Philadelphia Denied Funds To Fight Terrorism
Philadelphia Denied Funds To Fight Terrorism
Law enforcement officers stand between our people and great dangers, and we’re making sure you have the tools necessary to do your job.
Philadelphia is trying to improve its first responder capabilities, but the government isn’t helping out. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) has decided that Pocatello, Idaho (population 51,466), needs emergency communications equipment more than Philadelphia (population 1,517,550) does.
COPS denied Philadelphia $6 million to upgrade its first responder equipment so that police officers, firefighters, and paramedics could use their radio equipment underground and in tunnels, which the current equipment will not do. Deputy Police Commissioner Charles Brennan was baffled by the denial of funds:
We thought after the subway bombings in London, someone would see that it would make sense for the fifth-largest city in the United States to have first responders who were able to communicate underground.
So which cities did receive funding? Full list can be found here, but some highlights:
$3,000,000: Grand Forks, North Dakota
$2,256,164: Bismarck, North Dakota
$2,152,015: Davenport, Iowa
$1,900,610: Pocatello, Idaho
$981,360: Las Cruces, New Mexico
Evidently, the nation’s fifth largest city doesn’t need new tools.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
thats easy…Philly is a Democratic stronghold. i KNOW that! Let them heathen Dems pay for their OWN equipment!! Heh…heh…
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:19 pmThe state of Wyoming gets nearly as much dstributed funds as Philly.
Why? Look at who is VP.
Oh yeah, rumors are that Bush is back on the sauce. I havae many sources in DC and am trying to confirm this but I know for a fact that in the run-up to the 2000 election, while in New Hampshire, K. Harris and G. Bush had adjoining rooms with an access door and for one night their room service and bar tab exceeded $150.
I tried and tried to get the MSM involved in this but no one would touch it with a 10 foot pole.
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:33 pmThat is why Katrinia had a slow resond because they had a Democrat Mayor and Governor. In Mississippi Bushie called the governor because he was a Repug. This is supposes to be government for all the people not just the Republicans.
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:34 pmSmall technical question – why is the DoJ making these decisions?
This strikes me as being DHS/FEMA territory – first responder capabilities/ communication in emergency situations, sounds exactly like the kind of co-ordination FEMA is responsible for.
And it also begs the question – when communication broke down so catestrophically in NO following Katrina, should the DoJ be explaining why this was the case?
Just wondering whether NO’s first responders got the communication equipment they asked for.
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:39 pmIt is SOP for public $ to go disproportionately to same-party states/cities. Here in Boston the “Big Dig” was approved by a democratic congress — never would have flown in today’s world. Current cost (I think about 70% fed funded) is at 16 billion and counting.
This is not a uniquely repub behavior.
I hope Mary Poppin is wrong — spending money according to pary lines is one thing, but saving lives is another.
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:46 pmYou guys are very cynical. Did you ever consider the possibility that the DoJ has access to some surprising information about al Qaeda’s plans? Maybe it’s not that the DoJ is led by a bunch of incompetent political hacks, like other agencies, but is really on the ball. Maybe.
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:50 pmI’ve been in boston, the big dig was a GREAT idea – traffic and roads were choking the central city. At least you got something for your money with the big dig! I’d rather congress spend 16 billion to solve an infrastructure problem, then refuse to spend 2.5 billion and have all of New Orleans flooded and now we have to spend 200 to clean up the mess we were too cheap (like you?) to deal with originally… I’d also rather spend 16 billion on american infrastructure than 200 billion on starting a civil war in Iraq.
For someone who claims to be concerned, you sure do seem to have screwed up priorities on what you ‘choose’ to be concerned about.
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:52 pmDear Alberto,
Thanks for nothing, amigo.
Sincerely,
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:00 pmLeisure,
Considering the NeoCons funded, trained and even helped recruit people for AlQueda and Osama – I have no doubt they surprising information. As for them being incompetent – having done the act I just described clearly indicates this has been true for a long time!
