Yeah, I know, that headline’s been done to death. But according to this Daily News article, New York is 49th in the country for per capita homeland security spending. (Wyoming comes in first.)
Is this accurate? The Daily News is not exactly infallible, and I’m sure they’re relying heavily on NYC sources (especially the police department), so I could easily believe they’ve got it wrong. I hope they do.
But if it is accurate: argh. Why? There’s just no excuse for this, and I thought they were fixing it. But according to the article, “In fiscal 2004, the total amount distributed on the basis of need will decline. High-threat urban areas will receive about $725 million, a 10% cut, while the other programs will grow to $2.95 billion, a 10% increase.”
Per capita is a terrible way to analyze how much money DoHS is spending. though it makes for a nice article on how unfair life is.
Every man woman and child in Wyoming gets $38.31 to stock up on ammo to save their lives from the evil doers. That’s about $30,409.788.42
Every man woman and child in the state of NY gets $5.47 to save themselves or about $103,930,000.00
Lets break NY down a little father:
$5.47 each for the 8 or so million living in NYC is about $43,760,000.00
$5.47 each for the remaining 11 million people on long island and upstate is about $60,170,000.00
The state of Wyoming is 97818 sq miles. Nearly twice as big as the state of NY coming in at 54471 sq miles.
NYC is 301 sq miles.
so nyc gets $145,382.06 per sq mile to save itself.
the rest of the empire state (minus NYC)gets $1918.59 per sq mile to protect the lives of all new yorkers.
and the great state of wyoming gets a mere $310.88 per sq mile to save the people those that wish to bring us misfortune.
obviously stats dont tell the whole story. To easy to turn around into an argument you like.
I live in Wyoming and I would just like to point out that we have quite a few missle silos containing nuclear warheads scattered around the plains here and in Western Nebraska and Northeastern Colorado administered through FE Warren airforce base here in Cheyenne. So it isn’t like we only have antelopes out here to protect.
It very well may be that New York is getting the short end of the stick on funding but I don’t think it is possible to make that determination by looking at per capita expenditures.
Per capita expenditure doesn’t tell the whole story, and certainly things like missile silos need to be protected– though I certainly would have assumed that the military took care of that already. But if per capita expenditure is an imperfect method, land area is a RIDICULOUS way.
Al Qaeda is trying to kill as many people as possible, and destroy high profile targets. New York City and Washington D.C. are about the best places to do that; not to mention they are places that have been attacked before; and that the threats that are intercepted all involve densely populated urban centers
So if anything, they should be funded in excess of their share of the population.
An illustration of what the money’s being spent on leads you to the same conclusion. Does Wyoming have $140 million a year in additional anti-terror expenses not being met by the federal government? Or a vulnerable water infrastructure that’s not being fixed fast enough?
Come on. They don’t take the west’s farm subsidies. They pay notably more in taxes than they get in spending. Just this ONCE, Congress can be fair.
I didn’t mean to give you the impression that I disagreed with you Katherine. I was just pointing out that are things out here in the hinterlands that are vulnerable and would make a tempting target for terrorists. I would note that while the military obviously shoulders most of the financial and physical burden of protecting the silos and the weapons when they are in transit they do have to coordinate with local and state law enforcement and emergency services. This includes devising plans, ensuring the local authorities have adequate and compatible equipment along with training. So there is some cost to the local governments.
I would also point out that there is another, potentially far greater, threat to Wyoming and the west in general. Two Al Queda clowns with a couple of cans of gasoline could unleash an inferno of Biblical proportions during July and August when the forests are tinder dry. This has been a major concern out here over the last couple of years and a lot of money is needed to upgrade and maintain fire fighting capabilities, which remain woefully inadequate as it is.
I do share your concerns about New York and the other large cities. Obviously they are the most vulnerable and most likely targets. Congress needs to spend whatever is necessary to protect all of us no matter where we live and if they are stinting on what NY and other areas need then they should be held accountable.
