Unfair Share of Security Money

[Kris]

June 1, 2004

As New York Fumes, Wyoming Says It, Too, Needs Antiterror Funds

By EDWARD WYATT


Antiterror money got a chemical identifier set for Cheyenne's Fire Department.


Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, just off the Interstate, is home to the 90th Space Wing, which oversees an arsenal of 150 Minuteman III and 50 Peacekeeper nuclear missiles. Their locations are on the Internet.

CHEYENNE, Wyo., May 27 - It is hard to imagine there are many terrorist threats in a place where tumbleweeds regularly blow down the streets, as they do here in Wyoming's largest city and state capital.

For those who doubt, however, Wyoming officials point to the two men who were stopped by a state trooper in February on Interstate 80 about 10 miles east of Cheyenne, near the Nebraska border. The men, thought by the state police to be white supremacists, had nine pipe bombs in the rented trailer attached to their rented truck. Wyoming officials disposed of the bombs using a robot bought with a federal antiterrorism grant.

That grant was part of the very antiterrorism program that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg recently called "pork barrel politics at its worst." Testifying in May before the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bloomberg said too much money was going to places that face limited threats - like Wyoming, whose population is about half a million, the smallest in the country - which this year will receive more than $38 a person in antiterrorist financing, more than any other state and seven times the per-person amount that will flow to New York.

But as with the nuclear missiles that stand hidden in silos beneath the rolling hills and grassy plains here in the state's southeastern corner, the logic of why so much homeland security money seems to be flowing so freely in Wyoming can be found only below the surface.

As was made clear recently by the vague descriptions of terrorist threats highlighted by Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., no one except the terrorists themselves can know when or where the next strike will come.

"If we understand anything about the psychology of terrorism," said Larry W. Majerus, deputy director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, "it is that attacks in the future are likely to be multiple and designed to get the biggest psychological effect they can possibly get. One way to do that is to attack in areas where there is the least capacity to respond," like Wyoming.

Upon inspection, it is not terribly hard to find potential targets for terrorists here. If the exit on Interstate 25 marked "Missile Drive" is not enough of a hint, for example, then the models of three intercontinental ballistic missiles standing at the entrance to the Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, just off the Interstate, makes it clear that there is more going on here than meets the eye.

The base is home to the 90th Space Wing, which oversees an arsenal of 150 Minuteman III and 50 Peacekeeper nuclear missiles. The missiles are spread across a network of underground silos in eastern Wyoming, western Nebraska and northern Colorado. Although military and state officials have kept extra-quiet about the arsenal and have tightened security around the base since 9/11, the locations of the missile silos can still be found on the Internet.

Cheyenne, population 53,000, sits at the intersection of Interstate Highways 80 and 25, two of the nation's busiest arteries. The Union Pacific and Burlington Northern lines also intersect here, and rail freight cars are perhaps one of the few things that outnumber cows, buffalo or elk in this state.

Both the railroads and the highways, of course, are used to transport large amounts of chemicals and hazardous waste, in addition to providing prime routes for terrorists to travel across the country. Wyoming is one of the country's biggest suppliers of beef and agricultural products, making the safety of the food supply a primary concern for state officials. Much of the coal used on the East Coast, meanwhile, originates here, and the state produces significant amounts of oil and gas. A power plant in southwestern Wyoming, near Rock Springs, provides power to much of the West Coast.

To address these threats, Wyoming is scheduled to receive $18.8 million this fiscal year - six-tenths of 1 percent of the $2.9 billion in counterterrorism grants being awarded by the federal Department of Homeland Security.

A majority of antiterrorism money is distributed to states based on population, with each state receiving a minimum amount. The rest is distributed according to a formula that takes into account relative risks faced by a state. Another pool allocates money to 50 cites and 30 transportation systems that are deemed to face the highest risks of terrorist attack.

Under this formula, Wyoming does receive the largest amount per capita, but its dollar total is the smallest of all 50 states. It is also about 11 percent of the $174 million of the federal antiterrorism money flowing this year to New York State, which receives about $1 for every $15 in antiterrorism funds that go elsewhere in the country. Still, Mr. Bloomberg argues, that is not enough.

"This is pork barrel politics at its worst," the mayor told the 9/11 Commission. "It's the kind of shortsighted 'me first' nonsense that gives Washington a bad name. It also, unfortunately, has the effect of aiding and abetting those who hate us and plot against us."

Edward Skyler, the mayor's press secretary, said the mayor was not opposed to letting places like Wyoming receive any federal money. But he added, "Spreading federal funds through all 50 states made perfect sense when you're talking about Medicaid, highway funds and things of that nature, but not when you talk about homeland security."

A better system, Mr. Skyler said, would rely almost exclusively on an analysis of threats, either from foreign or domestic terrorists. "New York City is the economic engine for the country," he said. "We deserve the lion's share of the funding."

