Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (77368)	2/25/2003 4:49:16 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Likewise, you'd have to break down what actually comprises the $26 Billion. Which still does nothing to logically answer how 38,000,000,000 < (.05)26,000,000,000 "The Bushies love to throw around big numbers like the $38 Billion...You have to break it down and see where the money is really being spent -- the devil is in the details...It is a fact that this Administration HAS NOT even released funds to reimburse the states for their increased spending on security efforts since 9/11"

To: stockman_scott who wrote (77368)	2/25/2003 5:03:56 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Scott~ Looks like Hillary and group is behind "the devil is in the details" as you say....Plus, remember the Democrats held up the Homeland Security Bill in the Senate until it was finally signed in NOV 2002.... Seeking funds without fetters Cities, counties want block-grant concept applied to homeland security BY Dibya Sarkar Feb. 11, 2002 fcw.com Even as President Bush pledges $3.5 billion to cities and counties for homeland security, local officials are asking Congress for federal funds that do not carry too many restrictions on how that money can be used. Bush proposed the funding to help the "first responders" — state and local government agencies that are often the first to respond to a crisis. But city and county officials say they want to avoid seeing funds earmarked for too-specific purposes, which limits their ability to invest the money where they need it or to blend money coming from different revenue streams. They also do not want federal money to pass through the coffers of cash-strapped states, because they fear it would never be distributed. "The main issue is that if the money goes through the state, it doesn't go to the local communities," said Mayor Karen Anderson of Minnetonka, Minn., who also is president of the National League of Cities. Many states, including Minnesota, face budget shortfalls, and Anderson said she has "no assurance" that federal security funds given to the states would be passed on to local governments. So some officials seek the development of homeland security-related block grants. They envision something akin to the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which has provided annual direct financial assistance to qualifying local governments since 1974. The idea there is that local communities know best how to use the money because they know their own development priorities. Late last November, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) introduced the Homeland Security Block Grant Act, modeled on the CDBG. The bill, referred to the Judiciary Committee, would provide $3 billion, with 70 percent of the money going directly to more than 1,000 cities and counties that have populations of 50,000 or more. The remaining 30 percent will go to states, which will direct them to smaller communities. Steve Kolodney, former chief information officer for Washington state, said states are "reluctant to see the money bypass them." But Kolodney -- now vice president for American Management Systems Inc.'s state and local sector -- said states, like cities and counties, do not want to see a whole lot of restrictions on federal funds. In fact, the National Governors Association planned to send a letter to federal government officials urging them to place the least amount of restrictions on such funds, Kolodney said. In a recent meeting with homeland security Director Tom Ridge, Anderson said National League of Cities members encouraged him to consider "some kind of mechanism to ensure that some of those funds go directly to cities and towns." Similar remarks recently were made at the U.S. Conference of Mayors annual winter meeting, with several mayors saying their cities are incurring overtime expenses and wanting to know whether federal funds could cover that. Under Clinton's bill, municipalities would be required to submit a plan demonstrating how funds would improve public safety in response to a terrorist threat. But locals would have wide latitude on how to use the funds, according to the bill.