Democrats hammer Bush on domestic security

The Democrats’ fight against the White House over funding for domestic security reached new levels yesterday. The Dems obviously see this as a political vulnerability for Bush and have decided to make this a central part of the 2004 campaign.

Of course, Bush is really making the case for them. As Jonathan Chait explained in great detail last month in The New Republic, Bush’s failure to provide necessary resources for domestic security has been “abysmal.”

“Through passivity or, more often, active opposition, President Bush has repeatedly stifled efforts to strengthen domestic safeguards against further terrorist attacks,” Chait explained. “As a consequence, homeland security remains perilously deficient. ‘President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the country remains more vulnerable than it should be today,’ concluded a report published last month by the Brookings Institution. A December 2002 report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations concurs: ‘America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.’ Bush’s record on homeland security ought to be considered a scandal.”

Though it may not be a political scandal dominating headlines, Democrats are nevertheless hoping to bring increased public awareness to the president’s failures in this area.

For his part, Bush seems to be getting a little concerned about the issue. Not concerned enough to actually increase funding or pare down his massive tax cuts for the wealthy, but concerned enough to give high-profile speeches in key electoral states touting his administration’s efforts.

In a speech at the Port of Philadelphia to an audience of Coast Guard personnel, Bush emphasized the steps he was taking to make “this nation more secure.”

As USA Today reported, Democrats on the Hill were quick to respond by highlighting areas where the administration has been negligent on domestic security, including a statement from Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, who alerted reporters to the fact that Bush requested “no money” for port security in his war budget, “despite the Coast Guard saying it needs more than $1 billion this year to secure U.S. ports.”

In fact, Bush’s emergency war appropriations request totaled $74.7 billion, of which $4 billion was aimed for domestic security. Democrats agree with the experts who say this isn’t enough, and announced today that they would propose more than doubling that figure, seeking $10 billion to address needs such as aid to struggling state and local agencies that are struggling to pay for security costs, as well as beefing up protection and the nation’s ports, roads, and bridges.

It will no doubt require some difficult political acrobatics for the administration to disagree with the Democrats’ goals. Governors and mayors of both parties and from coast to coast have been arguing that the federal government has simply not done enough to help protect citizens on U.S. soil against terrorist threats.

As the Washington Post reported today, “mayors and governors are resorting to begging and borrowing” to try and afford greater security during tight fiscal times and without necessary assistance from the federal government.

Even Bush’s gubernatorial allies are wondering when someone in the administration will start showing some leadership.

New York’s George Pataki (R) recently wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to complain that the administration’s funding “doesn’t properly recognize New York and other places that are symbols of American freedom.”

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) told the Post that trying to keep up with security costs are forcing states to make difficult, sometimes painful, decisions. “These responsibilities are unprecedented, and it’s an extra cost burden when none of us can absorb it,” Huckabee said. “If you put extra personnel on bridges, you’re taking money from public schools or telling scholarship students they can’t go to college or taking medicine from elderly people. We’re beyond the point of inconveniencing people. We’re close to hurting them.”

Officials at the local level have it just as bad. In Los Angeles, officials got so tired of waiting for federal money that never came, they reluctantly had to borrow from a municipal trust fund so they could afford some chemical protection suits for firefighters and police. In New Haven, Conn., the mayor recently announced his city hasn’t received a dime from the feds to help with domestic security and he’s only able to equip 10 percent of his 300 firefighters with equipment to protect them in the event of a chemical or biological attack.

Bush will have to make some difficult decisions of his own. He must realize that he can help every state and city in America bolster their security networks. The federal government can easily afford to make these investments if it scales back Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. The president has already acknowledged that he was “disappointed” that Republicans in Congress didn’t provide adequate money for local counterterrorism programs. Will he have the courage to do something about it?