New York City is at the top of the list of 50 urban areas that receive money specifically because they are more tempting targets for terrorists. No cities in Wyoming receive any of those funds. But Mr. Skyler said that New York City would receive only about $104 million of the amount flowing to the state this year, with the rest of the state's allocation going to other cities and to the state generally.

The needs of New York and Wyoming are vastly different, of course. In Wyoming, some local law enforcement agencies did not even have computers until recently, and 90 percent of the state's firefighters are volunteers.

Maj. Keith R. Groeneweg of the Wyoming Highway Patrol said that state troopers had no protective helmets until recently, just the standard-issue flat-brimmed hats they wear on patrol; with the grants, the department is buying helmets. Police, fire and emergency medical officials were responding to incidents like chemical spills and train derailments without any protective gear beyond their normal uniforms.

"For years and years and years they've done that, but they've never had the money to buy the equipment to do it properly," said Kim Lee, who oversees the state's six regional response teams for the Department of Homeland Security. "The firemen's wives have had to have bake sales just to buy fire helmets," he added. Chemical suits were out of the question.

Realizing that, the state recently used its federal antiterrorism money to issue kits with chemical suits and other supplies to every one of the 2,470 police officers, emergency medical technicians and coroners in the state. Fire departments received several kits for each fire truck as well.

Not all of the fault lies at the federal level, of course. At least some of the responsibility for the lack of preparedness lies with the states themselves, particularly those, like Wyoming, whose citizenry demonstrates a pronounced antipathy toward taxation.

Wyoming and most other states have also been slow to spend much of the money they have received. Laramie County, Wyo., which includes Cheyenne, received $809,627 in homeland security grants in the fiscal year 2003. The county has until the end of this calendar year to use the money, but so far less than half of it has been spent, according to figures provided by John W. Kluever, the county's grants coordinator.

Of the money that has been used, 70 percent of it went for one item, a mobile command post for the state emergency management agency. Meanwhile, no money has yet been spent on 21 of the 30 budgeted projects.

Some of the budgeted projects in Laramie County also appear to be directed less at terrorist threats than at everyday operations. The town of Pine Bluffs, for example, is spending $10,000 of its $26,200 grant on portable generators and an additional $4,000 on medical equipment, including catheters, blood pressure cuffs and gauze.

But that has been the case around the country, according to a recent report by the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, led by Representative Christopher Cox of California, who has also complained that his state has not received its rightful share of antiterrorism money.

Mr. Majerus, the Wyoming homeland security official, said he did not fault Mr. Bloomberg or others for arguing for a bigger share of the antiterrorism money. "They simply are trying to do the best they can for their first responders," he said, "just as we are."



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

June 5, 2004

Mayor Scolds Security Chief on U.S. Funds to Protect City

By WINNIE HU

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg called yesterday on the homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, to stand up to Congress over what the mayor has repeatedly characterized as its efforts to shortchange New York City on anti-terrorism money.

The mayor, appearing on his weekly radio program on WABC-AM, charged that Congress had turned the distribution of homeland security money into a political "slush fund," in which small states receive far more dollars per capita than those states at greater risk, like New York.

"This is a time for Tom Ridge to stand up and say, 'Enough of this craziness,' " the mayor said. "He has got to be out there screaming. If we are going to protect this country, we've got to send the money where the threat is, and I don't think there's any question that the No. 1 targets for anybody overseas would be New York and, arguably, Washington."

In recent months, Mr. Bloomberg has directed his criticisms only at Congress, but after coming under attack from some of its members, he has begun to focus more on the Bush administration. Yesterday, the mayor said that he had placed a call to Mr. Ridge.

"Everybody is at fault here, and everybody's got to get together and stop this craziness. This is not a pork barrel slush fund - or shouldn't be," he said.

Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, said New York City had received more homeland security money - about $300 million since 2002 - than any other city. He added that the president's 2005 budget request allocated additional money to urban areas with greater security needs.

"We believe that every state needs a minimum level of homeland security funding," he said. "However, we recognize that areas with greater homeland security needs require more funds."

Mr. Bloomberg, expressing his frustration with Congress, said yesterday that its members "all feel they have to deliver something for the hometown crowd, and sometimes, the leaders need a little prodding from the rest of us." He said that since terrorist threats were not distributed evenly across states, the money should not be, either.

"People that don't have a great threat should feel relieved, but they shouldn't be getting the money," he said. "People that do have the threat should be worried, but that's where the money should go."

The mayor also objected to proposed federal legislation that would allow a portion of the homeland security money to be spent on responding to natural disasters.

"Somebody said to me, 'Well, we have to protect our crops because we need food supplies,' " the mayor said. "Yes, you need food supplies, but I don't think there's many Al Qaeda members walking around with maps of cornfields."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20040614/202/1006

Homeland Security Funding

by Joseph Crowley

June 06, 2004

New York City's first responders continue to suffer severe shortages in funding and can expect to see their limited resources diminish even further under the Bush Administration’s proposed Budget for 2005. The safety of New Yorkers has already been compromised by, a 15 percent reduction of the police force since 2001, extremely low access to vital equipment and HAZMAT material and the closure of six firehouses, which has resulted in dramatically higher response times. Frankly, this is unacceptable.

