Question: is there a Democratic party mole in the Bush administration? If President George W. Bush’s claim to fame is vowing to keep Americans safer, and his standing at ground zero with a bullhorn and promising to go after terrorists, this latest news — and feud with the city that has come to symbolize 9/11 to the entire world — is going to strip away layers of what remains of Bush’s anti-terrorism preparedness aura:
From Times Square and the Empire State Building to the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty, New York is a city of spectacular landmarks. Ask any of the 41 million tourists who visited last year.
But according to the Homeland Security Department, New York has no national monuments or icons _ a determination that led to a 40 percent cut in anti-terrorism funding.
As stunning as that assertion is: it is TRUE that this is the argument being made, as the Washington Post report (and a zillion others today) points out.
This is akin to the (in)famous case during the Reagan administration when bigwigs there declared ketchup a vegetable. Question: is this willful, a spin to allocate resources elsewhere — or sheer, unmitigated incompetence? Whatever it is, George Bush’s administration is again proving it is a “uniter not a divider” by being repudiated by key players in both parties:
New Yorkers are seething over the news, and some are demanding the firing of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., charged that the Bush administration had “declared war on New York” with its decision to reduce anti-terrorism funding by $83 million while increases went to cities like Jacksonville, Fla., Louisville, Ky., and Omaha, Neb.
“I’m not begrudging any other city, but why would you cut the No. 1 target in the country by 40 percent?” said King, who demanded an investigation. “How can you possibly justify that?”
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday advised President Bush to avoid the city until the administration comes up with some more money to keep New York safe.
“This is wrong and unfair, but also outrageous,” Schumer said. “The bottom line is this is abandoning New York.”
The New York Daily News is even more blunt: in an editorial it says Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff — a politician who apparently either has more lives than a cat, superb lawyerly skills in making an argument or perhaps some compromising photos of someone in bed with a sheep — has effectively told New York City to drop dead. LITERALLY:
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told New York to drop dead yesterday as he slashed the city’s federal anti-terror funding in a traitorous action that endangers the lives of 8 million people and demands his immediate firing.
Chertoff’s decision to cut the flow of U.S. money by 40% was at the least gross incompetence and at the worst vengeful payback by a petty bureaucrat who tangled last year with the NYPD and wound up humiliated. Either way, President Bush must give Chertoff the boot with a hearty, “Heck of a job, Mikey.”
This city, America’s No. 1 target, had to fight long and hard for federal terror aid while Congress doled out the money as pork rather than based on threat. That was supposed to change this year because Chertoff was given the power to allocate much of the funding based on where it was needed most. Instead, fresh from monumentally bungling the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina, he went out of his way to whack New York’s slice of the national pie from $208 million to $124 million. The No. 2 target, Washington, also took a huge hit from Chertoff’s team.
Homeland Security’s rationale for stabbing the city in the back, as Rep. Pete King put it, was based on figments of the imagination and outright lies, all recorded in black and white on the score sheet used by the department for determining which cities got funding. By Chertoff’s reckoning, New York has not a single national monument or icon that needs special security. No Ground Zero. No Empire State Building. No New York Stock Exchange. No Federal Reserve Bank. No St. Patrick’s Cathedral. No Statue of Liberty. No nothing.
The New York Post‘s NEWS REPORT drips the sarcasm and ridicule usually reserved for an editorial. Publisher Rupert Murdoch is already attending fundraisers for Senator Hillary Clinton and it’s clear from the contents of his paper today that Chertoff/Bush’s funding slash might have him decide to attend more of them:
Less than five years after the murder of 2,749 people in the Twin Towers on 9/11, the feds yesterday shockingly slashed anti-terror funds needed to protect New York City against future attacks.
The Homeland Security Department announced it was hacking funds distributed to the city by 40 percent compared with last year, while pouring hundreds of millions into unlikely terror targets like Kentucky and Wyoming.
The shocking stinginess from Washington comes just one week after a Pakistani national was convicted of a plot to blow up the Herald Square subway station.
New York City will get its vital anti-terror funding chain-sawed from $208 million this year to $124 million next year – even though security experts agree it is vastly more threatened than any other city in the country.
The unexpected move set New York lawmakers in both parties fuming – especially since Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a native of the region, vowed to dole out money based on risk.
The Post story also contains some fighting words from King. Will they be just that in the end or will he actually do what he promises here?
King said he would launch “rigorous investigations” of the Homeland Security Department – including a $21 million DHS contract with a Virginia limousine service accused of arranging hotel trysts between lawmakers and prostitutes.
“They have cut $80 million in funding to New York City,” King said. “Meanwhile, they gave a $21 million limousine contract to the company that was driving pimps and prostitutes around.”
In the editorial pages, the Post wasn’t singing the praises of the administration’s unrelenting, comprehensive measures to prepare The Big Apple from a future terrorist attack, either:
So let’s hope Michael Chertoff & Co. have better luck locating infiltrating terrorists than they had finding, say, the Empire State Building.
Not to mention the fact that the Justice Department put the infamous blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, away for life for specifically conspiring against such national landmarks as the George Washington Bridge and the Holland Tunnel.
So let’s get real. As Mayor Bloomberg put it yesterday, “When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket. They don’t have a map of any of the other 45 places.”
Places like Omaha, Neb.; Louisville, Ky., and Charlotte, N.C. – all of which had their funding sharply hiked under some mysterious new “risk analysis.”
