Perspective Instead Of Leap-First Responses: DHS Has A Point
Thomas first reported on this yesterday afternoon as news started to trickle out that the Department Of Homeland Security had cut funding to New York, Washington, DC, and Los angeles/Orange County. On the outside, the report, which came from the WaPo. (And, of course, leave it to the WaPo to jump to the worst possiblke conclusions.) But, it was not necessarily the conclusions they jumped to, but rather what was omitted in the story. But, it took MSNBC to dig up the skinny on the numbers:
Chertoff defended the cut on Thursday, while acknowledging that New York City was still at the top of the U.S. threat list. He said the nearly $125 million in grants for New York were in line with the average amounts the city has gotten in the years since Sept. 11. He added that New York has gotten more than $500 million in all, and that is more than twice the total received by the next-highest-risk city, Los Angeles.
And then there is this from the New York Times which reveals that the city might have brought this on themselves with some mismanagment of funds:
The report, obtained yesterday, pointed out opposing views held by cities and the federal government over how antiterrorism money should be spent and, as an extension of those views, how terrorism should be fought.
City officials have used federal money to subsidize continuing costs, like paying overtime to officers. The federal government, on the other hand, wants the grants to pay for semipermanent safeguards that can increase security over the long term, like improvements in communications systems, better gas masks and increased training.
The report faulted the city for not adequately explaining why the money being requested could reduce risks.
It does seem to me that there is more to this decision that originally was reported yesterday, and the knee-jerk reaction to the stories leads people to jump to conclusions. If New York is mismanaging funds, then maybe it is time they reevaluate their spending. I am just as irate as many New Yorkers are at the excuse from Homeland Security that there are "no monuments" that justify an increase in funding. There are plenty of monuments and landmarks throughout New York that would be a "target rich environment" for our enemies to hit.
I condemn DHS for their assessments, but it does sound like New York has itself to blame for the cut in funding.
The Bunny ;)
Thomas first reported on this yesterday afternoon as news started to trickle out that the Department Of Homeland Security had cut funding to New York, Washington, DC, and Los angeles/Orange County. On the outside, the report, which came from the WaPo. (And, of course, leave it to the WaPo to jump to the worst possiblke conclusions.) But, it was not necessarily the conclusions they jumped to, but rather what was omitted in the story. But, it took MSNBC to dig up the skinny on the numbers:
Chertoff defended the cut on Thursday, while acknowledging that New York City was still at the top of the U.S. threat list. He said the nearly $125 million in grants for New York were in line with the average amounts the city has gotten in the years since Sept. 11. He added that New York has gotten more than $500 million in all, and that is more than twice the total received by the next-highest-risk city, Los Angeles.
And then there is this from the New York Times which reveals that the city might have brought this on themselves with some mismanagment of funds:
The report, obtained yesterday, pointed out opposing views held by cities and the federal government over how antiterrorism money should be spent and, as an extension of those views, how terrorism should be fought.
City officials have used federal money to subsidize continuing costs, like paying overtime to officers. The federal government, on the other hand, wants the grants to pay for semipermanent safeguards that can increase security over the long term, like improvements in communications systems, better gas masks and increased training.
The report faulted the city for not adequately explaining why the money being requested could reduce risks.
It does seem to me that there is more to this decision that originally was reported yesterday, and the knee-jerk reaction to the stories leads people to jump to conclusions. If New York is mismanaging funds, then maybe it is time they reevaluate their spending. I am just as irate as many New Yorkers are at the excuse from Homeland Security that there are "no monuments" that justify an increase in funding. There are plenty of monuments and landmarks throughout New York that would be a "target rich environment" for our enemies to hit.
I condemn DHS for their assessments, but it does sound like New York has itself to blame for the cut in funding.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home