White House Cuts Anti-Terror Spending

Since September 11, 2001, President George “LBJ” Bush has told America that he wants to protect it from further terrorist attacks. Since that date, his administration has handed out $23 billion to state and local governments to enhance police intelligence and first-responder equipment and training. Now, it turns out that the Heimatschutzministerium that paid out this money wanted $3.2 billion for next year. The White House has said, instead, that it will ask Congress for only $1.4 billion. Let this journal be the first to say it; the Bush White House has gone soft on terrorism.

Spending, of course, is only a blunt instrument to measure the effectiveness of a government or private sector effort. Funding is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for success. After giving out $23 billion over six years, one could argue that enough is enough. The Heimatschutzministerium certainly has wasted money in the last few years. As Michael Daly of New York’s Daily News (the best paper in town, by the way), reported on Sunday, that Mike Chertoff’s dysfunctional department has spent “$202,000 for 80 surveillance cameras for Dillingham, Alaska; $30,000 for a visitors trailer at the Madisonville, Tex., Mushroom Festival; $36,000 to help the Kentucky Office of Charitable Gaming ‘prevent terrorists from trying to raise money for their plots at the state's bingo halls’; and $3,000 for a ‘secure trailer’ to carry riding lawn mowers to races in Converse, Tex.” Thank heaven the baddies can’t get to the riding lawn mower races.

However, as one looks at the US ports, airports and border crossings, as one takes in the vulnerability of its power plants (nuclear and otherwise), oil refineries and factories, it’s clear there’s more to be done. For example, the New York Police Department’s budget is stressed to the breaking point because it pays for 1,000 anti-terror cops, the city is still trying to get some money for surveillance cameras on Wall Street, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority is trying to harden its subway and train stations without any help from the Feds. Maybe $3.2 billion would help.

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) knows a thing or two about terrorism – he was one of the Irish Republican Army’s greatest supporters in the US. He also takes exception to the Busheviks sudden conversion to penny-pinching. When it comes to non-Fenian terrorism, he says “We can't say we're going to fight it in Iraq but not fight it in New York.” And unlike a lot of people in Congress, he’s prepared to do something about it.

“This isn't like an agricultural subsidy; this isn't a bridge to nowhere. We're talking about life and death,” Mr. King said. “I don’t see how the White House thinks they can count on our votes at all on a whole series of budget votes. Because, to me, this tarnishes the entire budget product, and I don't want to do anything that encourages it - and that includes voting to sustain vetoes.” He also said, “This is not the direction I want my party to go in. If this is their mentality, I'm not going to support the budget. I'm not going to support their spending priorities.” Which is why the founding fathers gave Congress the power of the purse.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home