Although the Department of Homeland Security has recently awarded over $103 million to New York State for the training and equipment of first responders, it does not come close to compensating the budget cuts already suffered, or those proposed for 2005. The budget for fiscal year 2005 cuts $2.3 billion for first responder programs. This includes both a $1 billion cut in the State Homeland Security Grant Program that assists first responders, and the removal of the Law Enforcement Block Grants, currently worth $225 million, that specifically assists police officers.

The budget cuts $800 million from state and local homeland security grants. It cuts state and local grant funding for first responder training, exercise, and technical assistance from $320 million in 2004 to $178 million in 2005. It also cuts Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act grants for equipment and personnel to local fire departments by $246 million.

The bottom line: Critical needs of first responders will be under-funded by $98.4 billion over the next five years.

These radical reductions will consolidate the mounting burden placed on state and local governments. It will also prove to be a disatrous setback in aquiring the equipment and training first responders need to fulfill their increasing duties in preserving our homeland security.

In one way or another, we were all affected by the tragedy of 9/11. We saw the brave response of our police, fire, emergency medical personnel and other first responders and we still harbor a great sense of admiration and respect for them. In the time that has since passed, we have come to more fully appreciate our dependance on their service to our communities. Yet we have failed to demonstrate our support for them; we have failed to ensure they are provided with the very tools they need to keep us secure.

We know what needs to be done.

The New York City Fire Department recently made a list of requirements for the adequate preparation for response to future terrorist attacks. It included:

• A reliable communications infrastructure for first responders
  A secure dispatch network for fire and EMS personnel
  An expansion of Fire Department Operations Center as a fully functioning emergency center
  A back-up emergency location
  12 months of emergency preparedness training for personnel.

It would cost about $277 million to acquire these and other equipment and infrastructure -- more than double the amount granted to New York State by the Department of Homeland Security.

As an effort to remedy the reduced funding and skewed allocation of funds for First Responders, I have introduced the Homeland Emergency Response Act of 2003 (HERO Act), which allocates $15 billion to protect New York City and other American cities. It creates a $3.5 billion first responder program in the first year and maintains a $3.75 billion program per year for three years thereafter. The bill protects high threat urban areas by mandating that 1/3 of all first responder funding be earmarked to the five cities with the greatest vulnerability or threat risk as determined by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction CIA, FBI and HHS.

The bill also creates a new Anti-Terrorism Account for firefighters, while changing the Federal Firefighter Grant Program that is currently in place. The HERO Act also ensures that the allocation of funds is more equitable and based on threat ratio, thereby directing valuable funds to cities with the most need.

Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress are holding up this important piece of legislation.

I have also proposed fundamental changes to the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act Grant Program, the nation's homeland security funding program targeted specifically for fire departments. Currently, grants are limited to a sum of $75,000 and are distributed according to population. The pre-9/11 cap imposes an unnecessary restriction on access to funds for New York’s first responders.

If, as I propose, the cap were lifted and the $750 million of funds available through the FIRE Act grant program were distributed based on population, New York City would receive $20.5 million, much more than the current cap of $75,000, or even the $2 million cap proposed in President Bush's budget.

Furthermore, it is important to distribute these funds according to threat. While distributed according to population, Montana, for example, receives $9.07 per person while New York City receives only .09 cents per person.

To stand by and allow important funding for First Responders to be so drastically cut is to increase the vulnerability of our great city and undermine the huge strides we have been taking in protecting New Yorkers.



Josephy Crowley, a Democrat, represents the seventh Congressional District in the Bronx and Queens.

[Kris]

June 19, 2004

House Rejects Extra Security Aid to High-Risk Cities

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON, June 18 - In a blow to the New York metropolitan region's antiterrorism efforts, the House rejected a move Friday to provide nearly $500 million to pay for security initiatives in cities believed to be at greatest risk of attack.

By a vote of 237 to 171 that largely split lawmakers along regional lines, the House rejected an amendment that sought to shift $446 million from a nationwide antiterrorism program to one specifically aimed at New York City and other high-risk cities.

The action brought swift condemnation from New York officials, who have long complained that the federal government gives out millions of dollars in security money to every state, regardless of its vulnerability, in pork-barrel fashion.

The harshest criticism came from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican who announced that New York City was canceling its membership in the National Association of Counties to protest the group's opposition to the measure.

"We are not getting our fair share of Homeland Security money," Mr. Bloomberg said. "To say it's a disgrace is being too charitable."

"The fact of the matter is that when you catch a terrorist with a map in their pocket, the map is of New York City," the mayor said. In Albany, Gov. George E. Pataki, also a Republican, expressed his disappointment with the vote, noting that New York was far more vulnerable to a terrorist attack than other parts of the country.

"To allocate funding across the board to states as opposed to on a threat-based analysis is wrong," Mr. Pataki told reporters.

The battle over money for high-risk cities now moves to the Senate, where members of both parties have been more evenhanded in determining how aid is distributed.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, did not rule out offering an amendment seeking additional money for high-risk cities when the matter comes to the floor in the Senate.

"I'm going to continue to explore every legislative option we have in order to provide an adequate level of funding for New York's security needs," Mrs. Clinton said.

The measure defeated in the House was advanced by a group of New York lawmakers who spent days trying to round up support. Its two chief sponsors were Representative John E. Sweeney, a Republican from the Albany area, and Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democrat from Manhattan.

If the votes are any indication, the dispute is more complicated than a mere partisan fight. Seventy Republicans - many of them from large urbanized states like California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania- joined with 101 Democrats to support the measure. But 89 Democrats - many of them from heavily rural states - joined 147 Republicans to reject it.

The measure seeking the additional $446 million for high-risk cities was offered as an amendment to a bill that calls for providing $33 billion for the Homeland Security Department next year. The House later on Friday approved the overall $33 billion Homeland Security spending plan by an overwhelming 400 to 5.

The additional $446 million would have been squeezed out of roughly $1.2 billion set aside for emergency workers in communities across the nation, no matter their size or their vulnerability.

In all, the Homeland Security bill the House considered calls for providing slightly over $1 billion for cities believed to be at the greatest risk of an attack. The Senate version of the bill sets aside $1.2 billion for high-risk urban areas.

The issue is crucial to New York City officials. The city spends as much as $1 billion a year on antiterrorism measures, and the Bloomberg administration is seeking $400 million in federal security aid for the budget the mayor proposed for the fiscal year that begins in July.

In his comments on Friday, Mr. Bloomberg seized on the House vote as an opportunity to emphasize his concerns about the way Washington apportions security money.

He said "the political pressures" in Congress had turned the allocation of security money into a pork-barrel program in which small states received far more dollars per person than those states at greater risk, like New York.

The mayor said that New York, for example, gets about $5.47 a person in antiterrorism financing, while Wyoming receives $38 a person and Vermont receives $31.

In rambling comments that reflected his frustration and dismay, Mr. Bloomberg also criticized officials from largely agricultural states who have argued that they, too, desperately need federal money to protect the nation's food supply.

"Everybody can always say, 'Well, we have security issues,' " he said. "You know, one guy said to me that, 'Yeah, the corn and soybean crops are our food supply and therefore this country needs a food supply, we've got to protect it.' You know, I've never seen a terrorist with a map of a cornfield in his pocket. Come on. Let's get serious to what this is about, why this money should be going to places like New York City."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

June 22, 2004

Mayor Rescinds Invitation to a G.O.P. Congressman

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

A lunch planned for two Republican Congressional leaders at Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's town house was canceled when the mayor disinvited an Ohio congressman who had voted against a plan that would have sent nearly $450 million to New York for domestic security, according to people who were scheduled to attend the lunch.

The lunch had been scheduled for the Republican leaders to tap wealthy New York donors. While the mayor has in the past called for wealthy donors to stop writing checks to politicians who act against the city's interests, his decision to personally withdraw an invitation to a member of Congress was the starkest example yet of his willingness to punish fellow Republicans when they go against the city's interests.

Mr. Bloomberg had originally agreed to hold the luncheon in his Upper East Side town house with the two Republican leaders, Representative Thomas Reynolds, who is from the Buffalo area and is chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and Bob Ney, an Ohio Congressman who is co-chairman of the committee's incumbent-retention effort. The purpose of the lunch was to help sell tickets to a July dinner at which President Bush is the scheduled keynote speaker.

But the invitation to Mr. Ney was canceled after he voted on Friday against an amendment that sought to shift $446 million from a nationwide antiterrorism program to one specifically aimed at New York City and other high-risk urban areas, according to people who were scheduled to attend the event. Mr. Bloomberg agreed to still host the lunch, but Congressional Republicans decided to cancel it altogether, said someone who was scheduled to attend the event. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 237 to 171, with lawmakers split largely along regional lines.

After the vote, Mr. Bloomberg accused Congress of making domestic security a pork-barrel program by giving money to rural areas at the expense of New York, which he said is more at risk as a terror target.

Mr. Bloomberg's aides declined to comment, though it was clear that while Washington officials were not eager to promote the conflict, City Hall had no such reservations. Mr. Bloomberg, who became a Republican shortly before running for office, has continually had to work to reconcile his loyalties to the party that helped make him mayor and to a constituency that is overwhelmingly Democratic. That balancing act has become even more delicate as the city prepares for the Republican National Convention, to be held in the city from Aug. 30 through Sept. 2.

In Washington, some Congressional aides questioned the mayor's motivations in rescinding the invitation.

"Perhaps they feel this can benefit the mayor in New York," said a Republican congressional aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It is not necessarily a smart thing to do, attacking members of your own party in Congress when you will continue to need to work together."

Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Ney had planned to ask people attending the lunch to buy tickets to the annual presidential dinner, an event to raise money to help elect and re-elect Republicans to Congress, said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Mr. Forti would not say why the lunch had been rescheduled.

Mr. Reynolds, an upstate congressman, has supported New York's efforts to get more security dollars from Washington, but in his Republican leadership role he also has strong obligations to the national party.

One potential donor to the party, who also spoke on the condition of not being identified, said that other would-be contributors from New York support Mr. Bloomberg's decision.

"We have been talking about this for a long time," the potential donor said. "Anybody who knows the disparity between the amount of money we send to Washington in tax dollars and fund-raising, and what we get back, knows we lose out."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Ninjahedge]

You mean to tell me that these missile silos were never protected against enemy attack before the 9-11 strike?

That we need to spend more money on the risk that a few white supremicists in a pickup truck were found with a bunch of pipe-bombs rolling around in the back 10 MILES away from a missile site?

What are these sites made of? Paper?

Oh, I'm sorry, they are made of MONEY.

I almost forgot... :P

[Kris]

June 23, 2004

POLITICAL MEMO

If Votes Fail to Favor City, Mayor's Allies Become Foes

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON, June 22 - A few months back, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg urged New Yorkers to help raise money for Representative Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican who, as chairman of a House subcommittee on homeland security, was in a position to help New York City get more antiterrorism dollars.

The mayor even coughed up $5,000 of his money to help the congressman, hoping it would sway Mr. Rogers into funneling more homeland security aid to New York.

But last week, the object of the mayor's affection turned on him. Mr. Rogers helped lead an effort in the House to defeat a measure providing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional security aid for cities facing high risk of terrorist attack.

Mr. Rogers's action was a setback for Mr. Bloomberg, who seemed to be at a loss for words when John Gambling, a radio talk show host, asked him about the role Mr. Rogers had played in the vote.

"I've tried to help him," Mr. Bloomberg began by saying. "I've been to the Kentucky Derby with him, and there's always - you know, you've got to live to fight another day. I will be back pressuring him tomorrow the way I was yesterday."

Mr. Rogers's decision was not the only bit of humbling news the House vote brought the mayor last week. The additional money that the mayor was seeking for New York and other high-risk cities was supported by no less a political rival than Representative Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader in the House.

Mr. Bloomberg has been extremely critical of Mr. DeLay, a conservative Republican from Texas. In the fall, for example, Mr. Bloomberg suggested, in an offhand remark, that New Yorkers might want to think twice before making campaign contributions to Mr. DeLay because he was out to shortchange the city on a critical source of federal financing.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bloomberg offered kind words for Mr. DeLay, albeit grudgingly. "I don't always agree with Tom DeLay," he said. "But when he does what is right, he should get the credit for it."

In the meantime, Republicans close to Mr. DeLay wasted little time in noting the irony behind the fact that it was Mr. DeLay who tried to come through for the city, while Mr. Rogers did not. These Republicans said that Mr. Bloomberg should perhaps abandon his practice of punishing Republicans who he believes are acting against the city's interest.

But on Tuesday, Mr. Bloomberg made it clear that he would continue to take New York City's needs into account when deciding whose Congressional campaign he will support.

"I'm going to help those who help New York City," he said. "Congress comes here to this city to raise money. They want to have photo ops showing all the good things they do. Well, I think you should have photo ops for everything you do good or bad - and then let the public decide. And I don't think that I should be supporting somebody who voted to take away moneys that we need to protect us against terrorists."

Republicans close to Mr. Bloomberg said that that last line of the mayor's comment was a veiled reference to Mr. Rogers. At the same time, Mr. Bloomberg singled out another fellow Republican who voted against the additional money for New York City: Representative Robert W. Ney of Ohio.

Mr. Bloomberg said he had disinvited Mr. Ney from a Republican fund-raising lunch at his town house. "I looked at who was coming to my house and how they voted to help or not help this city," he said.

As for Mr. Rogers, the Kentucky congressman, he strongly defended his vote the night the House defeated the effort to provide additional money to high-risk cities. He expressed concern that big cities like New York would drain money from federal antiterrorism programs and thus leave crumbs for smaller communities.

"Just because you are not a large urban area does not mean that you are not at risk from terrorist attack," Mr. Rogers said. "Hundreds of U.S. agricultural documents have been found in the Al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan and other places. It has been reported that a significant part of Al Qaeda's training manual is devoted to agricultural terrorism, a frightening fact when you recall the reported terrorist interest in crop dusters."

In March, Mr. Bloomberg contributed $4,000 to Mr. Rogers's primary and general election campaigns; a month earlier, he contributed $1,000 to a political action committee run by Mr. Rogers.

Those are the only contributions to a Congressional candidate that Mr. Bloomberg has made so far this year. They are also the largest contribution by an individual to Mr. Rogers's campaign, according to federal elections records.

But that was not the only time that Mr. Bloomberg has used campaign contributions to curry favor with powerful figures in Washington who are in a position to help or hurt New York City.

