http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/66878.htm



Omaha (a state where cows outnumber people 4-1) is expected to get $8.3 million in security funding. Other states with very low-risk targets are also receiving impressive increases on funding thanks to rural congressman on funding committees.

Questions for Debate:

1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?

2) Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks?

3) Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?

1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?

Absolutely not. New York is obviously one of the major targets in this country, along with other major cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. This is where the bulk of the money should go. But really, Jersey City? Memphis? Hell, even being a big Elvis fan, I can't see that terrorists would consider Graceland to be an important target.

2) Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks?

I don't have a problem with every state receiving some funding, but really the proposal has to be looked at with regard to the likelihood of the funding doing any good. More border stations, say, in someplace like the northern border of North Dakota would be appropriate.

But we certainly don't need to be spending federal money to buy armored Humvees for Eau Claire, Wisconsin, or some small town in Alabama.

We don't need to spend a quarter million dollars in Dillingham, Alaska to put up 1 security camera for every 30 people, in a fishing village that's closed to everything except light planes and a few barges in the summer.

And are things like water parks and miniature golf course really of national concern, when we have so many really pressing security needs along the southern border?

3) Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?

He surely should step down. Actually, he should be run out on a rail. Hell, my daughter could make a better assessment of true security needs for the country than the real-life examples I've listed above. Unfortunately, it won't happen, because I'm sure Bush would say "Mikey's doing a heck of a job".

Questions for Debate:

1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?

Yes. NYC is certainly not the only target in the US. Boston was cut as well.

2) Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks?

Define “highest risk”. We should assume the terrorists will strike where they can do most damage most easily and this may not be a city like NY. But you are right that the Congress is sucking the money into their states. Blame THEM for this BAU nonsense.


3) Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?
NO. From what I have read he runs a tight ship. He may not be a “politician” but then we don’t want one in this job do we!

1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?
It makes no sense. New York is the one of the capitals of the Western world. It makes an enticing target for terrorists; that's clear. If anything New York should be getting more money for security, especially Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.

2) Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks? What cities have had Al-Queda related attacks. New York, Washington, London, Aden, Madrid, Dar es Salaam, Nairobi, etc. Hmmm, mostly capitals and country's largest cities. Perhaps there is a link. Considering the cost and difficulty of financing and executing a terrorist attack Al-Queda seems to be very choosy about targets. You don't spend 5 years and millions of dollars plotting to attack the Wendy's in Fargo. Unless the terrorists are the Islamic equivalents of the guys from "Dum and Dummer" they won't waste their time attacking Podunk, Kansas. Obviously it's possible terrorists could attack small population, softer targets but we have limited resources and every hamlet can't have a hazmat team.

3) Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?
Sure, Michael Chertoff could resign but would that do any good. Bush would probably just appoint someone equally as incompetent. What should happen is Michael Chertoff's position should be removed along with the entire DHS.

1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?

Is there a city in the United States that’s had more attacks or potential attacks that were thwarted? My guess is no.

The article points out that Louisville was one of those cities that received a huge increase and is the home of Hal Rogers [R] who chairs the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee. What the article fails to mention is that Louisville is also the home of representative Ann Northup [R] and senior senator Mitch McConnell [R] and both are expected to face tough re-election campaigns.

Nah, no politics here. It would be interesting to compare the “smaller” cities that saw increases, the party affiliation of their senators/representatives and when their next election is being held.

1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?

Maybe the question should be, do I believe NYC needs $200 million for anti-terror measures.

A little background: when this program was first approved by Congress, the total appropriation was $100 million for 7 cities--New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston. Since then, it has grown from $100 million to $765 million and it now covers 95 cities. Holy bureaucratic expansion, Batman!!

The program changed in January. Last year, 45 cities were in the "high risk" category. Idiotic pencil pushers! This year, DHS Secretary Chertoff has changed the risk assessment procedure. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2366.../pub_detail.asp



I have heard it said that New York City is one of the least responsive recipients in the country. Given the funding levels that have come out, my guess is that Chertoff agrees.

Now, I will say that New York City, along with Washington DC, is the biggest target in the country. How much money do they need? $128 million would seem to go a long way, especially on top of last year's $200 million+.

This article claims that the reduction is mostly based on the fact that NYC doesn't need the money. It scores high on the risk meter, but low on the "need" meter.



The reaction from NYC is the typical withdrawal symptoms after feeding from the trough.

2) Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks?

