the need is greater. There aren't an infinate number of dollars and money spent needs to be be accessed on a regular basis.

If that was the method they used to slash the funds then you indeed might have a valid point (human resources aside). However, I have yet to read or hear the specific criteria they used to base their calculations. No state or city official has even hinted that Federal funding is adequate, much less in need of, reduction.