Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
search  
 
Subscribe   Subscribe   MI on Facebook Find us on Twitter Find us on Instagram      
 
 
   
 
     
 

New York Post

 

The Feds' Foul

June 06, 2006

By Nicole Gelinas

Clintonite security goals

LOST in the outrage over Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's risible finding that New York has "zero national monuments or icons" is the real reason for New York's funding loss: a fatal confusion over what homeland-security funds are actually for.

Two years ago, the problem with federal home-sec funds was supposedly pork-barrel politics. When the Republican National Convention came to town in 2004, New York pols, including Mayor Bloomberg, spent the week handing out information to delegates and national reporters to illustrate how Congress's spending formula hamstrung the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into awarding rural cities and towns in places like Wyoming and Alaska far more home-sec dollars per person than high-risk places like New York City.

The campaign worked: Congress fixed that problem last summer, to much self-congratulation. Now, while Congress guarantees that each state gets a tiny minimum of one pool of home-sec funds, the executive branch — that is, DHS Secretary Chertoff and his underlings — supposedly allocates the bulk of the funding based on threat, "risk and effectiveness of spending.

Under that model, even though small towns represented by powerful congressmen will always get some DHS sweetener, cities like New York, DC, and Los Angeles should be shoo-ins for most of the money.

That's why New York felt slapped in the face when Chertoff announced this year's grants last week. But the problem isn't how DHS bureacrats categorize sky¬line icons like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Citicorp Center, both previous targets of credible threats. (DHS put them in categories like "bridge" and "tall office building," instead of calling them national land¬marks.)

The real problem is that much of the rest of the nation, with Bush administration encouragement, views DHS as a giant source of free "first-responder" equipment. DHS does not encourage local police forces to see the values of human capital: that is, investing in the local human intelligence necessary to prevent attacks.

So states, with input from local officials, apply for neat little funding packages based on proposals to buy capital equipment like superior communications systems to use in responding quickly in a bomb attack, hazardous-materials equipment to mitigate the effects of a biological attack, specialized fire trucks, and so forth.

The idea, in DHS's view, is that each city has a finite need for such equipment —you can only have so many chemical suits. Once a city has bought its equipment, or trained its people, it's done, and the next year. some other city should receive a chance.

In illustrating this point, one remark by Chertoff last Thursday was telling: "After a city gets $500 million, more than twice as much as the next-largest city, is it correct to assume they should continue to get the same amount of money year after year after year after year with everybody else dividing up what remains?" he asked.

New York does spend some of its home-sec money on vital equipment and first-responder training, but it sees the role of the DM differently: as a source of funds for ongoing intelligence gathering and other forms of threat prevention, carried out in large part by the NYPD. This philosophy requires man¬power: more cops, more analysts, and more overtime.

In the NYPD's view, it's better to spend $10 million on police informers to learn that Islamists in Brooklyn want to carry out an attack than to buy $10 million worth of chemical suits to respond to the attack.

This philosophy is a direct result of 9/11: Despite the distracting bickering in front of the 9/11 Commission about how New York's chain of command allegedly didn't work well on that day, the best approach would have been to prevent 9/11 before it happened.

So Gotham wants to spend DHS money on programs like its Operation Impact, which trains police officers in counterterrorism tactics and devotes hundreds of officers to protect targets visibly, so that terrorists think New York may be "too hot" for an attack (in the words of a Brooklyn-Bridge plotter Iyman Faris to his Al Qaeda handlers). The DHS, conversely, sees such programs as "inefficient," because, by definition, they never end.

This fundamental misunderstanding is curious, because Gotham's approach to homeland security closely mirrors the Bush administration's stated foreign-policy approach to the war on radical Islam: Act now abroad to prevent at¬tacks, rather than act later to respond to them. The DHS's philosophy, conversely, is more like the Clinton administration's: Wait for an attack and then respond.

It's possible that New York will get its home-sec funding back, but for the wrong reason: Chertoff will be embarrassed into restoring it. But until DHS learns that buying human intelligence is at least as worthy as buying hazmat suits, the money it spends can't make the nation safer.

 

 
PRINTER FRIENDLY
 
LATEST FROM OUR SCHOLARS

On Obamacare's Second Birthday, Whither The HSA?
Paul Howard, 10-16-14

You Can Repeal Obamacare And Keep Kentucky's Insurance Exchange
Avik Roy, 10-15-14

Are Private Exchanges The Future Of Health Insurance?
Yevgeniy Feyman, 10-15-14

Reclaiming The American Dream IV: Reinventing Summer School
Howard Husock, 10-14-14

Don't Be Fooled, The Internet Is Already Taxed
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-14-14

Bad Pension Math Is Bad News For Taxpayers
Steven Malanga, 10-14-14

Proactive Policing Is Not 'Racial Profiling'
Heather Mac Donald, 10-13-14

Smartphones: The SUVs Of The Information Superhighway
Mark P. Mills, 10-13-14

 
 
 

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494