Mike,
Best place to start this conversation is to look at the links you provide.
1. McGreevey, the NJ Governor. You quote:
..."I am pleased that federal funding is flowing to our first responders, where it can be used to help protect New Jerseyans," Governor McGreevey said."
Full quote in that paragraph.
"I am pleased that federal funding is flowing to our first responders, where it can be used to help protect New Jerseyans," Governor McGreevey said. "However, we clearly need more federal funding in order to maintain a high level of security for all of our citizens. I will continue working with our Congressional delegation to secure homeland security funding that is truly commensurate with the fact that New Jersey is a high-risk, high-population area with critical infrastructure vital to the national economy."
Interpretation. First portion was ritual thank you and, not unimportant, a desire to get some credit. Second part was the point of the text. McGreevey has complained, no end, in all the local and New York papers, that NJ gets far too little money on a comparable basis and none that takes account to the population levels and risk levels of New Jersey.
2. You say:
The federal cuts to states you mentioned are simply not true. First, the 2003 budget contained large increases in state support, then GWB proposed a supplemental of $20 Billion for the states this year and it passed. That $$$ is in addition to extra federal funds distributed for Homeland Security issues like first-responders. Congress doled out a record $4.4 Billion to the states for first responders this year. Those funds have been allocated and must be obligated by Nov 1.
Then you will need to explain why there is a steady drum beat of (a) complaints from states and locality; and (b) cut backs in services, even among first responders.
3. As for your reference to NYC, there are severe shortages there. Some come from the economic downturn, but a great deal of it comes from a huge increase in first responders costs with little or no help from the federal government. And, in the case of NYC, much of the need is a national need, not simply a state or local need.
4. You said:
If as you inferred, the states are cutting spending for first responders it is NOT DUE to cuts in federal spending. There have been no such cuts in my state. And I don't believe there have been any in NJ either.
My impression is that, while there may be cuts, the real problem has been the heightened need for funds for first responders has not been funded at reasonable levels.
5. I looked at the Rockefeller Institute document on state finances. Looks interesting. Thanks for finding it. It's important to see, however, that it doesn't address the level of federal funding, just the issue of how states are grappling with declining revenues. They note a $20 billion amount to federal funding but then note that its allocated such that heavily populated states don't receive funding commensurate with their needs. There are some wacky anamolies there. But, it's important to note, this document doesn't address the issue of funding for first responders.
6. On the link you offer about the "staggering" increases, that's (a) a commentary on an interview with a spokesperson for Bill Frist, who, after all, has some stake in creating that impression. But more important is honest enough to say, later in the interview, something close to the point I'm making.
Speaking at an Equity International event on emergency responders, Hoagland said spending for first responders has been "unnecessarily confusing, downright distracting and overly politicized," and called for more defined policy objectives.
And this from someone with a stake in making the picture look as rosy as possible.
7. The "technology" link is to a press release from Ridge's office.
8. And, finally, as you should know, if you do not know, there has been a great deal of publicity about the lack of funds for first responders and the degree to which federal funding for the states has been reduced. The latter, of course, complicates their funding issues for a great many things not simply first responders. I noted, from my own experience, that state funding for our local education budget was down and newspaper reports that it was down, partially, because of lower levels of federal fundings.
Thanks for the materials. |
