Not Quite Enough
An editorial appearing in today's New York Daily News written by Richard Clarke and Rob Knake outlines five ideas that the incoming Democratic 110th Congress should include in their plans to overhaul homeland security. Four of those ideas seem reasonable, at least as proposed. However, there is one proposal that, although it is an improvement over the current system, is not quite adequate in providing funding for anti-terrorist defenses.
The fourth idea proposed by the duo reads as thus:
"Homeland Security Funding: Quit the bickering over 'risk-based formulas' and distribute funds at the state and metropolitan level based on population. Under this scheme, each state would get $5.30 per resident with California getting $180 million, New York $100 million and Wyoming $2.6 million. Under the current formula, California and New York each receive about $2.50 per resident, with Wyoming raking in $15 per resident."
This would definitely decrease the ridiculous amount of money per capita that states like Wyoming receive from the funds. However, this formula of providing $5.30 per capita to every state would still provide an overabundance of funds in some areas and an inadequate amount in others.
For instance, New York City has a risk that would be greater than the population of the city would suggest. Certainly, the task of protecting the citizens becomes far greater during an average work day when millions of people from outside the city pour in to conduct their business. Funding only for the population of New York City and nothing else would shortchange us for when we must deal with the extra people that commute into the city.
We also have a large amount of very important targets, both in symbols and in vital infrastructure. Those targets would have to be protected as well and such security does come at a price.
Finally, there is no guarantee that money doled out to New York State would necessarily find its way in adequate amounts to New York City. As much as the previous schemes of funding national homeland (why can't we simply call it "domestic" instead of "homeland"?) security provided a free-for-all in pork projects that demanded such money, it is entirely possible that funding provided to the state would fall victim to the same acts.
Additionally, this idea seems to be at odds with the other ideas proposed by the duo, which include a call for funding security to protect the chemical plants of the country and also to fund better communications equipment for first responders. Important targets may not necessarily reside in the largest population centers and those areas would also find themselves stretched thin trying to protect those targets. Although it appears that the editorial states that such funds would come from outside the main homeland security funding bill, such additional funds may also fall prey to pork demands and lack of oversight.
The problem obviously is that placing all funding inside one overall Homeland Security bill would put the funding at greater risk to partisan bickering and pork project demands. However, it will be easier to find any flaws in the bill if it is all in one place and not scattered in several pieces of legislation.
Much as the two write about the bickering over a risk-based funding formula, that bickering must continue until there is sufficient coverage for the protection of the targets within this country. There will be continued bickering and those in Congress that fight to protect their pet projects should be known for their attempts to undermine the defense of the country's targets. Perhaps only once those officials are made publicly well-known and are publicly rebuked for their attempts will the bickering decrease. There will still be a fight over whether this New York City target is at greater risk than this Los Angeles target, but at least the chances of both targets being sufficiently funded increase and the chances of the Annual Pork Project Funding Carnival will be funded with Homeland Security dollars will decrease.
Clarke and Knake's piece is a start in the right direction, but more work has to be done to ensure that our vital targets are well-protected.
The fourth idea proposed by the duo reads as thus:
"Homeland Security Funding: Quit the bickering over 'risk-based formulas' and distribute funds at the state and metropolitan level based on population. Under this scheme, each state would get $5.30 per resident with California getting $180 million, New York $100 million and Wyoming $2.6 million. Under the current formula, California and New York each receive about $2.50 per resident, with Wyoming raking in $15 per resident."
This would definitely decrease the ridiculous amount of money per capita that states like Wyoming receive from the funds. However, this formula of providing $5.30 per capita to every state would still provide an overabundance of funds in some areas and an inadequate amount in others.
For instance, New York City has a risk that would be greater than the population of the city would suggest. Certainly, the task of protecting the citizens becomes far greater during an average work day when millions of people from outside the city pour in to conduct their business. Funding only for the population of New York City and nothing else would shortchange us for when we must deal with the extra people that commute into the city.
We also have a large amount of very important targets, both in symbols and in vital infrastructure. Those targets would have to be protected as well and such security does come at a price.
Finally, there is no guarantee that money doled out to New York State would necessarily find its way in adequate amounts to New York City. As much as the previous schemes of funding national homeland (why can't we simply call it "domestic" instead of "homeland"?) security provided a free-for-all in pork projects that demanded such money, it is entirely possible that funding provided to the state would fall victim to the same acts.
Additionally, this idea seems to be at odds with the other ideas proposed by the duo, which include a call for funding security to protect the chemical plants of the country and also to fund better communications equipment for first responders. Important targets may not necessarily reside in the largest population centers and those areas would also find themselves stretched thin trying to protect those targets. Although it appears that the editorial states that such funds would come from outside the main homeland security funding bill, such additional funds may also fall prey to pork demands and lack of oversight.
The problem obviously is that placing all funding inside one overall Homeland Security bill would put the funding at greater risk to partisan bickering and pork project demands. However, it will be easier to find any flaws in the bill if it is all in one place and not scattered in several pieces of legislation.
Much as the two write about the bickering over a risk-based funding formula, that bickering must continue until there is sufficient coverage for the protection of the targets within this country. There will be continued bickering and those in Congress that fight to protect their pet projects should be known for their attempts to undermine the defense of the country's targets. Perhaps only once those officials are made publicly well-known and are publicly rebuked for their attempts will the bickering decrease. There will still be a fight over whether this New York City target is at greater risk than this Los Angeles target, but at least the chances of both targets being sufficiently funded increase and the chances of the Annual Pork Project Funding Carnival will be funded with Homeland Security dollars will decrease.
Clarke and Knake's piece is a start in the right direction, but more work has to be done to ensure that our vital targets are well-protected.
Labels: Congress, Homeland Security, New York City Security
posted by Will at 5:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home