The Department of Homeland Security increased counterterrorism funding for Washington and New York City yesterday but warned that doling out more federal cash to the nation's largest urban areas would require the virtual elimination of aid to mid-size cities.
This year, a simplified calculation focused on population size, economic importance, and the presence of security facilities and "nationally significant critical infrastructure" such as bridges, dams and power plants, he said. Seven high-risk cities received a total of $410 million, or 55 percent of the money set aside for an Urban Area Security Initiative, while 39 other cities shared the remaining $337 million.
And that's okay. Granted some smaller police departments and sheriffs are going to be upset at the loss of funds, but unless we're willing to spend untold billions turning our country into Fortress America by securing every shopping center, bridge and power plant, airport, etc., in every town across the country, then we need to use some sense in where we allocate limited funds for security.
1 comment:
Yeah, I agree. Take Irving for example, population about 200,000. Our crime rate is pretty low and while Texas Stadium might be a lure for terrorists, I doubt terrorists are going to be stopped by the Mobile Command Center that Irving bought to communicate with emergency services in case of disaster. Nor are they much going to be troubled by the mobile towers they bought, which as far as I've seen, will only stop terrorists if they're entering the South side of Irving Mall wearing a turban and carrying a gun or Target up near 635. Irving needs funds for regular cops, not anti-terrorism.
Post a Comment