Bush to slash counter-terrorism funds

The White House has struggled for quite a while when it comes to dispersing federal funds to municipalities for counter-terrorism. In 2006, for example, the Bush administration, slashed money for Washington, D.C., and New York City using a bizarre grant process that no one could explain. At the same time, the administration released a risk scorecard for NYC concluded that the home of the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, and Brooklyn Bridge has “zero” national monuments or icons.

Yesterday, however, the Bush gang decided the entire grant process is no longer worth the investment, and it would now slash counter-terrorism funds even more.

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 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 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.

I’m trying to imagine the Republican response if a Democratic presidential candidate proposed a budget policy similar to Bush’s plan. I have a strong hunch we’d hear words like “weak,” “traitor,” and “treason” thrown around quite a bit.

“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.”‘

Indeed, the AP noted that Bush’s budget conflict’s with Bush’s own policies.

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.

Republicans aren’t particularly pleased with the proposal. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said, “This would be a very grave mistake, and I will do all I can to stop it.”

How bad is it? Even Joe Lieberman thinks Bush is off-track.

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.”

Stay tuned.

If Lieberman thinks Bush is wrong headed, the sky must be ready to fall.

  • The plan calls outright elimination of programs for port security…”

    And we what, inspect something on the order of only four percent of shipping containers as it is?

    Someone, somewhere is asking, “This sounds like an invitation. What’s the yield of a shipping container full of ammonium nitrate?”

  • It’s hard to imagine what Bush is thinking about with a policy like this. Of course Liam m
    might be right – he’s insane.

    But perhaps it’s because grants to police and fire departments can’t be channeled to favored contractors. We have some idea how much money favored contractors are being showered with in Iraq, which we are told is the “central front in the War on Terror.”

    It makes more sense than anything else I can think of.

  • we need the money to fight them over there. if we do that, we won’t need the money to fight them over hear.

    makes perfect sense.

  • Why would BushCo care about what happens when it’s going to be a democrat or a non-neocon in office soon? You’ve got to remember these are people who sincerely don’t care about this country, its people, or its future. I’m not saying they hate America, just that they don’t think in those terms.

    You mention what Repubs would be saying/doing if a Dem did this. The tragedy isn’t what Repubs would be doing, it’s what Dems aren’t doing right now.

  • The plan calls 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…

    I wish it were his last conscious thought. Somebody’s brains have leaked out of a hole in his/her head. The first two, port and transit security, are CERTAINLY needed to guard against terrorism. These two are the most urgent security concerns of Americans, along with concerns about open land borders, all repeatedly cited in reports and polls.

    And as for “local emergency management operations”, those operations need beefing up because not all emergencies are terrorist-related. In fact, there have been NO local operations responding to terrorism since New York on 911. It’s all done under cloak and dagger fun by the Feds, and that hasn’t harvested 2-cents worth, certainly no more “Islamic terrorism” than before 911.

    Since 2001, we’ve had hurricanes, collapsing superstructures, tornadoes, and wildfires that local emergency management operations have been hardpressed to handle.

    Bush couldn’t have done better if Goofy, the Disney dog, had presented a budget relating to terrorism and Homeland Security.

    Bush et al are the most goddamned self-centered people in America. They’ll slash taxpayer funds meant to benefit Americans, and bludgeon Congress about other funds for their personal illegal and imperial war that people are outraged about.

    Somebody needs to put them out of our misery.

  • Memo #1 to Bush:

    Joey needs another peck on the cheek.

    Memo #2 to Bush:

    Not that cheek you dummkopf!

  • [dons tinfoil chapeau]

    Let’s see, everything else BushBot does seems to benefit Osama WhereUBin Hidin’. Suddenly he wants to slash funding for local counterterrorism measures … just because.

    episty is right, this is an invitation, engraved and edged in gilt. [/tinfoil chapeau]

    I’m not saying the OMG THEY WANT 2 KILL US!!! crap is justified but if BushCo thinks it is no longer justified they need to be forced to stand up and say on the record, in front of the cameras, that they’ve come to the conclusion that it is safe to scale back counter-terrorism efforts in the US.

  • Either Okie is right and Bush doesn’t want to hand out any money to folks who aren’t his very own buddies, or Bush is hoping for an attack so that he can play the “hero” again. As warped as his world view is, I can imagine him hoping for an attack on American soil so that he can somehow be vindicated that electing Democrats made America weak.

  • This has double-edged sword all over it. Give it until midweek, and they’ll find a way to make it play as if Dems were cutting the money. The other edge is that a major stand-down in anti-terrorism funding right now would create a wide-open window; not right away, but when the funds in the pipeline finally ran out at the receiving end.

    And that ought to be just in time for next year’s general election.

    C’mon, people—think Spain here….

  • Maybe it’s a punishment for the refusal of Congress to give Bush all the war-money he wants.

  • Why should we need to disburse money for port, transportation and other security issues to individual localities, when we have a central data collection on everyone. We know what you think, we know when you’ve been good or bad and, if you’re thinking bad thoughts, we can clap you into Gitmo sooner than you can say “eff Bush”. We’ll take care of your security, just watch us…

  • Pingback: 90f78cb8cfae
  • Comments are closed.