Plan to Cut Antiterror Spending Is Criticized by State??s Leaders
This is a disgrace and we need somebody in the White House that has their priorities regarding our security straight. They've wasted money homeland security funds by giving them away to the wrong areas, by typical pork barrel allocations. The simple truth is that if New York goes down, so does the rest of the country.
New York Times
December 2, 2007
Plan to Cut Antiterror Spending Is Criticized by State??s Leaders
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A White House plan to slash antiterror grant programs by more than half would threaten the safety of American cities, New York politicians charged yesterday.
Senator Charles E. Schumer blasted the Bush administration??s plan to eliminate some port and rail security programs and cut security grants for states and cities to $1.4 billion in 2009 from $3.4 billion in the 2007 fiscal year.
??To say, no port security, no transit security, when we know that our ports and transit lines are targets for terrorists makes no sense if you want to protect America,? Mr. Schumer said.
Other officials said the cuts would penalize a city attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001, and in 1993.
??It??s stunning that the federal government would consider cutting New York City??s homeland security funds from the already inadequate level that currently exists,? said John Gallagher, a spokesman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
The federal government has given $23 billion in antiterror grants to states and municipalities since the Sept. 11 attacks, but some have criticized the programs as pork-barrel spending.
According to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press, the Bush administration is not convinced that the money has been well spent and thinks the nation??s highest-risk cities have largely satisfied their emergency need to improve security.
Officials with the White House Office of Management and Budget said the president??s budget proposals had yet to be completed. Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said Friday that the White House would strongly support any needed antiterror programs.
Still, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's spokeswoman, Christine Anderson, likened the White House proposal to a ????bean counter?? approach to protecting our homeland when sound policy is what??s required.?
Mr. Schumer estimated that if the cuts were accepted by Congress, New York City??s share of the aid might drop to $70 million or $80 million from $134 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/ny...l?ref=nyregion
Plan to Cut Antiterror Spending Is Criticized by State??s Leaders
O nos, whats a bureaucrat to do!
More money solves nothing other then making things less efficient. There is no proof that homeland security even works. A recent article stated that TSA missed over 60% of fake bomb tests last year. And those were FAKES! TSA can't even find real bomb parts as well. I don't normally agree with Bush, but cutting government spending on crap that doesn't work gets a :thumbsup: from me.
Look at our "war on drugs" as an example and you can see that throwing more money on the fire has an opposite effect. Whats to say homeland security is any different? If you feel NY will not be safe with the cuts then move elsewhere less likely to be attacked. Depending on government and all its inefficiencies for protection is like trying to heat your home in the winter with all the windows fully opened.
Plan to Cut Antiterror Spending Is Criticized by State??s Leaders
Surprised to see that somebody here agrees with the White House regarding the Homeland Security budget cuts for New York City and other terrrorist targets.
If the terrorists had succeeded in launching another attack, maybe I'd agree that it's a waste of money, but they haven't - so I consider the money that was spent well worth it.
I have previously posted about the Homeland Security funds which were distributed to places that are unlikely to be attacked. This is obviously wrong, but NYC and the other targeted cities need the help.
Plan to Cut Antiterror Spending Is Criticized by State??s Leaders
How do you know NYC is still a target? Seems to me 9/11 was the success it was because of the craftiness of the attack. Now everyone is watching the big cities, leaving plenty of back doors and other options that have been made lax in other areas. What if the next attack involves trains and amusement parks? Sail boats and bridges? Then what, think we should keep spending more? I can show you areas along the US/Canadian boarder you can freely walk across. If we can not even protect our boarders and ports no amount of funding will stop a thing. And although I do not condone violence of this nature, the more authoritative our own government becomes, will only breed more people like Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski's.
In the 55 years between Pearl Harbor and the OKC Bombing we did not spend the money on homeland security we do today, yet managed to go 55 years without a large scale attack on our soil. To say we made it 6 years after 9/11 and all this money spent for not being attacked is worth it, is ludicrous. IMO the best way to fight terror is to not fear it. When we fear it, they win, regardless of an attack or not.
Plan to Cut Antiterror Spending Is Criticized by State??s Leaders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
I have previously posted about the Homeland Security funds which were distributed to places that are unlikely to be attacked. This is obviously wrong, but NYC and the other targeted cities need the help.
I agree with you on the funds going to the biggest targets but I think politics is driving this, Schumer is grandstanding to get all he can for NY (which is OK thats his job)the funding is being reduced nation wide.
The fact remains that the Feds are giving
Quote:
"$70 million or $80 million"
not to a state or county but a single city.
Quote:
??It??s stunning that the federal government would consider cutting New York City??s homeland security funds from the already inadequate level that currently exists,? said John Gallagher, a spokesman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
This guy has Kennedy mentality, anything other than a blank check with yearly increases is "underfunding"
When is enough, enough.
Plan to Cut Antiterror Spending Is Criticized by State??s Leaders
In the U.S., they're probably not looking to kill people in amusement parks, trains, sail boats and sports stadiums. It's obvious that want to hit the places where the money is - and that is Wall Street in New York and the financial districts of the other cities. They know that the economic aftermath of an attack such as 9/11 is tremendous, and that's what hits most citizens and corporations the hardest. The victims who are maimed or dead are of no importance to organizations like al quada.
They want to rule the world, and they are willing to have the whole planet destroyed so that allah can start over. This is what their agenda is, and we must do whatever is necessary to stop their madness, before it is too late.