Last year, Mr. Bloomberg raised money for Senator Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican and chairman of the Banking Committee, who can help determine whether the city will get the billions of dollars in transportation funding that it is seeking from Washington.


Breaking Chops, Not Bread

In a move that had the political world buzzing, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has delivered the back of his hand to Representative Bob Ney, an important Republican from rural Ohio. As the G.O.P. convention in August draws near, Mr. Ney was looking forward to a political power lunch this week at the mayor's Upper East Side town house. But he was disinvited right after he voted against a $446 million proposal to help New York and other high-risk areas fight terrorism.

What may get lost in the gossip is the importance of Mr. Bloomberg's political point. The rebuff may be a rocky prelude to the convention, but Mr. Ney had it coming, as did all the lawmakers who are from places known to be low security risks but still grab large chunks of homeland security money.

For too long, Mr. Bloomberg and other leaders from high-risk locations have pointed out endlessly that remote areas with sparse populations and no famous sites likely to draw a terrorist's attention are getting more money per person for homeland security than places like New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco. Mr. Ney's defenders point out that the antiterrorism money would have been taken from a nationwide program; rural lawmakers — Democrats as well as Republicans — would not risk their own constituents' ire by voting yes.

That's politics. But this is one case in which we suspect that even the average voters in Wyoming or rural Ohio would agree that places like New York need the money more than they do. At any rate, supposed leaders like members of Congress have an obligation to explain that there are at least a few times when national priorities trump pork.

Plenty of 9/11 tributes to the city will resound at the convention. Let's hope that more Republicans than the mayor keep in mind that the ultimate tribute in politics is on the budget line.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Ninjahedge]

Mr. Bloomberg should perhaps abandon his practice of punishing Republicans who he believes are acting against the city's interest.

Yeah! Who is he to say anything if he thinks the guys are harming the city!!! He is a Republican!!! And all Republicans should support each other when they shoot each other in the feet. :P

And I don't think that I should be supporting somebody who voted to take away moneys that we need to protect us against terrorists

Republicans close to Mr. Bloomberg said that that last line of the mayor's comment was a veiled reference to Mr. Rogers

Thanks, like we really needed someone to tell us that... :roll:

"Just because you are not a large urban area does not mean that you are not at risk from terrorist attack," Mr. Rogers said. "Hundreds of U.S. agricultural documents have been found in the Al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan and other places. It has been reported that a significant part of Al Qaeda's training manual is devoted to agricultural terrorism, a frightening fact when you recall the reported terrorist interest in crop dusters."

I suppose they are going to go kill a field of CORN??!?

Dude, WTH do you think they were going to do with the dusters, fly around Kansas killing cows??!?

but Mr. Ney had it coming, as did all the lawmakers who are from places known to be low security risks but still grab large chunks of homeland security money

Pork anyone?

But this is one case in which we suspect that even the average voters in Wyoming or rural Ohio would agree that places like New York need the money more than they do. At any rate, supposed leaders like members of Congress have an obligation to explain that there are at least a few times when national priorities trump pork.

Ahhhhh, pork.

The other politicians meat.

[krulltime]

FED$ TO CITY: DROP DEAD


By VINCENT MORRIS
July 23, 2004

WASHINGTON - New York City's anti-terror resources are being grossly underfunded by the White House and Congress, which treat the critical money as "pork-barrel spending," the new 9/11 report charges.

Instead of helping New York arm itself against another attack, Washington lawmakers are engaged in a "free-for-all" for the federal aid, the panel concluded.

The bipartisan criticism echoes complaints from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn, Queens) and others, who say millions in Homeland Security money goes disproportionately to remote states like Wyoming and Alaska instead of New York.

Mayor Bloomberg, in a written statement, said, "It is nothing short of scandalous that New York City and New York state still rank almost at the very bottom of anti-terrorism funding, and I urge Congress to immediately take steps to allocate money where the greatest risks lie."

In a separate section, the commission's report offers unflinching criticism of Bloomberg's effort to improve Police and Fire department coordination, and spotlights many of the failings of the NYPD, FDNY and Port Authority in the first hours after two planes slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The FDNY, as an institution, proved incapable of coordinating the numbers of units dispatched to different points within the 6-acre complex," the report found. "As a result, numerous units were congregating in the undamaged Marriott Hotel and at the overall command post while chiefs of the south tower were still in desperate need of units."

The report did exonerate Battalion Chief Joseph Pfieffer, who had come under fire for failing to properly turn on the repeater - which relayed messages across the radios — in the north tower, the first one hit. The report found the repeater system "seemed inoperable."

It also disproved a widely held theory that cops didn't relay evacuation orders to firefighters, noting that at least 24 of the 32 fire companies in the north tower received the orders.

The commission did dodge a key question: whether screw-ups among the uniformed personnel cost lives.

"Whether the lack of coordination between the FDNY and NYPD on September 11 had a catastrophic effect has been the subject of controversy. We believe that there are too many variables for us to responsibly quantify those consequences," the report says.