And yet Undersecretary George Foreman insists that the latest allocation ensures that Washington will “get the maximum benefit out of those dollars.”
If, by “maximum benefit,” he means keeping the pork-happy hogs on Capitol Hill satisfied, maybe he’s right.
But if he means ensuring that homeland security funds actually go where the threat of terrorist attack is the greatest, then he’s dead wrong….
…. And we expect that New York’s entire congressional delegation – and its extraordinarily powerful business community – won’t sit still for this outrageous pork-barreling.
The last time New York City was attacked, the economic impact reverberated far beyond the five boroughs.
The next time – if there is a next time – it won’t be any different.
That can’t be said for Omaha, Louisville or Charlotte.
It’s time for Rush, Sean and Tony Snow to work overtime….
BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE ARE A FEW OTHERS (excerpts only so please read entire posts later):
Now, Gothamist understands that the overall budget was cut and the cities that had been getting lots of money before would take a hit. And, naturally, it’s important to make sure cities like Chicago and LA gets the aid they need. But Omaha?…
….Yeah, and the feds have no problem with pointing to Ground Zero and making that the reason why we’re fighting a gazillion dollar war abroad. The Daily News shows what’s considered a landmark in the cities that got more funding, such as Jacksonville’s Alltel Stadium and Louisville’s Churchill Downs race track.
Not only did Bush cut funding to NYC and DC by 40% – funding that is meant to stop the next September 11 – and not only is what Bush did today the exact opposite of what his Homeland Security Secretary promised would happen – and not only is this the exact kind of move that the September 11 Commission warned was a big mistake that endangers all of our lives – but it seems that Bush didn’t even bother checking with the Republican member of Congress who RUNS the entire Homeland Security Committee in the US House.
—Fiat Lux: “What kind of dreamworld are those people at DHS living in?”
New York City, after all, has only been attacked by al Qaeda twice, which is only two more times than all other American cities. That’s not very much. And, today was the start of hurricane season, and that, according to obvious inferences from Chertoff’s speech today at the Brookings Institute, is our biggest threat. New York might be the city at most risk for a dirty bomb terrorist attack, but really, what good would money do in a situation like that, anyway? What would really keep New York City safe would be competence, hard work, and good leadership, not some silly money for safety and police and stuff. Ask the right-wing pundits, (none of which apparently live in NYC): People there are perfectly safe! War on Terror? Oh, that’s in Iraq now. It’s moved. We’re “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” remember? And whatever happens, happens. In other words, do what Republicans do when their lives are in danger and they freeze with inaction: PRAY.
—John Amato: “I thought New York was the central front of the war on terror….This is a sad response by the DHS. Why do they hate America?”
–TAPPED has an interesting bit of original reporting (read the whole thing:)”BUSH APPOINTEE LOCATED. Well, that was easy. Who was the idiot who had to sign off on the “traitorous” decision to defund anti-terrorism efforts in New York and Washington?”
I’m actually not all that surprised to see the U.N. not listed… we all know the Bush Administration would love to see that building wiped out. And yeah, the Statue of Liberty needs to go as well… it’s French, after all, and it’s giving too many of them uppity foreigners ideas about… *shudder* coming to America, or somethin’.
—A Blog For All looks at the issue and says Congress and other factors are to blame (read post in full):
This is not the first time that someone is complaining about the homeland security funding formulas and how money is divided up between big cities like New York and smaller communities.
The formula has been rejiggered once, and the latest disbursements haven’t found fans in New York. New York City is going to see less money as a result. But so are most every other city in the country – because the overall pool of money being divided up is smaller this year as compared to last year…
…Despite the fact that it was Congress as a whole that voted for this distribution scheme, you’ve got individual members of Congress slamming the funding formula. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) considers this a ‘war on New York.’
—The American Mind: “Once upon a time I thought the Department of Homeland Security was a good idea. With new terrorist threats I thought a “person in charge who could force the CIA and FBI to work together instead of worrying about turf would bring better security to the nation.” What’s happened is we’re stuck with a department that thinks there are no national monuments and icons in New York City.”
—The Left Coaster: ” Want to know why the Department of Homeland Security slashed New York’s 2006 grant and training funding and redirected it towards Jeb’s [Jeb Bush’s]state? Because DHS concluded that the Big Apple didn’t have any landmarks worth protecting.”
—Canadian Cynic: “And the Blogging Tories scramble madly to write more posts about Harry Reid and boxing matches because, after all, they know what the truly important issues are.”
—Liquidtoast: “This might have made sense if Al-Qaeda had attacked Downs, Kansas or maybe Gettysburg, rather than targeting the largest city in country, the city that is the backbone of our financial markets, the home of the UN, and the first capital of the United States. The message here seems to be, “New York, screw you.â€?”
Strange, I seem to remember a big dust-up in New York City a couple years ago… hmmm…
Isn’t this a little odd? They’re so quick to bring up 9.11 when it suits them, but they ignore it when they want to as well. Maybe this is some sort of twisted punishment for NY state voting for Kerry last election.
Well, that last thing we would want to do is question the motives of our elected officials, right? ‘Cause that would make us the terrorists.
—Pesky Apostrophe: “I think it’s hilarious that Homeland Security cut anti-terror funding to D.C. and NY by 40%. I do. I giggled like a maniac when I heard. In their infinite wisdom, Homeland Security feels places like Jacksonville, Florida and Sacramento, California need more money.”
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.