Bush, 9/11, Homeland Security and money

Earlier this month, I had a post about the way Homeland Security funding was being distributed, and the impact the lack of federal funds was having on a number of states.  The money is being distributed in two ways:  first, states are given equal portions from one part of the funding, then the rest is distributed based on the state's population.  If this sounds familiar, its because its the same basic basic concept as the methods used to determing how many Congressional seats are alotted to each state (each state gets 2 Senate seats and House seats are based on population), which also determines how many electoral votes a state has. 

I had also commented on Paul Krugman's column which explained this distribution pattern, and noted that, just as the formula gives disproportionate power to smaller states in elections, it also gives smaller states more money per capita for Homeland Security than larger ones, even though the larger states also contain areas that are more likely to be targets for terrorist attacks.  Krugman also pointed out that these smaller states are very valuable to George Bush right now because those are states which tend to be more likely to vote Republican than many of the larger, and largely Democratic, states.  The issue, however, goes beyond a matter of whether this distribution scheme is "fair" or not, and is having serious practical implications for states like California, which is having to cut back on education spending in order to provide it's citizens with reasonable protection from potential threats. 

Today, Eric Alterman writes, in part, about the impact the lack of federal Homeland Security funding is having in New York, and the picture he paints is grim, indeed.

The Economist compares New York City to Atlas, bearing the weight of the world on its shoulders. Already reeling from a massive deficit, declining income and the economic aftershocks of 9/11, the city must pay an estimated $1 billion a year for emergency and counterterrorism costs. Bush could care less. After attempting to stiff New York entirely, Congress has finally agreed to kick in about $200 million, far more than Bush proposed. My shaken city can ill afford to make up the difference. It already has 4,000 fewer cops than it did two years ago but must assign more than a thousand of those remaining to the terrorist beat. It may shutter forty fire companies. Massive layoffs, tax hikes and cutbacks in every kind of social service are in the offing. And Gotham is hardly alone. Enhanced security measures cost the nation's cities an estimated $2.6 billion in the fifteen months after 9/11.

There's a certain level of perverseness in the way the Bush administration raises the flag of 9/11 every time it wants to restrict our civil rights or violate our privacy just a bit more (and how they waved that flag for all it was worth to convince people that we should go bomb Iraq), yet they don't want to spend any real money to help make us any safer than we were before the attacks happened. As with everything else, 9/11 only matters when it serves their purposes.  If remembering all the lives lost on that day and trying to prevent a similar tragedy in the future is going to require them to do something they don't want (say, for example, not cutting taxes so there might be more money to fund security programs), then it seems to become irrelevent. 

Personally, I'd rather see us not cut taxes - and maybe even raise them a bit (not a lot, but some) to provide more funds for Homeland Security measures if those measures would help us be able to protect ourselves without needing to cut into our civil rights or privacy.  Since the neocons seem to want more police power and fewer individual rights, however, I doubt that even if they had unlimited funds, they'd be willing to give back any of the power and rights they've already taken.

Alterman also point out, though, that the problems with the way the Bush administration is handling Homeland Security go beyond just an uneven distribution of funds.  He points out that on several occasions, Bush has blocked even cost-effective means of increasing security. 

Several investigations by the media have found serious problems with security at power plants, yet there has been little movement to provide legal mandates or funding for power plant operators to increase security.  Bush's own energy secretary had provided a report indicating how much it would cost just to begin increasing power plan security, but Bush would only agree to propose 7% of that amount.

Some other examples:

Bush refused to compensate healthcare workers injured or killed by the smallpox inoculation program. His budget is squeezing the Coast Guard, in charge of port security. He is starving "first responders"--the very heroes of 9/11 to whom he dishonestly promised so much. And the Customs Service got not a single penny in new funding in the Administration's budget. With everyone losing sleep over "loose nukes" falling into terrorist hands, Bush even tried to cut overseas nuclear security funding by 5 percent.

These are not minor issues.  The atmosphere in Washington is such that Ted Stevens, R-AK, felt comfortable saying that he didn't think first responders deserve overtime pay if they're responding to a national emergency:

But also there were powerful people such as Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) suggesting that rather than lobbying for more money, the emergency workers should be volunteering their overtime out of a concern for national security.

"Those people overseas in the desert," Stevens said, "they're not getting paid overtime ... I don't know why the people working for the cities and counties ought to be paid overtime when they are responding to matters of national security."

Of course, Stevens seems to be overlooking the fact that combat troops do get "combat pay", which does help provide some (though not nearly enough, in my opinion) extra compensation during times when their lives are on the line.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC, Bush's response was great.  He set a great tone of unity and cooperation, and helped bring many parts of this nation together.  For those first few weeks, he actually showed himself to be the "uniter" he has claimed he is.  Since then, however, his track record has been abyssmal.  September 11 now is only remembered when it's politically expedient, and Homeland Security only matters when it can be used to increase governmental power.  When it comes to matters of governmental responsiblity or - Gods forbid - a need for the government to spend money, forget it.  It no longer matters.

And, of course, it will be we who suffer for it in the long run.