New York Times Editorial - Heartland security
New York Times Editorial - Heartland security
Copyright by The New York Times
FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 2006
If Al Qaeda is planning to follow up its 2001 attacks on New York and Washington with an assault on Nebraska, the Department of Homeland Security's new urban areas security grants are brilliant. But, of course, the White House, Wall Street and densely populated urban areas are the most likely terrorist targets, and these are precisely the places the department dangerously shortchanged this week. The new grants, which slash spending for New York and Washington by 40 percent - and shower money on Omaha and Louisville - are more about political favors than security. Given how important the stakes are in protecting America against terrorism, they are also a disgrace.
Scarce antiterrorism money should be rigorously aimed at the places most at risk of attack, but the Bush administration and Congress have consistently refused to do so. While efforts to protect subway riders in New York and federal workers in downtown Washington are badly underfinanced, places that would be bizarre targets have been swimming in U.S. funds. The
Northwest Arctic Borough, an Alaskan area of 7,300 people, spent $233,000 a while back to buy decontamination tents, night-vision goggles and other equipment.
This week, the Department of Homeland Security has skewed things even further against Americans who live in the places that are most likely to be attacked. New York's share of the urban areas security program falls to $124 million from $207 million last year, and Washington's falls to $46 million from $77 million.
Some of the specifics of the decision process are downright bizarre. New York's evaluation found that it had no "national monuments or icons." The department concedes that omitting the Statute of Liberty was an "oversight," but it still seems unaware that to many would-be terrorists, the biggest American icon of all is simply New York itself.
The responsibility for the bad allocations lies with President George W. Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. But Congress also has a poor record in this area. Representatives of high-population states like New York, California and Texas have continually lost out in their efforts to enact a more risk- based formula. Congressmen from the
areas that have been shortchanged this week are vowing to fight.
When the Republican Party was looking for a backdrop for its 2004 national convention that symbolized America's war on terror, it went to New York, not Omaha. Bush and Chertoff owe Americans a system that recognizes the vulnerability of places like New York not just when the television cameras are rolling, but when the money is being handed out.
Copyright by The New York Times
FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 2006
If Al Qaeda is planning to follow up its 2001 attacks on New York and Washington with an assault on Nebraska, the Department of Homeland Security's new urban areas security grants are brilliant. But, of course, the White House, Wall Street and densely populated urban areas are the most likely terrorist targets, and these are precisely the places the department dangerously shortchanged this week. The new grants, which slash spending for New York and Washington by 40 percent - and shower money on Omaha and Louisville - are more about political favors than security. Given how important the stakes are in protecting America against terrorism, they are also a disgrace.
Scarce antiterrorism money should be rigorously aimed at the places most at risk of attack, but the Bush administration and Congress have consistently refused to do so. While efforts to protect subway riders in New York and federal workers in downtown Washington are badly underfinanced, places that would be bizarre targets have been swimming in U.S. funds. The
Northwest Arctic Borough, an Alaskan area of 7,300 people, spent $233,000 a while back to buy decontamination tents, night-vision goggles and other equipment.
This week, the Department of Homeland Security has skewed things even further against Americans who live in the places that are most likely to be attacked. New York's share of the urban areas security program falls to $124 million from $207 million last year, and Washington's falls to $46 million from $77 million.
Some of the specifics of the decision process are downright bizarre. New York's evaluation found that it had no "national monuments or icons." The department concedes that omitting the Statute of Liberty was an "oversight," but it still seems unaware that to many would-be terrorists, the biggest American icon of all is simply New York itself.
The responsibility for the bad allocations lies with President George W. Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. But Congress also has a poor record in this area. Representatives of high-population states like New York, California and Texas have continually lost out in their efforts to enact a more risk- based formula. Congressmen from the
areas that have been shortchanged this week are vowing to fight.
When the Republican Party was looking for a backdrop for its 2004 national convention that symbolized America's war on terror, it went to New York, not Omaha. Bush and Chertoff owe Americans a system that recognizes the vulnerability of places like New York not just when the television cameras are rolling, but when the money is being handed out.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home