Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BUSH Admin To SLASH Counterterrorism Funding For Police, Firefighters, Rescue Depts-By Half Next Yr.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 06:38 PM
Original message
BUSH Admin To SLASH Counterterrorism Funding For Police, Firefighters, Rescue Depts-By Half Next Yr.
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 06:39 PM by kpete
Bush intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half

Emergency Responders Face Deep Aid Cuts

Nov 30 07:19 PM US/Eastern
By EILEEN SULLIVAN and DEVLIN BARRETT

WASHINGTON (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 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.

more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-11-30_D8T8...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. The GWOT was just a big pork barrel for GOP pals, anyway.
After 9/11, DHS never broke up a legitimate terrorist cell. Not one.

Hate to tell you this, folks, but we created our own enemies. And, that's for real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. k + r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. Slash it for the contractors and mercenaries--they're more expendable
and if they want to keep serving, let them join the service.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. WTF??? Bush and Cronies just don't have a clue as to running a DEPT efficiently and effectively
They are winging it....Heckofajob bushie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why and what and how and why and what what what?
Does he ever do anything that makes sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Okay, curtailing wasteful spending is never a bad thing,
but something seems amiss regarding that development.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reno.Muse Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I'd be happy to shed some light on this ...I worked for the department
at the state level that handled those Homeland Security grants that came to our state. Every year, a group of cops and firemen/women come together from almost every city and county and argue through who gets what from the state share of the federal pot.

One thing that has happened is there has been alot of wasteful spending. Money has been spent on project that haven't been completed, on plans that are approved and never implemented and the bigger cities hog most of the funds for fusion centers and other crap that has nothing to do with "terrorism".



Even Bush and his White House jerks knows there is a better use for that money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
7.  Probably so they can privatize everything .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. bingo. Blackwater-ization in action
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. Another worthwhile kick for this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
11. who cares?
"terrorism" is not in the top twenty-five of the major issues faced by first responders
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Point being, "terror" was Bush's stock in trade.
Now that he's leaving office he could give a shit anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. We should ALL give a shit AFTER they leave office
from the article:

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.

Now let's just consider a few things about the situation concerning the last sentence.

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.

We should all realize just how desperate the rethugs will be should they lose the election fair and square. With all of Cheney's connections throughout the middle east and around the world, and knowing that he doesn't give a rats ass about anyone not within his class, I think he is capable of pulling off a caper. Cheney is one calculating MOFO, and I wouldn't put anything passed him.

With the incoming administration having to rely on a weak security budget, especially ports, and transit security. Well, let's just say I hope my gut is wrong about this scenario that keeps playing in my head. I really fear when these criminals are OUT of office.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I know. I was being snarky for no good reason.
the lying scumwads
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. know why??
So he can re-write history about being fiscally responsible and brag about how he cut the budget..and so when a dem comes to the WH, THEY can be blamed for "spending all the tax payer's money".. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC