Fiscal prudence or a broken promise, or both ?
Broken promise. I wonder if Wyoming will have to give back their terror money too.
“something of a broken promise” according to the Republican from New York.
Let’s make clear that NY wants to keep the money to spend later because of anticipated future needs. Apparently the negotiators disagree with the extent of the future problem or future funding can be dealt with later.
Hopefully they are getting unspent money back from other states especially those that should’t have gotten money in the first place.
Hopefully yes. A while back, I had some newspaper clippings (L.A. Daily News) that contained a scathing editorial about this - at the time it was about the amount of money going to potential target cities like New York, San Francisco, or Los Angeles, and the amount going to places that were extremely unlikely to be targeted, such as Cheney’s home state of Wyoming. They based their criticism on both the per capita and total dollar amounts. I wish I had kept it.
I forgot to add, if the negotiators are now saying that the threat is so much less than previously claimed - terror attacks, multicolored alerts (which coincided too much with political expediency to be anything but coincidence), Cheney’s visions of mushroom clouds - or if the negotiators are saying there is no threat, then that should give us all a major “What the fuck?” moment.