Posted on 01/10/2007 6:16:37 AM PST by presidio9
As Mayor Bloomberg scolded the federal government for "foolishness" in allocating homeland security grants, the city's congressional delegation is gearing up to use its greater political weight in a Democratic majority to bring more anti-terror dollars to the five boroughs.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the mayor lambasted both Congress and the Bush administration for enacting regulations and formulas that he said limit the city's ability to collect its fair share of security funding.
Mr. Bloomberg and other city officials have long called for the Department of Homeland Security to dole out its annual grant money based on risk level alone, criticizing the government for reserving a portion of the pot for localities across the country that appear to face little threat of a terrorist attack.
While the Bush administration has taken steps recently to increase threat-based funding, it has not gone far enough, Mr. Bloomberg said yesterday.
"Instead, we have seen huge sums of homeland security money spread across the country like peanut butter," he told the committee.
-snip-
Some lawmakers have said that a nationwide homeland security funding system is appropriate, suggesting that terrorists will not always aim for iconic structures like the Empire State Building or the Brooklyn Bridge but could go after the nation's food supply by attacking farm land, or strike a crowded arena or mall in Middle America. Mr. Bloomberg challenged that claim directly in his testimony before the Senate: "Do not confuse risks with targets. Every place there are risks, but there aren't that many targets and targets are what the enemies of this country will focus on."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
No al Queada. Al Quaeda's targets have tended to be large cities like London and Madrid. We are not fighting the Chechens.
Sure it does.
If the Federal government can withold highway funds from states that don't raise their drinking age to 21 and don't lower their legal driving limit for alcohol consumption to 0.08%, then it can certainly withold all Federal money -- for any purpose whatsoever (including anti-terrorist efforts) -- from any city that openly violates Federal immigration laws.
NYC pays out FAR more in federal taxes than it takes in.
I have developed a reflex to grab my wallet whenever a politician uses the word 'fair'...
When Michael Bloomberg comes up with an idea like that -- even as a far-fetched suggestion -- then we'll consider throwing him a few billion dollars to improve safety and security in his fiefdom.
I would say DC and NY are the two major targets. On the other hand, neither the NY nor the DC politicians are doing themselves any favors by their approach to the war on terror. They act as though it's nothing more than pork to them. Schumer, Clinton, and the Dems want to cut funding for the war on terror in general, but on the other hand, they are outraged when NY does not get what they think is a fair cut of the homeland security budget. And their proposed use of the funds is to pay the salaries of first responders, etc., which means cops, firefighters, and ambulance drivers. While it is true that in an emergency, those first responders would be important links in the apparatus, it is also true that our goal should be to prevent terrorism, not respond to it, and their constant harping on funding for those workers suggests that their primary goal when it comes to terror funding is to use the war on terror as an excuse to have the federal government pick up what have traditionally been local expenses, and are still local expenses in every other city in the nation.
It would certainly be just as tragic, but it couldn't possibly kill as many people, for reasons I stated earlier. And it wouldn't shut down the world's financial markets. And very few al Quaeda members have heard of Newton IA or Aberdeen SD. Osama bin Laden sits in his cave at night thinking about Rockafeller Plaza, not Kansas City.
I don't mean to hijack the thread but I see a very clear analogous relation ship between domestic WOT funding and WOD funding. Homeland security money is the same as War on Drugs money. Highly addictive and grossly wasted. Every LEA in the US gets WOD money even park rangers. Now they all want WOT money.
I say scrap the WOD and reallocate the money for the WOT. At least it's for a legitimate threat and we seem to be actually doing a few things to thwart terrorism.
More like halfway (or more) to Dallas, San Antonio, Austin etc etc etc...
Good thing we got out a day before that mess...We could smell that wreck coming a mile off...
See...It kinda sums it up...People will do what "they" have to do to protect and safeguard themselves...Its commonsense...
The ones that don't, and rely on the government to tell them what and when to do it...They stand a high chance of not enjoying the outcome of that decision and hesitation...I wish there were fewer people that fell into that bunch, but then again, there are too few of us to make a difference...
Me too. Perhaps Homeland Security should be moved to the top of the Freedom Tower (if it is ever completed) and administrate from there.
As a side note, and this is not directed at you, I'm getting pretty sick of people who hate NY coming on these threads and practically rooting for another attack here. Do these people want to see more Americans die because a lot of liberals live here? I worked in 1 WTC (the north tower) until the spring of 2001. I can confidently say that 75-80% of the people in that building voted for Bush. Financial Services is a very conservative industry, for obvious reasons.
Take a hike troll. The Drug war has nothing to do with this particular subject.
Another 9/11 attack on NYC wouldn't necessarily shut down the world's financial markets, either. The New York Stock Exchange shut down for several days after 9/11 for obvious reasons, but other exchanges could have stayed open. The NASDAQ, for example, is a virtual exchange that could have operated largely uninterrupted on and after 9/11, but voluntarily closed down so as to conform with the trading hours of the NYSE.
The notion of having a securities exchange in a fixed place in the middle of a large city is -- like so many other things in New York -- really a relic of the past.
I would argue the planet, but that would be a good start.
All kidding aside, the Islamic terrorist who went to jail yesterday (for plotting to blow up the subway station under Macy's) was apprehended with the help of Osama El Darwoody, a patriotic American, IMO.
Agreed, but that's still the current reality.
I'm as conservative as anyone else on this site, and I'm posting this from Manhattan, too . . . and I think Bloomberg is a damn fool who has no credibility at all. A man who spends valuable city resources on gun-grabbing schemes in other states, and who thinks second-hand smoke and trans-fats are the biggest threats to the safety and well-being of his city, doesn't deserve a nickel of Federal money to finance whatever his idea of "anti-terrorist efforts" happens to be.
Agreed that Bloomberg is an a-hole, but you're willing to pay with your life to make that point? I would be in favor of most of the funds going to NYC if I lived in Chicago and Al Sharpton was NY's mayor.
It's already happening, anyway. Between Eliot Spitzer and the Sarbannes-Oxley Act, New York City has become substantially diminished in recent years as a major world financial center.
I have no problem with a large portion of the funding going to NYC, as long as it is used correctly. I have seen to much boondoggle cash from Homeland Security get blown on stupid things to hold out much hope of that.
I hate Spitzer and SarBox, but neither changes the fact that NYC remains THE major world financial center. And if the major target was markets, how hard would it be to coordinate simultaneous attacks on NY and London?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.