White House Wants To Cut Anti-Terror Funds

Bush Admin. Would Eliminate Port Security Programs, Local Emergency Management Ops

(AP)  The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The Homeland Security Department has given $23 billion to states and local communities to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, but one document says the administration is not convinced that the money has been well spent and thinks the nation's highest-risk cities have largely satisfied their security needs.

The department wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House said it would ask Congress for less than half - $1.4 billion, according to a Nov. 26 document. The plan calls for outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations in the next budget year. This is President Bush's last budget, and the new administration would have to live with the funding decisions between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2009.

The Homeland Security department and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is in charge of the administration's spending plans, would not provide details about the funding cuts because nothing has been finalized. "It would be premature to speculate on any details that will or will not be a part of the next fiscal year budget," OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan said, because negotiations between the White House and the Cabinet departments over the budget are not finished.

"There's been staunch support of our department, and you'll see it again this February" when Bush's 2009 budget emerges, Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke predicted.

The proposal to drastically cut Homeland Security grants is at odds with some of the administration's own policies. For example, the White House recently promised continued funding for state and regional intelligence "fusion centers" - information-sharing centers the administration deems critical to preventing another terrorist attack. Cutting the grants would limit money available for the centers.

The White House's plan to eliminate the port, transit and other grants, which are popular with state and local officials, would not go into effect until Sept. 30, 2008. Congress is unlikely to support the cuts and will ultimately decide the fate of the programs and the funding levels when it hashes out the department's 2009 budget next year. The White House routinely seeks to cut the budget requests of federal departments, but the cuts proposed for 2009 Homeland Security grants are far deeper than the norm. Congress has yet to approve the department's 2008 plan.

"This budget proposal is dead on arrival," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "This administration runs around the country scaring people and then when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they say 'Sorry, the bank is closed.'"

California receives a large share of the counterrorism money each year, and could lose more than $200 million under the White House plan.

Boxer was particularly incensed about the proposal to end money for port security - a big concern on the West Coast. "California's ports carry over 47 percent of all goods imported into the United States," she said. "A terrorist attack at any of California's ports could shut down our nation's port system and result in a mind-boggling loss for our nation's economy."

Bipartisan opposition to deep cuts emerged from New York, another state that would be hard hit.

"To zero out essential Homeland Security programs which have more to do with protecting Americans and fighting the war on terror than much of the money spent in Iraq shows how warped and out of touch this administration's priorities are," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat.

The proposal "goes totally in the wrong direction," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "This would be a very grave mistake, and I will do all I can to stop it."

In some years the grant program has created more ill will than security. In 2005, the administration cut by 40 percent the counterterrorism funding to New York and Washington, D.C., the two cities hit hardest on Sept. 11. New York lawmakers were furious, and the Homeland Security official in charge of the grants program eventually resigned. Since then, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has promised to apply more common sense and less "bean-counting" in grant decisions.

The White House plan calls for massive cuts in areas where Homeland Security officials had sought increases. The department requested $900 million for grants to U.S. cities at greatest risk of attack. But the White House only wants to provide $400 million for that program, to be divided among no more than 45 urban areas. In 2007, Congress gave New York City $134 million - about a third of the total amount the White House would give to the highest risk areas in the country in 2009.

While very popular in the states and among lawmakers who take credit for getting counterterrorism dollars to their districts, some of the Homeland Security grants have been criticized as wasteful or excessive.

• $345,000 for crashproof barriers and 60 closed-circuit cameras to monitor the University of Arkansas Razorback stadium, which local officials think could be a terrorist target.
  
• $5 million for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology to buy a nearly deserted town to use for counterterrorism training.
  
• $70,000 for Huntsville, Ala. to create a fallout shelter in an abandoned mine where 20,000 people could take cover underground.
  
• Several South Florida fire departments have used Homeland Security grants to beef up their gyms. Pompano Beach, Fla., spent $220,000 on fitness equipment for a wellness program, training and physical exams.

While the White House would eliminate at least seven current Homeland Security grant programs, it would create two new grants:

• Targeted investment grants, which would fund administration priorities such as the requirement that states create more secure driver's licenses, secure credentials for transportation employees and state and local planning for catastrophic disasters. The White House would provide $450 million for that.
  
• A $300 million discretionary grant program for terrorism preparedness, prevention and response, which would fund specific projects instead of sending a set amount to each state.