No, I believe the grants should be strictly on risk. Alaska and Wyoming, I'm not sorry to say, have little to fear from terrorist attacks and should not be given money.

3) Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?

No, the reasoning is sound, although you can disagree with the implementation. I like the idea of "no plan, less money", even if Peter King claims that not a single cent of government money was wasted in NYC (dream on, Mr. King).

1. Yes. NYC did not receive a "40% cut". They receive more than 2X any other city in the USA. The decrease was because last year's funding contained substantial 1 time capital expenses. This is a PERFECT example of how people shoot their mouths off before understanding what's going on. Our taxpayers have pumped half a billion dollars into NYC alone under the guise of "homeland security". Is there NO END to their passion for taxpayer dollars?

2. Only the ones with the highest risk. That's why NYC gets twice as much as any other city.

3. Not because of the funding. But Chertoff is a man without a clue when it comes to PR. He was behind the curve on Katrina and he's blown it here. He's being ripped by his OWN PARTY on this. What prevented him from getting on the horn and giving the NY delegation a head's up on this? It's something that he could have explained in a few phone calls. The man has ZERO common sense on how these things are perceived and how the liberal media will run with them at his boss's (the President) expense.

I would fire him because he's clueless and the PR side of his job is exceptionally important.

Personally, I am less angered by the drastic cut in funds as I am by the increase in funding in such low risk targets as Memphis, Lousiville, and Omaha. From Amlord's quote:



I really do not see how cities like New York, Boston, and Washington DC could possible waste the money on useless projects while Louisville and Memphis and states like Idaho and Wyoming will put their millions to good use. I believe that even with the huge amount of money that NYC receives, that it is all put to good use being there is so many targets that terrorists could attack. I mean we are talking about one of the largest cities in the world, a financial capital with corporate headquarters and subways and monuments. NYC is a big place and needs more resources to deal with the high volume of people who enter into the city every day. Being able to spot suspicious activity is immeasurably more difficult in a place like NYC or DC than it is in a city of 400,000 where the demographics are not on the side of diversity.

I am not usually on the side of Congress giving large amounts of federal money to any state or municipality...but this is about national security and to say that it doesn't need the cash is IMO shortsided.

This is gonna be fun....


1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?

Very much so. And here's why.

Below is some data I'm managed to gather for the funding in question, Homeland Security Grants. I was able to find data for FY 2003 and FY 2005 (2004 was incomplete and I did not want to throw in incomplete numbers).

FY2003 and FY2004 Total State Allocations for Homeland Security Grants (PDF Needed)

On page 18 of the PDF is a list by state of the total amount of grants given. For FY 2003, New York State received $418,200,000 dollars

Here is the same data for the 2005 fiscal year. On page 7, the data is again listed by state, and New York state received the following:

New York: $298,350,633

That totals for those two years combined to be about three-quarters of a billion dollars. It would be a fair assumption to make that NY received at least this much the year prior, which would make it over $1 Billion over three years.

Now, it's a no brainer that a lofty sum of that money is going to NYC in particular. So how long should we keep pumping money into cities like NYC before we focus on, you know, the other twenty or so major cities in the Unites States.

According to the posters of this thread, for awhile. This is also the opinion of U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer from New York, who had this to say about smaller states getting funding increases:



And while his comments may not have the tact that many previous posters had, I think they share a common bond. There are many that view locations outside of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago as places with less priority than the aforementioned cities.

Places like Memphis, Tennessee and Louisville, Kentucky were mentioned, along with Schumer's comment about the entire state of Georgia. Well, what could be so important about these places, you ask?

Georgia is home to the following:

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport - The Busiest Airport in the World (Passengers) Located in Atlanta

The Centers for Disease Control - Located also in Atlanta, the CDC is home to sone of the few remaining samples of smallpox in the world (not weaponized), Ebola, monkeypox, and avian flu, and other viral hemorrhagic fevers in the Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory

Georgia is also home to six military installations, (five army posts and one army airfield) which includes:

Fort Benning - Home of the renowned 75th Ranger Regiment
Fort Gordon - Home of the Signal Intelligence HQ and where many soldiers who train in SIGINT take BCT and their job training

Fort Stewart - Home of the 3rd Infantry Division

The port of Savannah is also a major port that is the 5th busiest in the nation.

And what did Georgia receive in HS grants in FY 2003?

$107,300,000

In other words, roughly 26% of the amount New York State received.

