Thursday, February 18, 2016
White House Chides Schumer for Protest of Counterterrorism Cuts
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York recently drew criticism from the Obama Administration for complaining about cuts to the security budget for the state's urban areas. These cuts come after much of the Homeland Security grants given to the state over past few years went unspent. Schumer, however, argues that the funds should still remain available even if most of the money is not spent. Do you think the threat of terrorism and other hostile activities is real enough to warrant this type of increased funding? Do you agree with Senator Schumer or the Obama Administration? Is there such a thing as too little spending when safety is on the line? Conversely, how much spending is too much for this type of issue?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Considering the majority of the money has not been spent, I belive that the Obama administration was justified to cut the money that goes to New York to counteract terrorism. Safety should be a top priority, but that does not mean that we should blindly throw money at national security issues. New York has plenty of money that they haven't spent; let them spend that before giving them more. To me, this almost looks like senator Chuck Schumer is trying to obtain an earmark for his state that it does not really need. It didn't surprise me to see after a quick search that he is seeking reelection this year...
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, considering the majority of money has not been spent, I think Obama was justified to cut some money that goes to New York to counteract this terrorism. It would safely be a top priority, but doesn't mean we would throw money away. I agree on somewhat of what Senator Schumer is trying to do, but New York already has so much money that they haven't spent. They should spend that before giving them even more. The amount of spending that's too much for this issue is not much of a set number but it shouldn't be excessive.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first paragraph I was confused why the Obama Administration cut the the money in half, but once I read that most of the money had gone unspent I was in 100% agreement with the President. If the city can find a way to use the money effectively then I think it would be reasonable to keep the money they were receiving originally (600 Million.) If not then give them only what they need, I am sure the Obama Administration can find a more effective use somewhere else for 300 million dollars. I also think it is interesting what Andrew said "Chuck Schumer is trying to obtain and earmark for his state that it does not really need. I don't know how we can find if this is true or not but I think it is an interesting thought that could be looked into further...
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first paragraph I was confused why the Obama Administration cut the the money in half, but once I read that most of the money had gone unspent I was in 100% agreement with the President. If the city can find a way to use the money effectively then I think it would be reasonable to keep the money they were receiving originally (600 Million.) If not then give them only what they need, I am sure the Obama Administration can find a more effective use somewhere else for 300 million dollars. I also think it is interesting what Andrew said "Chuck Schumer is trying to obtain and earmark for his state that it does not really need. I don't know how we can find if this is true or not but I think it is an interesting thought that could be looked into further...
ReplyDeleteConsidering the sheer magnitude of the money that has gone unspent, I think that the president was being perfectly reasonable by cutting funding. Only around 14% of the budget was used and I assume that the rest of the money was going to waste; we have other issues in our country as well that that money could be put toward. Safety is incredibly important, but there comes a point when living is more important. If we sacrifice our lives in fear of terrorists, they have already won.
ReplyDeleteWith so much left money being over from funding, it is a very rational decision to cut funding. Preventing terrorism is a high priority for our country, but we shouldn't be pouring exorbitant amounts of money into it when most of it won't even be spent. Our somewhat irrational fear of terrorist attacks must not override our common sense with funding.
ReplyDeleteI think terrorism is a prevailing topic discussed more, but I think tightening measures, fixing loopholes, and more coordination between different branches and levels of government in regards to homeland security are most important. Maybe this does warrant a slight bump in funding, but if the funds are remaining unspent, then I don't see why the senator should be upset, so I agree with Obama. I think protocols must be altered a bit, but that doesn't mean exorbitant amounts of money should be taken from other necessary sectors and all funneled into this one area.
ReplyDeleteIt's obviously important for money to be spent on national security, but after reading how much went unspent, I think Obama made the right decision. If they can find a good way to spend the money, then I don't see a problem with giving it back. Until they find a use for it, it should be spent so solve other important issues. It's hard to say how much should be spend on national security, but it shouldn't get so much that other things are being underfunded.
ReplyDeleteIssues with overspending is very important to constituents as that money could go elsewhere if not needed. I agree that the Obama administration had a right to cut back on this as that money could go to New York's schools, mental health institutes, homeless shelters, transportation, etc. especially as this money was not even being used. Why appropriate money for something if it's not being used? If you give a cashier $10, they don't keep it all if they only needed $8. They give you the $2 back. It only makes sense that the government do this too.
ReplyDeleteThe big controversy with this issue is that it is both a numbers game and a moral dilemma. If you cut unused spending, you put yourself in the position of potential disaster. Because if an unforeseen circumstance calls for that funding to be returned your in trouble and have to scramble for the funding. Then comes the issue with removing funding form safety programs. People in America and much of the world value safety above all else and it becomes a morale problem when it is proposed to cut safety budgets. People view that as the government not valuing safety even if the funding cut was unused and un needed. I believe there are many ways that cutting funding form programs such as safety, infrastructure, and other protective programs comes at a big political and safety risk. In this case I would have to agree with Chuck Schummer and would hope all of the funding provided would be well used.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I believed that there could be no price put on the safety of Americans. But then I saw just how much money was not being spent. As someone who is running for office, Schumer must like being able to tell his constituents just how much money is coming in to protect their safety, but if very little of it is actually being used, like many people have commented, there are many better uses the money could be put to. And, if there ever were a terrorist event which needed immediate funds, it's not as if they wouldn't be able to get money or find the money. And as a senator, I would have thought he would want unused money going towards one of the many other things it could be spent on.
ReplyDelete