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:01 pmRyan, maybe we should stop trying to fund and manage everything at the federal level. Doesn’t seem to work out that well in general. For example, look at test scores since the Dept. of Education was created.
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:02 pmSpeaking of Pennsylvania, Santorum is on the ropes big time. He is fading fast and that is some really good news. He is extremely unstable and has some very archaic and, dare I say, dangerous ideas. I am baffled that he was ever elected.
Trolls, what do you think about Santorum? I figure instead of just accepting or overlooking arbitrary nonissue comments, we should maybe invite them in, but make them work for their “privilege” with us just as we do.
Trolls, you should be aware that it “costs” something to be here. You must contribute in some progressive, hence the name, way. Or, if you are curious about us, then just ask some pertinent questions about why we feel the way we do.
We all have differing viewpoints here. We are very individual. Some of us believe in Christianity and some of us don’t. Some of us are very liberal and believe in making sure everyone gets a chance to succeed. Some of us agree with the death penalty and some of do not.
We have no label and cannot be interchanged with one another. Sometimes we ourselves bicker about a certain point, yet don’t wish to change anyone’s mind. It isn’t healthy to want everyone to feel the same way you do. That is one reason I don’t buy into organized religion. But, some of here love to go their church. I know that we share fundamental ideals.
We are all so different but share one belief that is constant if we want our country to move forward. WE ARE ALL PROGRESSIVE. We all are extremely caring and compassionate folks.
So, to sum up, if you want to come here and have meaningful interaction that is fine. Better yet, just read our posts and get mad, but don’t share your anger with everyone here. If you do, it just makes you look angry and vengeful and, thus, your posts will have no credit whatsoever. If you don’t care what we think or worse, like to try to make us angry, then you are in need of help and should move on to another site. They have those kinds of sites and they are aptly named. Otherwise, it is just bad form and poor sportsmanship to offer nothing.
And believe me, Ryan, or anyone here for that matter, doesn’t care if anyone thinks he/she is gay. That is something else we all share and is one of the main ideals that brings us together here – the belief that people have their own “business” and don’t wish it to be minded. Why would being gay be a bad thing? I wouldn’t be embarrassed or ashamed. My family would still feel the same as they ever did. And, I’m guessing, so would Ryan’s. And if they didn’t, that would be their problem and not Ryan’s.
I’d bet if he were gay, he would shout it from the rooftops. And he seems “man” enough to feel so comfortable in his obvious masculinity that a stranger calling him ‘fag’ would not bother him in the least.
Does this help you at all? Do you see that what you do when you threaten or spar here is counterproductive? Time is valuable and I would think that no one would want to waste it.
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:20 pmConcerned,
Oh please, that’s such a bogus NeoCon argument. The problem isn’t federal funding, it’s republican mismanagement. Poverty goes down, education improves and and any number of things when a Democrat comes into office. The opposite happens when a Republican comes into office.
The reason we fund things at a federal level is the disparity between the wealth of different states. The federal government is SUPPOSED to ensure that resources are accumulated and dispersed so that everyone is educated – and that’s what happens when democrats are in office.
If we did it your way (which we used to), the problems we see today in NewOrleans would return to what they used to be and education of the poor in poor states would suffer even more. But you would probably prefer that. CONservatives are always worried about their own wallets to the expense of society.
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:20 pmConcerned,
The DOE was formed because conservatives like you wouldn’t fund black schools – I see old habits die hard… Once a cheap greedy bigot, always a cheep greedy bigot.
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:22 pmConcerned Conservative, I appreciate your comments and the respectful way they are given. Of course, I disagree, but respect your tact. Thanks.
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:27 pmNo sale CC. That the current adminstration
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:27 pmis incompetent does not mean federal government
is no good.
That’s straight from Norquist’s playbook, you
can do better.
Ryan, I am not anti-education funding at all. I just think the money tends to be better spent at the local level. The town I live in has very high local taxes which I gladly pay because they spend the $ to keep the public school top notch. So calling me a greedy bigot is off-base. I’m just looking for the most effective use of the $.
