Spending on Security, Iraq Seen Hurting U.S. Cities

[True_Blue]

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The Bush administration's priorities for funding homeland security and the Iraq occupation could come at the expense of public safety in America's cash-strapped cities, mayors and police chiefs warned on Friday.

At an international police convention attended by senior administration officials, municipal leaders said they face potentially drastic cuts of nearly $1 billion in annual federal funds for community policing as Congress tries to cope with budget constraints posed by looming federal deficits.

"We're already starting to see the impact of not having sufficient funds," said Richmond, California, Police Chief Joseph Samuels, who heads the International Association of Chiefs of Police, or IACP.

His organization and the U.S. Conference of Mayors accused Congress, supported by the Bush administration, of contemplating cuts in police funding to pay for homeland security readiness programs for local police and firefighters.
more....
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3687216

[DBoon]

1. "strangle in a bathtub"

Well the repubs want to shrink government to the point where they can "strangle it in a bathtub". What you are hearing are they dying gasp of government being strangled.

Lesson: If you can't afford a privatized security force, you deserve to get robbed.

[nemo137]

3. couldn't you argue that if you can afford a private security force...

you have too much money on your hands?
;)

[baby_bear]

2. Whatever happened to Clinton's order regarding unfunded mandates?

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/fedstat/26f2.html

from a Clinton administration archive:
<snip>
Unfunded Mandates -- As a former governor, the President fully understands the burdens state and localities face when the federal government imposes mandates without providing adequate funding. In October 1993 President Clinton signed the first Executive Order requiring all federal agencies to consult with state and local organizations before promulgating any new rules or regulations that impose new unfunded mandates. The President also signed the Unfunded Mandates Act into law March 1995, a law which now requires Congress to address statutory unfunded mandates.

</snip>

Aside from the fact that the Repugs are supposed to be the ones respecting states' rights (hah!), whatever happened to both this order and the law? Seems the * administration and its slaves in Congress can't pass enough requirements for the states these days, all of which cost beaucoup bucks. Of course, the states are losing money hand over fist because 1) the states that have income taxes lose money because they are indexed to federal income taxes, and of course, * is giving away the federal treasury to his rich, contribution-minded buddies as fast as I can type; and 2) the economy, which * is doing all he can to destroy, takes its initial toll at the state level.

I guess that's enough ranting for now.

s_m

[dArKeR]

4. Da! $200,000,000,000 sucked out of the public sector what did

anyone expect to happen?