Cuts in security make no sense

12/4/07
There’s little chance the Bush administration’s call last week to slash Homeland Security funding will be put into effect. Congress will have its say on the department’s proposed budget, and it’s unlikely its $3.2 billion request would be cut to $1.4 billion, as the White House is asking.
But if this is just Washington budgetary shenanigans at play here, it’s an odd place to make a point. The president, after all, has spent the past six years warning the country every 10 minutes or so that terrorists are plotting, lurking, planning, around the corner, under your chair, etc. Now his administration wants to slash funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments, and eliminate programs for port security, transit security and local emergency management operations.
Are we to believe that he was being less than honest all these years about the threats we face? Or that he’s willing to shortchange people’s safety to make a political point?
Making the ploy even more cynical is the fact that it is his successor who would have to face the consequences, as the budgetary year in question runs through the end of 2009. Maybe the president sincerely believes it will be a bad Election Day for Republicans next November.
The proposed cuts are especially farcical when it comes to the greatest fear of security experts, that of a radiological device terrorists manage to sneak over the border and detonate in a U.S. city. The White House can not sincerely think the best way to fight that threat is to cut funding for port security.
From both parties, members of Congress declared the proposal for cuts a nonstarter. This can not have been a surprise to the administration, so the question becomes why they would take this step, knowing it could never be enacted, and knowing that it goes against nearly every White House statement of priorities since 2001.
It’s a mystery, but one that the country won’t have to deal with anymore after Bush — more than likely, anyway — leaves office in a year or so.