P&P — thanks. And I know you disagree with me on pretty much everything — that’s OK.
Afterthought — I’m not disagreeing that the current admin. could do better. I just want every federal admin. to do less (and local admins. to do more).
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:44 pmOkay CC, there is a legitimate discussion
September 22nd, 2005 at 1:52 pmto be had on how government (federal or otherwise)
spends money. This is where the conservative/liberal
debate USED to occur.
Now it seems that the motivation is often just
plain greed. It is hard not to get this impression
from the way President FUBAR does things.
what does “FUBAR” stand for?
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:02 pmI hope Santorum goes down fast. He has some scare ideas.
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:03 pmCC
Fvcked Up Beyond All Recogntion
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:06 pm“what does “FUBAR†stand for?”
It stands for Republican…
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:11 pmSo where would the local govmts get the money? Raising out taxes even more? Would we get a corresponding drop in Federal taxes?
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:13 pmHow about making corporations pay their taxes? For instance, here in Oakland, the Port of Oakland (4th largest in the world, biger than New Orleans!), pays NO local city tax. Of course they use city services! And our school districts are (except for the ones in the few ritzy neighborhoods) terribly underfunded and completely overwhelmed.
So unless we can address the unfair advantage that private corporations have, we cannot expect local govmts to pick up the slack when the federal govmt bails on their obligations, as they will before the end of W’s term… Any bright ideas?
And by the way P&P, beautiful… we should copy that and paste it everytime we encounter a rude troll!
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:16 pmAnd CC, you always are a gentleman, thanks!
“Ryan, I am not anti-education funding at all. I just think the money tends to be better spent at the local level. The town I live in has very high local taxes which I gladly pay because they spend the $ to keep the public school top notch.”
And yet that’s the problem. The schools that need it the most do not have access to increased local taxes – the money and income simply isn’t there. And the DOE is supposed to assist and ensure those schools get funding and standards that ensure the schools are properly funded. Because Republicans continue to undermine funding dispersements, local schoos MUST collect local revenues in order to have a ‘top notch’ school. The problem isn’t a DOE, it’s that Republicans have interfered so much with the DOE that it has been unable to complete its mission.
And I don’t think you are intentionally greedy or a bigot, I just think that those values are more convenient for republicans. I know you can do better, but in my experience you won’t…
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:16 pmP&P I couldn’t agree more. I don’t generally think sexual orientation is relevant, except when its repressed and makes people freaks like one troll in particular. In general it isn’t relevant to political discussions, or it at least it shouldn’t be… I believe everyone (even conservatives) have a right to their beliefs – but the difference is that in my experience gay people do try to force anyone to live their lifestyle, but reichwingers try to use every legal, and religious tool at their disposal to repress an oppress others. That’s a disgusting and unacceptable behavior!
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:19 pmMost education money DOES come from the local systems. The Bush system is all about UNFUNDED mandates. Sheesh…
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:20 pmSara, I understand your point (though I don’t think the Port of Oakland is a private corp.). Corporate tax breaks and corporate welfare are bad ideas which not only prevent the free market from working correctly but also reduce funds for schools and other important public programs.
Ryan has a decent point about the schools in towns/cities without the proper tax base to fund them. That difference must be made up at either the state level or federal level (obviously I prefer the state level). That said, in the city of Boston the schools have per capita spending higher than my town. Yet they perform much worse. So it is not just about the money.
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:28 pm“That difference must be made up at either the state level or federal level (obviously I prefer the state level). That said, in the city of Boston the schools have per capita spending higher than my town. Yet they perform much worse. So it is not just about the money.”
The devil is in the details, and this is why Republicans make such bad administrators…
Many states (like Louisiana) don’t have sufficient tax bases to fund the schools properly.
The reason boston has higher spending than your hometown, is the cost of living is probably 2 to 3 times, and property values are probably 5 times where you live for school construction and maintenance. This is a common problem with urban schools that the suburbanites and rural people seem to be clueless about. You can pay someone 20,000 in rural new england and they might be able to get by. You pay them that in Boston, and they starve under a cardboard box…
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:41 pmConcerned Conservative,
You seem like a relatively good person who’s been given bad information.
