NY Times Spanks Collins and Lieberman for Porkifying Security Funding

[BurtWorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/opinion/opinionspecial/14thu1.html?pagewanted=print

July 14, 2005
Security Loses; Pork Wins



This was a sad week for the war on terror. The Senate voted, disgracefully, to shift homeland security money from high-risk areas to low-risk ones - a step that is likely to mean less money to defend New York and California against terrorism and more for states like Wyoming. Before the vote, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a powerful appeal to the senators to distribute the money based on risk. But the Senate, led by Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and other small-state representatives, put political pork ahead of national security. It now falls to the House to fight for a financing formula that will keep the nation safe.

...

Senators had a chance to fix next year's formula, but they voted to make it worse. The original homeland security budget would have allocated 70 percent of the money according to relative risks. Senators from the highest-risk states, led by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, introduced an amendment to raise that number to 87 percent. Ms. Collins, supported by Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, introduced an amendment to lower to 60 percent the amount given out according to risk.

...



The whole Senate let the country down this week, but Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman deserve particular blame. As the chairwoman and the ranking Democrat, respectively, on the Senate's domestic security committee, they have a duty to put the national interest ahead of parochial interests. Their performance looks all the worse compared with Mr. Chertoff's forthright stand. If Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman are not committed to doing everything possible to avert another attack - which includes directing every dollar of antiterrorism money to where it is needed most - they should yield their positions to people who are.

[PurgedVoter]

1. Reserve Judgment, I watched the Hearings

I have not read the actual bills but from what I heard it sounded like an attempt to remove the pork. They wanted to shift funds to not only protect high population densities, but to beef up enforcement in other high risk areas. Their arguments do not match the editorial placed against them. The strong condemnation stated above is clipped straight from and editorial that does not give much balance or actual argument. Nor does it give content of the actual bill. While I feel we need to seriously examine our own representatives, we must also look out for those who try to weaken us by devision.