<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with September11 and government</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/September11+government</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'September11' and 'government' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:01:35 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:01:35 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Passing The Buck On Homeland Security</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/25267/Passing%2DThe%2DBuck%2DOn%2DHomeland%2DSecurity</link>
		<description> &lt;i&gt;I&apos;ve written before about the myth of the heartland--roughly speaking, the &quot;red states,&quot; which voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election, as opposed to the &quot;blue states,&quot; which voted for Al Gore. The nation&apos;s interior is supposedly a place of rugged individualists, unlike the spongers and whiners along the coasts. In reality, of course, rural states are heavily subsidized by urban states. New Jersey pays about $1.50 in federal taxes for every dollar it gets in return; Montana receives about $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in taxes.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

Any sensible program of spending on homeland security would at least partly redress this balance. The most natural targets for terrorism lie in or near great metropolitan areas; surely protecting those areas is the highest priority, right?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

Apparently not. Even in the first months after Sept. 11, Republican lawmakers made it clear that they would not support any major effort to rebuild or even secure New York. And now that anti-urban prejudice has taken statistical form: under the formula the Department of Homeland Security has adopted for handing out money, it spends 7 times as much protecting each resident of Wyoming as it does protecting each resident of New York.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pkarchive.org/column/040103.html&quot; title=&quot;Here&apos;s how it works. In its main grant programs, the department makes no attempt to assess needs. Instead, each state receives a base of 0.75 percent of the total, regardless of its population; the rest is then allocated in proportion to population. This is a very good deal for states with small populations, like Wyoming or Montana. It&apos;s a very bad deal for states like California or New York, which receives only 4.7 percent of the money. And since New York and other big urban states remain the most likely targets of another major attack, it&apos;s a very bad deal for the country. Why adopt such a strange formula? Well, maybe it&apos;s not that strange: what it most resembles is the Electoral College, which also gives disproportionate weight (though not that disproportionate) to states with small populations. And with a few exceptions, small-population states are red states--indeed, the small-state bias of the Electoral College is what allowed Mr. Bush to claim the White House despite losing the popular vote. It&apos;s hard not to suspect that the formula--which makes absolutely no sense in terms of national security--was adopted precisely because it caters to that same constituency.&quot;&gt;Paul Krugman&lt;/a&gt;, cited by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030505&amp;s=alterman&quot; title=&quot;But as with Vietnam, &apos;&apos;W&apos;&apos; is AWOL and Cheney has &apos;&apos;other priorities.&apos;&apos; They have not merely ignored homeland protection, they have sabotaged it. Shocking, yes. but don&apos;t take my word for it. a January Brookings Institution report explains, &apos;&apos;President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the country remains more vulnerable than it should be today.&apos;&apos; A Council Foreign Relations task force chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman concurs: &apos;&apos;America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack U.S. soil,&apos;&apos; it warns.&quot;&gt;Eric Alterman&lt;/a&gt; in regards to Jonathan Chait&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030310&amp;s=chait031003&quot; title=&quot;It disappeared so quickly that it is easy to forget the bipartisan patriotism and common purpose that existed in Washington immediately after September 11, 2001. Perhaps the most memorable event from that period was the gathering of members of Congress from both parties on the steps of the Capitol to sing &apos;&apos;God Bless America&apos;&apos;. Another such episode--little-noticed, but actually more remarkable--occurred the following month. Shut out of their offices due to anthrax attacks, Democrat David Obey and Republican Bill Young, the ranking members of the House Appropriations Committee, set about investigating the nation&apos;s readiness to repel future terrorist attacks. The two met with representatives from every major security agency:FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and so and what they found frightened them.&apos;&apos;&quot;&gt;The 9/10 President&lt;/a&gt;, a story we all seemed to have missed. Not long ago, the Washington Post carried &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62682-2003Mar31?language=printer&quot; title=&quot;The effort to secure the homeland is being carried out and financed increasingly by levels of government least able to pay for it: states, now facing their worst fiscal crises since World War II, and cities, which rely heavily on states for aid.&quot;&gt;Begging, Borrowing for Security&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;br&gt;Welcome to Trickle Down Homeland Security.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.25267</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:01:35 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>911</category>
		<category>government</category>
		<category>homeland</category>
		<category>security</category>
		<category>september11</category>
		<category>terrorism</category>
		<dc:creator>y2karl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/20142/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=210375&amp;amp;contrassID=1&amp;amp;subContrassID=8&amp;amp;sbSubContrassID=0&amp;amp;listSrc=Y"&gt;Germany slips on its jack boots to keep in step with the USA&lt;/a&gt; In the wake of september 11th Most supposedly enlightened &quot;western&quot; countries have curtailed or outright forbidden free speech to groups suspected to be sympathetic to &quot;terror&quot;. The question in my mind is how long until just being part of a political organization that opposes first use of violence and criticizes government policy (libertarians, Greens, CUSPA) will get you on the FBI &quot;hit&quot; list here at home?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.20142</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:34:31 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>fi</category>
		<category>german</category>
		<category>germany</category>
		<category>government</category>
		<category>september11</category>
		<category>terrorism</category>
		<category>unitedstates</category>
		<dc:creator>hoopyfrood</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/10705/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7187-2001Sep21.html"&gt;National Defense Panel predicted WTC-style attack in 1997.&lt;/a&gt; Also contains link to report. Haven&apos;t read it yet (it&apos;s pretty long), so I don&apos;t know what it suggests. But apparently the Administration is paying attention now. &quot;Unanticipated asymmetries,&quot; indeed.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.10705</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:24:52 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>911</category>
		<category>bush</category>
		<category>defense</category>
		<category>government</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>september11</category>
		<dc:creator>aflakete</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/10346/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/"&gt;Where&apos;s Uncle Dick?&lt;/a&gt; Unless I&apos;ve missed something, Dick Cheney has not shown his face since the tragedy. All I&apos;ve seen is a CNN scroll stating that he is at Camp David. (more inside)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.10346</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2001 05:30:25 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>9-11</category>
		<category>dickcheny</category>
		<category>government</category>
		<category>september11</category>
		<category>unitedstates</category>
		<dc:creator>Optamystic</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