In 2005, GA received $54,918,163...18% of New York State's total for FY '05 and a 51% slash in grant funding from the FY 03 total.

Memphis is home to the world's busiest airport in terms of cargo (see link for Hartfield airport).

Louisville, the less attractive of the three, sits on the Ohio river which is used a shipping lane for many cities along the river, and provides access into Pittsburgh. It's also home to Churchill Downs, the home of the Kentucky Derby, which draws as many as 150,000 people every year.

And you can look for yourself. Kentucky and Tennessee's grant funding totaled less than Georgia's for '03 and '05.

But there's nothing important in these cities.....



Well, what constitutes as "Podunk, Kansas" for you? The suburbs outside of Kansas City or Topeka? Fort Riley? The small rural areas, that admittedly don't deserve a grant the size of the one New York has always received, are often not even adequately prepared to respond to local emergencies or to assist in major operations. The fact that New York has received over a billion dollars in grants and places in the midwest and south are in need of more money denotes that "something is dramatically wrong". And while you may believe that Topkea is not on the same level as Madrid or London as far as terror targets, letting cities like Topeka fall behind major cities is just as much a threat.

Keep in mind, Al-Qaeda is becoming less a structured organization and more of an ideology. Anyone can fight under the banner of Al-Qaeda, or any of the other foreign and domestic terror elements in the world. Some terrorists are financed to the gills, thats a certainty, but what makes a terrorist...the money or the motivation?

We can spend all the money we want on guarding major ports of entry in this country, but when home grown terrorists with fixed incomes decide to play small-ball and cause moderate chaos at numerous sites, instead of swinging for the fences like your well funded terrorists, we're in for a world of hurt.

2) Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks?

Haha, for those of you who missed the rant above, I think funding should be adequately handed out to all of America.


3) Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?

Hell no. Making sure states that are falling behind in terror prevention and management catch up with major metropolitan areas? I think that Chertoff should be commended for it.

As said earlier we have limited resources. We can't protect everywhere equally so we need to anticipate where terrorists are likely to strike. Al Qaeda, for example, has only attacked huge cities and capitals. Therefore we should concentrate our resources to those types of places. More specifically terrorists seem to attack places where they can inflict the most damage, physically and psychologically. The money we spend protecting New York for example should be weighted towards places that are busy and have psychological value, like the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, the Subway and not places like Prospect Park or Gray's Papaya.

Sure, it's possible a terrorist could try to attack the biggest, busiest landmark in Topeka, however I don't think it's that likely. Why wouldn't the terrorist just take a car bomb road trip over to New York? Probably there are many more crowded places in New York and the psychological impact is much greater. Plus people in Pakistan have heard of New York; they haven't heard of Topeka. I don't see any legitimate reason a terrorist would choose Topeka over New York. You don't sucker punch somone in the elbow.

I also think part of the issue here is the amount of bang for your buck. You could spend $5 trillion dollars and it would still be possible to kill 5 people and damage a building somewhere in the United States. However in addressing the problem of terrorism there are certain places in America that are much more likely and have a much bigger impact. Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, sky scrappers, public transportation, stadiums, especially in the most famous and largest cities. Obviously we can't just let security slide outside the very largest cities but we need to have priorities.

Also about Georgia, I think 1/4 is plenty. You only had 2 legitimate targets and then a bunch of military bases. I'm no expert but military bases seem like terrible targets. A bunch of guys with big guns in an isolated area with a secure perimeter. That seems like a terrible target to me, but I'm no terrorist.

1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?

The part I don't get about the decrease is this: "Of the $1.7 billion in security funds being awarded, $1.3 billion goes out based on risk." If that is the case, cutting funds to cities like New York and Washington, DC, makes no sense whatsoever. I appreciate the argument that, after several years of funding, there may be less need for New York to be funded in terms of security. I would ask, though, whether the risk has increased in places like Memphis during that time. If not, surely the best plan would be to cut the amount of the funding in general. We have to spend $1.7 billion why? Because it was allocated? I guess everyone in Washington has just forgotten the meaning of the word "surplus". It has been a while since there's been responsible leadership in this country, hasn't it?

Even more baffling than the funding cuts, though, was the assessment of "national monuments and icons" that were evidently used, in part, to calculate "risk". New York was listed as having "zero" monuments or icons worthy of targeting by terrorists. Are they serious? Never mind the Empire State Building or the Stock Exchange or the United Nations Headquarters or the Brooklyn Bridge - what about the Statue of Freakin' Liberty? Do we have a more significant icon?? Forget about the funds. If this is the calibre of work that goes into assessing risk, I'm astonished that we have an effective security strategy at all. Oh, wait - we don't.

2) Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks?

I see nothing wrong with minimal funding, if needed, for basic security training infrastructure (if the states seriously can't come up with their own funding) - and part of these funds are apparently ear-marked for "disaster preparedness" in general. Of course, this makes decisions like cutting funds to New Orleans as short-sighted as either the NYC or DC decisions. However, little of this looks like essential spending and much of it looks like pork as usual. I say cut the whole damned program.

3) Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?

I'd support any reason for Chertoff stepping down from public life altogether. He was the co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, he lead the botched prosecution case against Arthur Andersen (that the USSC eventually overturned), he was one of the chief legal advisors to the Bush Administration in relation to terrorism (including defending and covering up torture, advocating the detainment of thousands of Middle Eastern immigrants, and sabotaging Operation Greenquest investigations), he managed the FEMA "response" to Hurricane Katrina, and he's one of the creepiest-looking fellows I've ever come across in my life. I don't care if he resigns over this or not - I just want him to disappear from the face of the earth forever. And he can take Cheney, Rumsfeld, Negroponte, Bolton, Wolfowitz, and Hayden with him. Then this country might have some hope over the next few years. Morbidly obese chance.

1) Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?

Well, after reading the responses, and links- I give it a qualified "maybe". As pointed out by Wertz- "no monuments at risk" (to paraphrase)- got me going "huh" to that one. But at some point- the amount of money spent on New York SHOULD be yielding some results? - Also pointed out- we do have possibly the most incompetent leadership in US history running the show (GW Bush and co) - so it is entirely possible that NO amount of money will improve security, because they are simply too incompetent to put it into the right hands.

2) Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks?

Titus pointed out some obvious good targets that shouldn't be discounted out of hand just because they are Tennessee or whatever- however, I do take issue with his characterization of military bases needing this funding- I mean, what the heck are they doing with, you know, all those guns and soldiers already on that base now? - here is how you secure a base- um, close the doors- end of story LOL

3) Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?

Well, Wertz wrote it best, but I will say it myself- we have the single most incompetent administrations in US history, possibly even surpasing Grant and Carter, very difficult standard there to beat! - ya, the best thing is to get rid of all of them- but Chertoff is horribly incompetent all on his own, so ya, he should go.

That is if your premise of a "cut" is accurate in the first place. As several posters have pointed out, NYC gets the lion's share of the funding every year. What is being called a "cut" is not a cut at all. The previous year contained a bubble of funding for one-time capital investments. That didn't establish a new "baseline" from which more appropriate funding levels could be labeled "cuts" or "reductions".



Well, I have to agree with you that congress is spending money like no tomorrow. And, to your second point I'm not sure what you mean by "responsible" leadership. That seems pretty vague and open to individual interpretation. Do you mean a congress run by "democrats" perhaps? With respect to surplus, the USA didn't really achieve that due to our politicians. The 1 or 2 years that we ran a "surplus" was more due to the overheated economy of the late 90's in the run-up to y2k than anything that Bill Clinton or the GOP congress did during those years. And, they spent every dollar of that "surplus" and then some. And the projected surpluses were based on unrealistic rosy-scenario economic projections. That's the first thing the Bush people said in 2001 after the economy had slowed dramatically in Q3 and Q4 of 2000. And what were they accused of back then? "Talking down the economy".... as if such a thing were even possible.

The only way to end the spending madness in Washington is to fundamentally restructure our government. Spending increases are built in. The mentality in D.C. depends on baseline budgeting where huge amounts of money sent to places like NYC can be positioned as "cuts" and "reductions".

I advocate reducing the federal government by 50% and by privatizing nearly everything outside of the military. Especially education which has fallen victim to the same fate expected from a government controlled monopoly; especially a union dominated government controlled monopoly. High cost and mediocre quality.

I also advocate instituting an incentive program for government agencies that rewards costs savings and efficiency improvements with cash bonuses to that department akin to "profit sharing" checks. As it stands, no government bureaucrat in their right mind would advocate something to increase efficiency or reduce cost. It just costs them in next year's budget if they don't blow every dime allocated to them. Besides, it's taxpayer money and it doesn't have to be "earned" in the same way that a company must create goods and services that people actually want. All that is required is the election of politicians who promise their constituents more than what they put in. They "tax the rich" or "tax corporations" and promise to "bring home the bacon". And they do. And they tax all of us endlessly.