On the question of spending federal resources in the war against terror, the 10-member commission was crystal-clear.

"Homeland-security assistance should be based strictly on the assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. In 2004, Washington and New York City are certainly at the top of any such list. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel," the report says.

But just hours after the report was released, several powerful Republican lawmakers expressed doubts about adopting the recommendations.

Sen. Kit Bond (Mo.) pointed out that "there's a lot of other targets," adding, "Should homeland security focus only on Washington and New York City, you can be sure terrorists will strike elsewhere."

"We need to worry about agri-terrorism," Bond added.

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas agreed that the threat from terrorists to Kansas corn, wheat and soybeans is "very real."

On the question of New York's current emergency-response plan — which lays out which agency will take the lead on terror incident — the 9/11 commission was disappointed.

"This falls short of an optional response plan, which requires clear command and control," the report says.

Additional reporting by Stephanie Gaskell


Copyright 2004 NYP Holdings, Inc.

[krulltime]

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas agreed that the threat from terrorists to Kansas corn, wheat and soybeans is "very real."

What? Oh yeah like the terrorist will like to just get rid of all the people left in Kansas... The fact that it is a boring place to live is not enough to rid of the population in that state... please. :roll:

[Ninjahedge]

We all know the Soy lives in fear!!!!!!

What would happen if these terrorists unleashed a bio-toxin that decimated Soy fields!!! i mean!!! What would we do for Soy Milk!!!!!!!?!

And CORN?!?!? We all know there is only one genetic variant of CORN! One little bug could wipe out our surplus!!!!

It is a concern, but not a terrorist concern. These guys should be applauded for suggesting these things and keeping a strait face.

[krulltime]

Mike: Cut us a break on terror war funds


BY DAVID SALTONSTALL
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

With New York spending millions a week on anti-terror efforts, city officials made a new plea to Congress and the White House: Show us the money!

The city's stepped-up security, which includes posting cops outside major financial firms and checking trucks for possible explosives, is costing New York an estimated $5 million a week, NYPD sources said.

But don't expect the feds to pick up much of the tab, which comes amid new evidence Al Qaeda plotted to blow up the New York Stock Exchange and the Citigroup building.

The city is already spending $200 million a year on police staffing and overtime to keep the city safe from terror. An additional $700 million in needed equipment also is being sought by various agencies, NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne said.

But the federal Homeland Security Department only funneled about $100 million to the city in fiscal 2004 - or roughly half the $180 million it sent in fiscal 2003.

New York currently ranks 49th out of 50 states in the amount of homeland security aid it receives per capita - a situation Mayor Bloomberg has blasted as "pork-barrel politics at its worst."

"I don't think we need more evidence" that New York is a prime terror target, Bloomberg said yesterday on CNN. "What you need to do is have the political courage to stand up and say enough with the pork barrel."

Others chimed in as well. City Council Speaker Gifford Miller (D-Manhattan) called for $355 million in new aidfor the NYPD and FDNY, while Sen. Hillary Clinton urged President Bush to sign an executive order so that at-risk cities like New York get more money.

"Let's put our money where our mouth is," Clinton said, adding that if Bush won't sign an executive order, an emergency session of Congress should be called.

Homeland Security Department officials countered that New York gets far more in total aid than any other city, and that the President is seeking to double funds for high-risk cities in his next budget. "We agree that more resources are needed going forward," said Josh Filler, director of state coordination for the department.

The city's push got some support from powerful House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who told the Daily News Editorial Board that big cities like New York - and Chicago - should get more homeland aid.

"I think that money ought to go to the places that need it most," said Hastert, who blamed the Republican-controlled Senate for the current situation. "A viable New York is good for the nation."

With Maggie Haberman, Frank Lombardi and Corky Siemaszko
Originally published on August 4, 2004


All contents © 2004 Daily News, L.P.

[BrooklynRider]

I generally like Bloomberg, but his continual lap-dog style relationship with the President and RNC is going to cost him my vote - especially his total lock-down of Midtown Manhattan to protect the same folks who are failing to allocate funds to protect us when they're not here.

[Kris]

August 9, 2004

METRO MATTERS

Is a Fair Share in the Cards for New York?

By JOYCE PURNICK

MORE. Send more. Within hours of learning about the terrorist alert last week, New York's political establishment had renewed its demand that Washington reform its ways and recognize that the city needs a larger piece of the homeland security pie.

There's a broad bipartisan consensus about that - in New York, anyway. There is also a quite fundamental problem. To whom, and where, exactly, should New York direct its demands? Because a close look at the antiterrorism programs reveals a case study in Washington diffusion, responsibility passed from Congress to the White House and back again.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg at first condemned Congress for treating the money as a "pork barrel," feeding 50 states. But he has taken the advice to "make nice'' with his party, and has never blamed President Bush's tolerance of the terror money game. Nor has he complained of Gov. George E. Pataki's apparent acquiescence. The governor limits himself to mild calls for change, and the most the mayor has said is, "Everybody is to blame.''