I think you might find this link useful as it talks about some of these issues.
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=163
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:49 pmRyan, I am not following your point. I’m not sure what property values and cost of living have to do with school performance. Even if property values and cost of living are higher in Boston, the city is already spending more than other towns (because they are getting funding from fed and state coffers). Maybe a lack of funding is not the problem.
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:55 pmWow, lucky Boston.
I know that in Orange County California, everything is based on house size. You go to the lowere income areas that have small homes and the schools are in a terrible place. If you go to the higher income areas that have huge houses, the schools are the epitomy of modern.
This goes right to the heart of what Ryan was saying. The higher the property value, the better the school. The lower the property value, the worse the schools are.
September 22nd, 2005 at 3:00 pm[...] Think Progress alerts us to the news that US Department of Justice denied Philadelphia crucial funds to protect the city against terrorism: Philadelphia is trying to improve its first responder capabilities, but the government isn’t helping out. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) has decided that Pocatello, Idaho (population 51,466), needs emergency communications equipment more than Philadelphia (population 1,517,550) does. [...]
September 22nd, 2005 at 3:18 pm“Ryan, I am not following your point. I’m not sure what property values and cost of living have to do with school performance. Even if property values and cost of living are higher in Boston, the city is already spending more than other towns (because they are getting funding from fed and state coffers).”
Where did you get those numbers – and I’ll debate you. You’re making charges and statements that sound fraudulent and propagandist – tell me the exact amounts and origins of those numbers and I’ll be happy to respond to them. If you can’t supply them and you’re simply spouting limbaugh claims – I’ll be happy to dig up the differences if you tell me which school district you are comparing boston to.
September 22nd, 2005 at 3:19 pmRyan, I went here for some stats:
http://www.dls.state.ma.us/MDMSTUF/MunicipalActualExpenditures/Schv9099.xls
I created a new column that divided School spending by Net Avg. Pupils to come up with spending per pupil. The town I live in (Acton) spent $6200 while Boston spent about $8700 per pupil.
September 22nd, 2005 at 3:55 pmConservative,
Did you even look at the metrics in this spreadsheet? They answer the question for you if you do the math.
Boston has to spend 2 times as much on ‘non-school expenditures’ (these include safety, salaries, benefits and other higher cost structure items because of being an urban environment) than they do on school expenditures. Your school system has the opposite ratio.
This is just as I said previously…
September 22nd, 2005 at 4:15 pmI noticed that percentage difference and it was surprising. But that does not change the fact that Boston spent a lot more per student. Why do their schools suck so badly in comparison if spending per student is higher?
By the way, thanks for the link. I took a quick look but I will have to get back to it later.
September 22nd, 2005 at 4:19 pm“But that does not change the fact that Boston spent a lot more per student. Why do their schools suck so badly in comparison if spending per student is higher?”
Are you just pretending to be stupid fool – or is that your natural state? If they have to spend the majority of their money on infrastructure costs because of the high cost of an urban cost structure – there is actually less money to spend on educating the students themselves… It isn’t rocket science – don’t pretend that it is…
September 22nd, 2005 at 4:26 pmAnd Conservative – you also miss other very important factors not in this spreadsheet.
Wealthier communities tend to covertly fund schools through fund raisers, buying equipment for the schools and sending the schools on field trips. These added contributions do not show in the official budgets but they greatly affect the quality of education. Poorer urban environments in particular don’t have this economic base to tap into, and therefore the actual dollar spent per student in relevant equipment, materials and expenses is much lower.
See I have a few relatives and friends that actually teach in both rural and urban environments – and I can tell you that a significant amount of the problem stems from the difference in these ’stealth’ budgets. They came about to deal with the missing education funds that none of the governments were providing – but they mask gross underfunding by the government.
