You are correct. I did list concerns that are [mostly] federal, but NYC is not without similar problems. They have their own budget issues, flat job growth, erosion of the manufacturing sector, and a whole list of socio-economic concerns. Where should guns be ranked?
As a point of uncynical fact; blue cities such as Jersey City, Newark, Atlanta, Chicago and LA all received HS fund increases.
So it is not just us Yankee Fans? 
To various people that have mentioned Military bases:
Why does Homeland security dollars need to go to protecting military bases?
The military has a budget and trained personnel to do this already.
Jim
Rank 'em wherever the fuck you want. I’ll do the same.
I think you will find that the residents of Washington, D.C. have been allowed to vote in every Presidential election since 1964. They also have an elected mayor and city council (with limited powers since Congress exercises oversight in the district), and they elect a Delegate who attends sessions of the House of Representatives and has the right to participate in debate, but not vote.
They also apparently elect a “shadow Representative” and two “shadow Senators” who appear to be glorified lobbyists for DC statehood.
In that case, I have good news…
You just saved a bundle on car insurance?
If by “saved a bundle on car insurance,” you mean that I’m smoking a joint while mailing my membership application to Habitat for Humanity and giving a reacharound to an illegal whose name I think is Jose, then yes!
Next time anybody asks me how far I’ll go for a joke, I think I’ll send them a link to this.
Am I being whooshed, or are you?
Aside from being a steep premium, that Gecko’s One Sick Bastid! 
I guess it’s me, because based on your saying “if DC were allowed to vote…” it looked to me like you didn’t know that DC is allowed to vote.
Here’s a Washington Post graphic showing the 10 largest gainers and 10 largest losers (you might have to register):
The metro areas with the largest increase are Jersey City-Newark, whose funnding is going up 15.16 million to 34.33 million, and Los Angeles/Long Beach, whose funding is going up 11.37 million to 80.61 million.
The metro areas with the largest cuts are New York City, whose funding is going down 83.11 million to 124.45 million, and DC, whose funding is going down 31.03 million to 46.47 million.
Well, if they expected DHS to pay for it, I’d wager that there was already some consideration of cost. But funding doesn’t create need, and lack of funding doesn’t remove need.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I’d say that if the US “needs” to remove Saddam, and Mr. Bush goes ahead and makes and executes plans to do so while worrying about the cost only after the fact, it would be highly irresponsible too. I’m sure you agree.
Just a guess - to protect the naval base in San Diego, say, requires cooperation with the local police. A terrorist attack on it would require response from local authorities also, since it would no doubt spill over to the civilian port. Perhaps some of the money would go to the local police for improved intelligence, since the terrorists are unlikely to be staying on the base.
Now maybe the Navy, not DHS, should pay for this, but it’s all coming out of the same pocket (our’s) anyhow.
Is it possible that NYC and DC have had their funding cut back some because these grants are primarily for capital expenditures (security infrastructure improvements, initial training, etc.), and those two places got the lion’s share of that sort of funding since the beginning of the Dept. of HS? It’s not like they were zeroed out- maybe they were just trimmed down to mostly O&M money, with capital improvements going elsewhere (like busy ports in Long Beach, Newark, etc. and busy tourist attractions like Orlando).
Or maybe it really is impossible to ever cut gov’t spending for any reason.
Good questions - We’re only getting raw numbers. It would be nice if we had a break-down of the numbers with respect to what the money is (or was in previous years) being spent on.
I could easily understand why cities such as Louisville and Memphis are getting more money (Louisville - major air cargo hub for UPS; Memphis - air cargo hub for Fed-Ex) if little had been given to these cities in the past. Not sure about Omaha, but my guess it has to do something with freight rail. I DO know for a fact that there are only a handful of routes that are used to transport containers by rail from the west coast to the east coast. In fact, by taking out key bridges crossing the Mississippi River, one could easily create disruption in the system to cause billions of dollars in losses.
An increase funding for Newark makes sense if the money is to be spent dealing with the “most dangerous two miles in America” (section northeast of Newark where there are a bunch of chemical plants - chlorine, in particular). Keep in mind that one of the more vulnerable components to the US infrastructure are associated with transportation systems. We’re all aware of the issues surrounding port security. But ports are only one component in the entire US transport infrastructure (granted, an important part, especially with the heightened concern over container security).
The lack of DHS identifying national monuments or icons for New York is troubling, though. My understanding is that DHS should already have compiled a list of those assets that are the most critical components to the nation’s infrastructure. National monuments and icons are supposed to be part of that list. However, what weight each are given (relative to the entire list for the country) is not known. It’s one thing to have a list that identifies all the critical assets. It’s another to priortize that list and determine which deseves X level of funding for homeland security purposes.
Obviously, there’s going to be political elements involved; but one would hope that DHS (or others within the federal government) are using methods to most effectively allocate resources where there are needed most.
Good questions - We’re only getting raw numbers. It would be nice if we had a break-down of the numbers with respect to what the money is (or was in previous years) being spent on.
I could easily understand why cities such as Louisville and Memphis are getting more money (Louisville - major air cargo hub for UPS; Memphis - air cargo hub for Fed-Ex) if little had been given to these cities in the past. Not sure about Omaha, but my guess it has to do something with freight rail. I DO know for a fact that there are only a handful of routes that are used to transport containers by rail from the west coast to the east coast. In fact, by taking out key bridges crossing the Mississippi River, one could easily create disruption in the system to cause billions of dollars in losses.
An increase funding for Newark makes sense if the money is to be spent dealing with the “most dangerous two miles in America” (section northeast of Newark where there are a bunch of chemical plants - chlorine, in particular). Keep in mind that one of the more vulnerable components to the US infrastructure are associated with transportation systems. We’re all aware of the issues surrounding port security. But ports are only one component in the entire US transport infrastructure (granted, an important part, especially with the heightened concern over container security).
The lack of DHS identifying national monuments or icons for New York is troubling, though. My understanding is that DHS should already have compiled a list of those assets that are the most critical components to the nation’s infrastructure. National monuments and icons are supposed to be part of that list. However, what weight each are given (relative to the entire list for the country) is not known. It’s one thing to have a list that identifies all the critical assets. It’s another to priortize that list and determine which deseves X level of funding for homeland security purposes.
Obviously, there’s going to be political elements involved; but one would hope that DHS (or others witin the federal government) are using methods to most effectively allocate resources where there are needed most.
Indeed I do. I’ve said so many times on this board. And elsewhere.
Memo to New York City: there are other places besides you. DHS has a limited budget, despite the obliviousness of Shrub’43 and his Congressional Bipartisan Spend like Fuckwits Convention. NYC and its ilk have received generous funding for years now, to the detriment of the other cities, places and towns in the US. The current funding scheme is designed to cover these other places.
Although the rationale for reduced funding for NYC on the basis that there are no targets of interest is retarded, in the typically retarded way that the Fedral Bureaucracy Way.
I am curious about the “detriment of the other cities” statement. Why do you believe this to be true?
NYC was cut in one year to 80 million from 200 million. The ultimate in lame excuses was provided by some idiot in Homeland Security. A Reduction in funding with notice the funding will continue to be reduced I could understand. However, 60% of the money gone in a single budget year, this is something to make people rightfully upset.
Would you be upset if your state cut school funding to your town 60% without warning citing incorrectly that your town mis-filed its funds request and does not have any schools in need of funding?
Jim