Kathrine that article is inflammatory. Its not reporting fact – its manipulating fact to spread fear. I am 100% sick of the media/feds persuit of scaring people.
Saying that every man woman and child in NY got $5.47 to protect themselves from terror is as idiotic as saying wyoming was given $310/sq mile to ward off terrorism. None of that money goes to protect an individual. Its suppose to protect vulnurable facilities and as such that protection trickles down to you and I.
so yea what I wrote is nonesense. But that article reports figures in no better manner.
“Just this ONCE, Congress can be fair.”
those policy makers on the hill truely have a difficult job – they are partly responsible for decided what might be a worse fate for americans – a nuclear missile somehow being detonated in a silo in the middle of nowhere vs another plane crashing into a skyscraper during the business day. I wouldnt want to be one of the people responsible for determining which fate america can afford more. would you?
lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Tobias, I agree the article is at best misleading. However, I don’t disagree with the basic premise that NYC needs more money for security than they are presently receiving. This has been an issue for 2 years–I think the inflamatory nature of the article is (beyond selling papers) a response to this frustration and a further call to arms for the citizens of NY.
I wouldnt want to be one of the people responsible for determining which fate america can afford more. would you?
This is of course their job. And, no offense to Wyoming, I think a fairly simple decision on this point.
I too agree that the urban centers and nyc in particular need more money for protection than the rural areas of the US.
the rethorical question is childish and I wish I could edit it.
In-service missile silos tend to be very well guarded. It’d take a real well-executed commando operation to get into one. Unless it was out-of-service and had been redone as a residence. That’d be pretty embarrassing, I imagine.
Slarti,
I wish I could be as confident as you. There was a prosecution in Colorado this summer where three elderly nuns managed to cut through the permiter fence and take a hammer to a silo covering. My understanding from the newspaper accounts is that it was an active silo. I suppose actually getting into the silo would be more difficult but I did find the ease with which the nuns were able to even get that close disturbing.
I read an article about those nuns. it is alarming that they were able to waltz right in like that.
found this too – thought it was rather eye opening
Waltz?
Maybe security is getting lax. That is a matter of some concern.
Now, you’re going to make me google the friggin’ story, aren’t you? Damn.
The only effective way to apportion money for security starts with analyzing the threats and the countermeasures necessary to protect against them. Once you have a good understanding of both, you have to figure in probability and vulnerability to get a good risk assessment. Then you develop a prioritized list, based on what you can do with what resources you have. Per capita doesn’t mean anything. Area doesn’t mean anything. Degree of risk and ability to protect mean something. Available resources and time frame also mean something. Relative importance of the potential target means something.
Some areas, like New York City, may already have in place existing infrastructures which can be adapted to security purposes, thus saving considerable time and money. Other areas, like Dubuque (random selection) may have little or no repurposable infrastructure. Implementing the same level of security for those areas could be much more expensive.
For example, a surveillance network in Manhattan could be logically superimposed on existing public employee networks. Increasing awareness of what kind of suspicious activities to be alert for and providing reporting channels for police, firemen, transit workers, sanitation workers, etc., can provide an enhanced level of security at a low cost.* Providing the same type of capability in a different environment could require purchasing communications equipment, computers, vehicles, hiring staff, etc., to support a large area.
These are just examples. The reality is that while money is important, it is only a resource and not the most critical one. The most critical resource is intelligent management of the security process.
* Note – Asking public employees to be alert for and report suspicious activities is not the same as spying. It means watching for suspicious packages left behind, people doing things that fit the pattern of a suspicious activity. It means being alert to the environment. For example, a man carries a shopping bag into a bank. He sets the shopping bag down by the trash can and leaves. Or, a car with several men is parked down the street from a government building. The men spend 30 minutes watching and taking pictures of the building. I don’t think it is at all unreasonable for those activities to be reported.