September 22nd, 2005 at 4:31 pmPhilly Blogicized: Only kinda about blogs
• Sorry, I haven’t been giving everyone a daily dose of Rick Santorum Rick Santorum Rick Santorum! [Attytood via All Spin Zone] • By the way, speaking of ASZ, check out this month’s Philadelphia where Noel Weyrich bashes Richard Blair…
September 22nd, 2005 at 4:51 pmYou make a good point Ryan about the stealth budgets.
I would also add in that there seems to be a difference in the level of parental commitment and involvement, which I think has a major effect on student performance.
September 22nd, 2005 at 4:55 pm“I would also add in that there seems to be a difference in the level of parental commitment and involvement”
Agreed, but when you’re a working poor (either individual or couple), the amount of time available to make ends meet in a place like boston makes this impossible. Once again the deck remains stacked against those who would LIKE to participate – but simply cannot.
Did you see the “30 days” segment on cable where the couple lived on minimum wage for 30 days. Watch that show if you want to know why there’s an issue with parental involvement in places like boston. And remember as a Conservative that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your intention to do the right thing if not followed up with an education of the issues means you’re likely to support policies and politicians that do not have the best interest of the country at heart (republicans).
September 22nd, 2005 at 5:07 pmSo to summarize your ’spin’ Conservative, the issue isn’t a ‘committment’ to the children, it’s an issue that the parents don’t have the resources either financially or time wise to assist the kids. So instead of the government helping that, they make it worse by not giving those schools that need an extra helping hand the difference to make up for what’s needed. The result is that schools are ‘relatively’ underfunded, the parents don’t have the resources (time or money) to contribute more, and the wealthy flight to the suburbs leave them in an ever worsening plight that the feds (the only people with the resources typically) refuse to deal with because they’re stupid idiots that prefer to have religious braiwashing schools and vouchers. The problem is that the feds shouldn’t be helping, it’s that the refuse to help because conservatives don’t believe in public anything – especially public education…
September 22nd, 2005 at 5:16 pmWow, I do believe that I just read through a responsible, mature discussion. I’ve recently read through some of the other threads on this site. And it is surprising how quickly most of them break down to name calling and mud-slinging, which is fun for a while, but soon gets annoying to read and does nothing to inform. Thanks for raising the standards on this one and lets please try to keep it up.
September 22nd, 2005 at 6:52 pmCarnes,
That’s because generally republicans are unwilling to look at facts and respond to them rationally. They only post spin, propaganda and lies – especially when it comes to their critique of democrats. As dewey used to say “I told one of my republican colleagues that I’d stop telling the truth about him, when he stopped lying about me”.
Unfortunately this practice by the republicans is decades old…
September 22nd, 2005 at 7:05 pmTrolls, you should be aware that it “costs†something to be here. You must contribute in some progressive, hence the name, way.
comment by ratbastardcommiemofo
To start I reject the name Troll. Secondly, conservatives do contribute. I’ll put our tax contribution,which by the way is “progressive” against the Filthy Left any day of the week. I’ll also put our charitable contributions against yours as well. But I believe our greatest contribution to this country, culture and society is the effort we put forward to destroy the post modern liberal loser and his dirty work of undermining the bedrock this country stands on namely this country’s traditions, morals and religion. Without us you losers would turn this great nation into a shitty little country like France.
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:00 amThe commie comment is so yesterday. Like J. Edgar Hoover, the cross dresser. Remember him? He thought everyone was a commie as he danced around like a pretty princess in his office.
Saying the best thing the right has done is effectively destroy the left says a lot about your character, or lack thereof.
How do you have so much time to waste here? What kind of job to you have? And who taught you to talk like that?
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:52 amWhat other countries do you hate? Curious.
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:53 amWhen I used the word COST, I was referring to this website. It COSTS to be here. HERE means this website. You have to read posts in their entirety. Skimming through and not taking in the information will lead to your misunderstanding meanings. This is why sound bytes only work for nonthinkers. Some people just haven’t learned to process a lot of input at once.
