Is the logic of eliminating the budget for decontamination research just escaping me?

[MEBuckner]

According to this CNN story, the Bush Administration’s 2005 budget proposal is asking Congress to eliminate an “$8.2 million research program on how to decontaminate buildings attacked by toxins”. Now, given that in the last couple of years we’ve been faced with at least one, and possibly several, persons or groups of persons who have committed biological or bio-chemical mail attacks (which resulted in several deaths, and also several multi-million dollar clean-up efforts which dragged on for months), and also that we’re still in the middle of a global “war on terrorism”, I’m not quite following the logic of this. Eight million dollars on decontaminating buildings which have been contaminating by bio-chemical terrorist attacks (out of a total budget which will exceed 2 trillion dollars by a good bit) seems like money well spent to me. In fact, I was tempted to start this thread in the Pit, but I don’t really have the energy for a good rant right now.

And maybe there really is something I’m missing here. Do we not need to spend money researching how to decontaminate buildings because, hey, we already know how to decontaminate buildings with a few gallons of Lysol[sup]®[/sup] and plenty of elbow grease? (Try not to breath too deeply; those Lysol[sup]®[/sup] fumes are bad for the lungs.) Have the bean counters determined that it would be cheaper to just burn down any affected buildings rather than spend 8 million bucks a year researching how to decontaminate them? (Hey, we’ve been needing a new U.S. Capitol building anyway; plus, the old one is way overinsured.)

OK, seriously, is this research just a needless duplication of research that’s being done better elsewhere? Is this entire story a gross distortion of some arcane budgetary footnote that’s been spun for political reasons and/or journalistic sensationalism?

Some supporter of the administration want to try and explain this to me?

[LilShieste]

MEBuckner said:

OK, seriously, is this research just a needless duplication of research that’s being done better elsewhere? Is this entire story a gross distortion of some arcane budgetary footnote that’s been spun for political reasons and/or journalistic sensationalism?

From CNN:

White House budget office spokesman Chad Colton said Thursday that each of the administration’s budgets, including its 2005 proposal, has “invested substantial resources” into researching ways of preventing and responding to bioterrorism.

I am really interested in finding out more about this, as well. I mean, a lot of the political attacks that republicans tend to throw at some of the democratic candidates revolve around “weak convictions regarding homeland security”, etc. It certainly wouldn’t make much sense for Bush to do something like this, without some similar kind of work being done in some other department or something (which is what I am wondering about – and I think MEBuckner is too – from the CNN quote above).

I will see if I can find any information on it…

LilShieste

[LilShieste]

I figured I would see if I could find anything about this on FoxNews, but… to no avail.

All I could find was a story on the EPA decontaminating the Senate building (ironically).

Link

LilShieste

[RTFirefly]

Here’s theAP story:

WASHINGTON - President Bush asked Congress to eliminate an $8.2 million research program on how to decontaminate buildings attacked by toxins — the same day a poison-laced letter shuttered Senate offices.

White House budget office spokesman Chad Colton said that each of the administration’s budgets, including its 2005 proposal, has “invested substantial resources” into studying ways of preventing and responding to bioterrorism.

Buried in documents justifying the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget plan is an acknowledgment that Bush’s proposed research cut “represents complete elimination of homeland security building decontamination research.”

In the documents, the agency said that losing the research money would “force it to disband the technical and engineering expertise that will be needed to address known and emerging biological and chemical threats in the future.”