NYC got its anti-terrorism funding cut and many on the right are pointing out that it’s an indicator of what the country will be like in the new and improved era of Obama’s Homeland Security initiatives. Essentially, the angle being taken by the right wingers is that this has never happened before and it’s a textbook example of how Obama is going to pursue national defense.
Except, of course, this isn’t the first time NYC got its anti-terrorism funds cut.
From Gothamist, in June of 2006:
The Department of Homeland Security cut the yearly antiterrorism budget for the “Urban Area Security Initiative” and New York and DC got the shaft, with their funds cut by 40%. New York City, which had received $207.6 million last year, will now get $124.5 million (DC went from $77.5 million to $46.5 million), while cities like Omaha, Louisville, Atlanta, and Jacksonville are getting more; ost notably, Jersey City/Newark got a 44% increase in funds, for a total of $34 million (probably for port security). Naturally, NY State politicians freaked out, with Representative Peter King calling this “a knife in the back to New York” and fuming, “They have cut $80 million in funding to NYC. Meanwhile, they gave a $21 million limousine contract to the company that was driving pimps and prostitutes around.” Now, Gothamist understands that the overall budget was cut and the cities that had been getting lots of money before would take a hit. And, naturally, it’s important to make sure cities like Chicago and LA gets the aid they need. But Omaha?
While I remember a great deal of outrage in New York City, I don’t remember a lot of outrage, right or left, from any other part of the country. I remember the left using it to chide Bush, and the right saying we had to protect the entire country, not just one city. I also remember an argument being made that we had cut most of the budget and that NYC was still getting a large portion of the funds even with their cut.
In 2006 we were meant to rationalize the funding cuts in the grand scheme of things because George W. Bush was President. In 2009 we’re meant to accept the same exact thing as a disturbing trend we should all be aware of because, as Attorney General Holder put it, the Zazi plan would’ve been the most serious threats to America since 9/11.
This, my friends, is what passes for political discourse in 2009. Blatant dishonesty and intellectually disingenuine partisan attacks.