The entire purpose of the Bush Administration has been to send current and future tax revenue to loyal Republicans. Billions of taxpayers hard earned dollars have been stuffed into already over-stuffed pockets.
Security Loses; Pork Wins - New York Times
This was a sad week for the war on terror. The Senate voted, disgracefully, to shift homeland security money from high-risk areas to low-risk ones - a step that is likely to mean less money to defend New York and California against terrorism and more for states like Wyoming. Before the vote, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a powerful appeal to the senators to distribute the money based on risk. But the Senate, led by Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and other small-state representatives, put political pork ahead of national security. It now falls to the House to fight for a financing formula that will keep the nation safe.
The 9/11 commission, after an extensive study of the best ways to defend America, urged that antiterrorism funds be divided "strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities." Mr. Chertoff, in a strongly written letter, urged the senators to enact a formula that would distribute money "based on risk and need," not one that is "static" and "inflexible."
But Congress likes inflexible formulas because they allow members to grab homeland security dollars for their own districts and constituents, whether they need them or not.
Complete Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 14, 2005
Security Loses; Pork Wins
This was a sad week for the war on terror. The Senate voted, disgracefully, to shift homeland security money from high-risk areas to low-risk ones - a step that is likely to mean less money to defend New York and California against terrorism and more for states like Wyoming. Before the vote, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a powerful appeal to the senators to distribute the money based on risk. But the Senate, led by Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and other small-state representatives, put political pork ahead of national security. It now falls to the House to fight for a financing formula that will keep the nation safe.
The 9/11 commission, after an extensive study of the best ways to defend America, urged that antiterrorism funds be divided "strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities." Mr. Chertoff, in a strongly written letter, urged the senators to enact a formula that would distribute money "based on risk and need," not one that is "static" and "inflexible."
But Congress likes inflexible formulas because they allow members to grab homeland security dollars for their own districts and constituents, whether they need them or not. Rather than dole out homeland security money according to a system based entirely on risk, Congress builds in guaranteed state minimums - money that goes to a state regardless of the risks and threats it faces. This way, money that the Homeland Security Department may want to use to protect New York's subways or Texas' chemical plants ends up in Nebraska.
Senators had a chance to fix next year's formula, but they voted to make it worse. The original homeland security budget would have allocated 70 percent of the money according to relative risks. Senators from the highest-risk states, led by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, introduced an amendment to raise that number to 87 percent. Ms. Collins, supported by Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, introduced an amendment to lower to 60 percent the amount given out according to risk.
There were few profiles in courage in the voting. Ms. Feinstein spoke out against the idea of "substituting pork for risk," but most of her colleagues felt just the opposite. Ms. Feinstein's amendment went down to defeat, while Ms. Collins's amendment, to make the formula worse, drew strong support from smaller states and was passed.
Financing formulas are technical, and there is no way to know precisely how much any state will wind up receiving. But at bottom, the senators had a choice between accepting the recommendation of the Homeland Security Department or the preference of senators from states with sparse populations that are highly unlikely targets for terrorism. They chose wrong. It is telling that the senators from the states most at risk - New York, California, New Jersey, Texas and Illinois - unanimously voted against the Collins amendment.
The financing formula will ultimately be settled in a House-Senate conference. The House has been far more responsible on this issue. Unfortunately, Representative Christopher Cox, the Homeland Security Committee chairman, who has been a key force for a risk-based formula, is likely to leave soon to become chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Dennis Hastert, the speaker, and Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, will have to make sure that the House stands strong on the issue.
The whole Senate let the country down this week, but Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman deserve particular blame. As the chairwoman and the ranking Democrat, respectively, on the Senate's domestic security committee, they have a duty to put the national interest ahead of parochial interests. Their performance looks all the worse compared with Mr. Chertoff's forthright stand. If Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman are not committed to doing everything possible to avert another attack - which includes directing every dollar of antiterrorism money to where it is needed most - they should yield their positions to people who are.
An Insecure Nation: Editorials in this series remain online at nytimes.com/insecurenation.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
No comments:
Post a Comment