The precise degree of discrimination against New York City is hard to calculate. And because responsibility has been fragmented, it is hard to know who is really dealing the cards. The White House, Congress and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have played a form of three-card monte with the terror budgets, leaving the public in dizzy confusion.

Soon after Sept. 11, Congress authorized special spending for local security and, as is its custom, insisted that a significant portion - about 40 percent - be disbursed equally among all 50 states. The Justice Department, then in charge of security, decided that the remaining 60 percent would be allocated on a per capita basis.

The total appropriation for this year is $2.2 billion. So each state received $16.5 million, and United States territories also got some money. The remaining $1.32 billion was apportioned by state population, no matter what the actual burden. Over all, New York State gets a great deal more than most states, but, it argues, less than it needs given its risk.

Lawmakers from the more threatened places objected, and proposed a program - the Urban Area Security Initiative - that would give special aid to cities at special risk, based mainly on intelligence assessments and population density.

In April 2003, the White House's Office of Management and Budget chose seven cities for that special help: New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco and Houston. But observe the monte - by this year, the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary, Tom Ridge, had expanded the program to 50 cities and 30 transportation agencies. Each gets a different share of the munificent $725 million allocated for the program.

In short: Congress dreamed up the equal shares for the states; the Bush administration chose the population formula that Congress later adopted; and Homeland Security spread the danger formula paper thin.

"Most people just don't understand how much of it is discretionary - one-third at the discretion of Congress, one-third at the complete discretion of the White House and one-third at the discretion of both,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who led the fight last year for the second program with Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania.

FOR the next fiscal year, the Bush administration says it wants a better recognition of risk factors. But the president has not lobbied for the change, which would, after all, benefit a blue city and state in an election year. A Homeland Security spokeswoman says New York State has been well served, with $660 million since Sept. 11, 2001 - or 8.25 percent of the $8 billion national total.

City Hall calculates that it cost New York an additional $1.5 million for its police force to respond to the warnings last week, and at least $200 million a year for police antiterror activities. The city's homeland security dollars: $165 million in the current fiscal year (including an anticipated $50 million for convention security) - somewhat less than the $188 million last year.

Not enough, said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The president has the authority to change the formula if he chooses,'' she contends. "The last time I looked, his party was in the leadership in both houses of Congress, and I have seen what happens when this White House decides it really wants something.''

Washington budget negotiations are idled for a while. In the meantime, remember, New York: make nice when the president brings his party to town later this month.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

December 4, 2004

Homeland Security Reduces Aid for Jersey City and Newark Areas in 2005

By JOSH BENSON

TRENTON, Dec. 3 - Less than a month after lowering a heightened terror alert for northern New Jersey, the Department of Homeland Security announced on Friday that it would sharply decrease its financing for the Jersey City and Newark areas next year.

The amount of money earmarked for security expenditures in Jersey City will drop to less than $7 million in 2005, from $17 million this year, and in Newark, to $12.4 million from nearly $15 million. The cuts to these port cities coincide with increases in federal spending for security in 50 other urban areas, including New York City and Washington. New York will receive urban area grants exceeding $200 million, up from $47 million this year.

Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey reacted angrily to the reductions, releasing a statement that labeled them "unconscionable" and "a slap in the face to New Jersey and all of our residents."

Mr. Codey telephoned the incoming homeland security secretary, Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, to express concern about the possible effects of the reduced grants.

State officials responsible for homeland security said that the cuts took them by surprise, and that the change could mean that the authorities will have to alter their plans for protecting the two cities. "We were expecting, at a minimum, flat funding," said Roger Shatzkin, a spokesman for the state's counter-terrorism office. "We didn't anticipate cuts. We're obviously going to have to look at the programs in place and, if there's no additional funding, make decisions based on this decreased funding."

In the past, the state has used grants, which come from a fund called the Federal Urban Area Security Initiative, to increase the protection of critical sites in and around Jersey City and Newark. The grants were also used to improve the equipment of emergency workers and the coordination between police, fire and emergency medical workers.

Valerie Smith, a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security Department, said that the new allocation of money was based on a formula that factored in population, critical infrastructure and credible threat information, which can change substantially from year to year. In addition, federal officials took into consideration population density and the ability of more than one city to share resources - a factor in play for Jersey City and Newark, which are about two miles apart.

"We receive a specific allocation for our grants programs and we run the formulas," Ms. Smith said. "So this is using a conglomeration of data accumulated throughout the year."

Based on intelligence reports of terror threats, the financial districts of northern New Jersey, along with New York City and Washington, were placed on a heightened alert status by the Department of Homeland Security on Aug. 1. The heightened alert remained in place for all three areas until Nov. 10, when they were downgraded to normal status.

The decreased financing comes as the state braces for lower overall aid levels from the federal government, which is decreasing its national spending on homeland security grants to states to $1.7 billion in 2005, from $2.1 billion last year. That money is separate from the financing set aside for urban areas.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company