Do you agree with the 40% decrease in funding for NYC to fight terrorism?
Yes and no.

Do you believe that every state should receive some terror funding or only those locations that have the highest risks?
Sort of.

Many have called for Chertoff to resign due to this, do you find this as reason enough for him to step down?
Although the DHS buck stops at Chretoff’s office, Tracy Henke is in charge of the grant-allocation process.

I’ve read the arguments here, how the cut is not really a cut and NYC, L.A., and D.C. are not the only cities in the country that need grants and, in theory, don’t deserve a static percentage if you stretch those funds to include the other 48. From my perspective, they do. What other densely populated areas generate massive economic transactions, and demand the attention of terrorists interested in visiting the greatest damage on citizens and the economy?

But ignore this for a moment. We’ve seen the 60 Minutes special exposing how these funds are wasted by local authorities.


To combat this criticism, Congress ignored a RAND report released late last year suggesting funds should be distributed using an event-based model that focuses on the consequences of successful terrorist attacks. The grants, RAND argues, should be distributed for and based on fallout, not prevention, since predicting the time and location of a terrorist attack is impossible.

Two months after the RAND study is made public, the House Homeland Security Committee releases a grant guidance for DHS (pdf). The recommendation does not go into detail about how law enforcement wasted grants from 2003 to 2005, and leaves it up to this Congress to look into the issue and come up with a solution.

The committee partitions the total grant into lump sums and tells DHS it can allocate smaller grants based on population and intelligence assessments. I guess the second requirement is why Henke won’t discuss the data she used to conclude the nation’s capital is “low-risk,” the Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, and Empire State Building don’t deserve national icon status, but two cities in her home state, Kansas and St. Louis, deserved bigger grants.

Pardon my cynicism. This is the same Congress that let the White House hamstring investigations into corporate fraud, waste, and abuse of funds in Iraq and Afghanistan by changing three little words on the latest appropriation bill. What’s good for the president is good for Congress and the departmental hub of hack appointments, DHS.

In order to make an reasonable judgement on this issue it is necessary to see a breakdown of past funding and their plans for future funding, and how they tie in together. Not simply react to a newspaper article.

AT funding from the Fed to state and local jurisdictions should never be thought of as an open-ended subsidy. Effective funding should be directed at ensuring upgrades and interoperability (between state, local, and Fed agencies) among communications systems, that first responders are adequately equipped for conventional and WMD terrorism, that personnel at all levels receive the necessary training, and that standardized policies and procedures are implemented for the effective implemenation of all of the above.

Once that has been met in the high-risk locales, then their funding can - and should - be cut, and attention be given to the next along in the priority chain until all jurisdictions are adequately prepared to meet the threat. This should be a long-term project and carefully planned and budgeted as such. Given a cohesive long-term budget plan, periodic upgrades and replacements to systems also need to built in; but, again, no state or locale should expect continued open-ended funding.

However, as Lesly clearly states, since 9/11 there has been a great deal of mis-directed state and local funding, due to both a too rapid process and political maneuvering for monies on the part of both agencies and politicians (of which this latest is a good example). This has to come to an end, and a comprehensive review of past funding expenditure and future needs must be conducted. Otherwise we shall only continue to partially and inadequately meet true AT requirements, while wasting much of the taxpayers' money on unneccessary expenditures and incompatible systems.

Well, perhaps I should have elaborated a bit. Odds are, I'm sure, that no terrorist is going to make it past the gate gaurd at Fort Benning. But call me a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but what would it take to expose the town outside of post to a biological toxin that could be carried into the post?

What about using the breeze to carry toxins from off-post onto the base?

I'm not trying to "what if" this thing to death. My concerns are that, first off, people like Sen. Schumer are discounting potential High Value Targets into peanut farms run by yokels. Second, by doing so, the people in our government will allow the rest of America to fall behind is terrorism prevention and management.

Is New York still target number one in the eyes of a group like Al-Qaeda? Of course. But does that mean we let major cities like Atlanta and Memphis fall behind? I hope not, but it looks like we're heading in that direction.

And before I get awarded my tin hat....

Terror Plot in Canada Foiled: Men sought three time the amount of the explosive compound used in the OKC Bombing

What does that have to do with anything I said here?



Be sure to make an antenna on that tin foil hat...