That is a major problem we, as progressives, need to address. Children are turning into SKIMMERS. They read magazine inserts and watch 30 minute tv shows. It takes a bit of saavy to raise children now and many parents aren’t investing enough time. We just cannot let the media raise our children anymore.
You don’t have to look VERY FAR to see what happens to kids who are raised in 30 minute increments.
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:04 amthat troll isn’t intelligent enough to understand your points P and P…
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:44 amThe commie comment is so yesterday.
commente by commieanddon’tevenknowit
You really are clueless aren’t you? Bless your pointed little head but I don’t have time to educate one of the drones.
“Saying the best thing the right has done is effectively destroy the left says a lot about your character, or lack thereof.”
Listen sweetcheeks, I know you think you’re the good guy. What can I say except “Everything you know is wrong”.
September 23rd, 2005 at 7:53 pmMrWrongClosetFag,
Actually we KNOW we’re the good guy, we even have evidence and even scriptures to back it up, and we know you’re the bad guy. You continually prove it by your hatred, threats, denegrations and lies… Only you and your fellow fascists seem to think you’re the good guys. Ignorance is bliss.
And the Everything you know is wrong so fits you, I consistently disprove EVERYTHING you write, you can’t even quote a reliable resource and have to resort to known white supremacists. Man you are one desperate, delusional and creepy freak – you need a padded room.
September 24th, 2005 at 3:20 amMrWrong,
Ever wonder why marxism even gets a toe hold in the 3rd world? Because right wing fascist dictators with the same values as you are so oppressive and uncompromising in their idiotic practices that the people swing desperately to the other side.
Life is balance, and fascism and communism are both unbalanced. American liberals are actually ‘moderates’ by world standards, and that’s why we are both more balanced and more capable (as history has repeatdly shown) to govern. Balancing the need for business and enterpreneurs with the need for social safety nets is what we offer. We are the voice of reason, whereas you simply offer the voice of ignorant hate and selfish greed.
While greed is good in an entrepreneur, in a president and congress it’s utterly destructive – just like you.
September 24th, 2005 at 4:09 amEver wonder why marxism even gets a toe hold in the 3rd world?
comment by Ryan “Pink through and through” Neat
Yeah, I know why. All poor people with little in the way of physical, mental and spiritual recources are charmed by your vision of a chicken in every pot. Then later they find out that they are the chicken because Leftists ARE fascists.
September 24th, 2005 at 7:01 pmActually that’s not true, but nothing you write has ever been factual, but it is always delusional. Countries that are consistently Poor aren’t susceptible to marxism. Only countries with exploitive overlord classes that exploit the population for a few selfish, greedy and evil individuals are susceptible. When you have extreme imbalance in society, the solution people seek is equally extreme (even if it isn’t right either).
The problem with marxism is that it is extremism, just like the fascism you preach. You think you’re the opposite of a radical marxist, but you’re the same in many ways. You’re an extremist that doesn’t recognize the balance that’s necessary in society.
September 26th, 2005 at 12:34 amWhat ridiculously typical LibDem-speak here. Reality check, folks. Philadelphia, PA is one of THE most liberal cities in the United States. All the LibDem dominance here has gotten us is a one-party system that has birthed and nurtured generations of unaccountable politicos. And since the chosen one party of these folks is largely out of step with the majority of America, as shown in 7 of the past 10 Presidential elections and the majority of Senate and Congressional elections, they reap what they sow, and we ALL pay for it.
Philadelphia needs a strong, vibrant, real-alternative Republican Party to develop, with solid leadership and with a body that is at least capable of challenging, if not always defeating, the long-time Philly LibDem machine. With the current system, the only way that happens is if some currently Dem power broker switches allegiances, brings along their consituency, and gets together with the current Republican machine (such as it is) to change things.
Unless or until that happens, Philly can continue to expect that it will remain on the short end of things when it comes to federal funding, because in politics, as we ALL know, to the victor belongs the spoils. The Dems may indeed win the occasional national election, helping Philly out temporarily, but the longterm trends are very much against that happening more than infrequently. There are only so many Clintons out there.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:50 pm