These grants have long been debated in Congress, particularly whether a certain amount should be guaranteed to each state regardless of its risk of being attacked by terrorists. Rural lawmakers have not wanted the money to be distributed based on risk alone because it would mean their states and districts would see cuts.

In a joint statement, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman and ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said they "urge the administration to reconsider this wrong-headed strategy."

[ioweign]

By now most if not all security measures should be in place. If something is needed the states should be able to ask and show proof of the need. Throwing money to the states is giving them carte blanche to do what they will with it and it usually ends up in someone''''s pocket. How about all those funds the states get to shore up their infra structures?

Posted by mudrose at 08:39 AM : Dec 03, 2007

And the money to Iraq is well accounted for !!

Just heard that Iraq is the third most corrupt country in the world - and Bush wants to pump more money into it !

[yongamerica]

Today the cost of toys and trinkets are cheaper than they were 20 years ago. Today the houses purchased brand new by the working class with a single income can now be barely afforded by college educated middle class with two incomes. In some places, in California for instance, this is no longer true, highly educated and payed individuals can barely pay for a small run down apartment. Fuel prices are so inflated by the prospectors that bailed out of the land market that farmers are now paying 3 times for hay than they did 2 years ago, and this in areas where the drought has not played into the equation.

Just as people are seeing that it is important to balance ecological needs, people should now see the similarities with finance and business needs.

Whu is this?

[rowdytexan2]

I''d go with snorting coke or prostate trouble.

[mudrose-2009]

The national debt _ the total accumulation of annual budget deficits _ is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.And now the president wants to talk about Congressional Spending? Plueez
Posted by ppas2004

Hey some 50 years ago the folks could by a house for a mere $19,000. Cost of living goes up. You can''t even buy a new car for that kind of money any more.

[ppas2004]

The national debt _ the total accumulation of annual budget deficits _ is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.And now the president wants to talk about Congressional Spending? Plueez

[mudrose-2009]

I''''m afraid your analogy hardly holds up, SBB2211. Anyone who spent the funds inappropriately should be held accountable, absolutely. But an attack on ANY state is an attack on the entire country, so we cannot afford such a dismissive attitude.
Posted by bobgee_1999

By now most if not all security measures should be in place. If something is needed the states should be able to ask and show proof of the need. Throwing money to the states is giving them carte blanche to do what they will with it and it usually ends up in someone''s pocket. How about all those funds the states get to shore up their infra structures?

[watcher269-2009]

Wow, Bushit/Cheney "Weak on Terrorism" Never thought I''d see the day.

[candide777]

Smart move by the White House, once again forcing democrats to jump onto the republican bandwagon.

[jrw27]

%u201CYes, I am. If you think that your state has not spent the money wisely, vote for someone who will. Why should the rest of us taxpayers have to keep throwing money into a hole? It is the state''''s RESPONSIBILITY to spend that money on security, not parks, museums, or other items.%u201D
RE: I vote every year in both major and minor elections. I don''t always get the politicians I choose. You seem to agree with me on one thing however; individuals should pay the price for their actions; not the taxpayer. This was the case with Enron, WorldCom, and it must be the case with the Bush Administration. Homeland Security funds could have been used to combat terrorism by creating quarantine (at ports). But, due to the complex American bureaucracy this would have been a time consuming and lengthy process. Screening Al Qaeda prototypes for social, political, and biological contagion seen as terrorist oriented and/or threatening to the American way of life would require time, room, and board for detainees. But it would cost less than the dysfunctional bundles of cash handed to defense contractors, et al. that provided us with unneeded arsenal. So, if the Bush Administration has misappropriated Homeland Security funds, the Bush Administration should pay the price for their crime; that is justice isn%u2019t it?

[culturechang]

While the federal govt is massively oversized right now, I would think domestic security would be the last place to cut right now. Whenever things dont make sense, there is usually omitted information from the whole picture.

I understand there is a congressional proposal to make prostitution a federal crime now. They want FBI agents on it. I think its a ruse to shutdown the licensed Nevada joints with overriding federal law.

So when the next terrorist attack occurs, they FBI will claim they did not have the resources to see the warning signs.....because they were pre-occupied in some back alley behind a massage joint dumpster diving for condom wrappers. This is about right on par with Bush priorities.