I've read a few theories about DHS's funding decisions. Pork and incompetence lead the pack. I can't figure out the DHS decision to stiff NY and D.C. when it comes to funding but I think this paragraph from the NYT story on the subject of the NY cuts is something to consider:
The Bloomberg administration has used the money to pay for continuing costs, like overtime for police officers, while the federal government wants the grants to support semipermanent safeguards like improvements in communications systems, better gas masks or increased training. But city officials have argued that spending on overtime and the like clearly reduces the risk of terror attacks. They say that tactics like stationing patrol cars at the feet of the Brooklyn Bridge should be considered a legitimate use of federal counterterrorism dollars.
BushCo doesn't like paying for cops, which is a labor cost - as the story says, a continuing cost. They'd rather build and buy stuff. I bet if we found out exactly how the money was going to be spent in the places that got increases, you'd find that it won't be on personnel but on equipment and buildings and other one-time costs. Does DHS not want to get in the business of paying cities' payrolls? Is it that simple? I don't understand why DHS can't make this point - or if it's wrong, than the one that explains today's very strange decision - clearly.
By the way, Philly, which is filled with all sorts of national landmarks, lost money too. Were they planning to spend it on cops and other personnel too?
I actually agree with the decision not to fund police overtime. I don't think having more cops on the streets of NYC is a good terrorist deterrent; I think it's good for when you want to crack down on, say, protestors during the Republican convention.
The real issue here, I think, is why didn't NYC spend the last allotment they got? That would seem to be the main reason the federal government doesn't want to give them more money.
Posted by: Elayne Riggs | June 07, 2006 at 09:31 AM
I don't think having more cops on the streets of NYC is a good terrorist deterrent; I think it's good for when you want to crack down on, say, protestors during the Republican convention.
Hey! You could work for the DHS.
And you're right about spending the last bunchof money NYC got. That's a good question. I'm still stymied as to why the feds don't have a better, more clear response to all of this. Of course the answer to that is that they don't need one. The corporate media let the story die and the Dems won't pick it up. It's classified after all.
Posted by: eRobin | June 07, 2006 at 10:16 AM