Fire Act Funds Cut by 47% in 2007 Budget

[Guest]

The Federal Budget for FY 2007 is out today and the Firefighter Assistant Grant Program took a huge hit.

It really is amazing to see how DC is spending our tax $$$!!! It's not going to entitlements since those are being cut too...

Anyway, here are the #s. Put in your request quickly :

2005 Actual = $ 937 million

2006 est. = $ 629 million

2007 est. = $ 280 million

Remember, Uncle Sam's FY goes from Oct 1st to Sept 30th, so FY 2007 starts

10-01-06.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/appendix.html

Edited February 6, 2006 by hoss49

[Guest 786XP]

<<from www.iaff.org: IAFF Calls Proposed FY 2007 Homeland Security Budget ‘Irresponsible’

February 6, 2006 - IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger has responded to the Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposal released by the White House, calling the proposal “an incredible display of arrogance.â€

The budget proposal cuts $257 million from the FIRE Act – a 47 percent decrease from last year’s approved budget and a 60 percent reduction over the last three years. In addition, it includes zero dollars for SAFER, the much-needed program to hire more fighters for the more than two-thirds of U.S. fire departments with inadequate staffing.

“These major reductions in FIRE Act funding come on the heels of disappointing cuts for the past two years in a row,†said Schaitberger. “Every year since 9/11, Republicans and Democrats alike have had to vote to increase funding over and above the insufficient levels proposed by the President for the FIRE Act. The IAFF has worked successfully with the Republican-controlled Congress – with bi-partisan support – to pass significantly more than proposed by the White House, and we will once again come to the rescue of the American people and do what’s necessary to protect our homeland by ensuring funding for first responders in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.â€>>

I guess the definition of "never" from "never forget" is less than 5 years.

All Fire Fighters need to speak-out and involve themselves in politics and make certain that politicians do not use us or our issues as political rhetoric.

Yes it is true, FEMA does, in fact, stand for Fails To Effectively Manage Anything........I am so glad that the DHS is providing such a great sense of security and commitment to those who actually are first-responders. Can we at least agree on that?

[Guest]

I’m not a firefighter, but I am a student of political science. To cut to the chase, I support the President’s budget. Look, any way you cut it the President is in an extremely difficult situation. Not only do we have a war of immense proportions, but we are only recently coming out of a rough economic recession. The tax cuts clearly helped to fuel the economy, which has seen the most rapid growth in history. To keep the economy moving, the tax cuts need to continue. We also have a war on our hands. There is no doubt that terrorists have been, and will continue to try and attack the United States with the same, if not more, veracity as they did on 9/11. So, we have lower tax cuts, a multi-billon dollar war, and a need for better training and equipment. Not exactly a rosy economic situation. Naturally, programs will be cut – most of those social welfare programs because we cannot afford to cut defense spending at this juncture. However, the department of Homeland Security has adopted a new calibration system in which to deliver funds. Meaning, bumbelfuck, USA will no longer receive more money than the City of New York of Los Angeles. The new system is based on threat analysis and probability of attack. So, finally we have a system in place that will deliver money where it is most needed. Will the money ever be enough? Nope, probably never. The situation we face today just doesn’t allow it to be as such – there isn’t nearly enough money to fight an extremely expensive global war and provide everyone with the newest gadgets. I'm not saying i like the situation, or condone it but what else can we do? I wish all programs got more funding, but we dont live in that kind of world today.

Edited February 8, 2006 by 66Alpha1

[Guest]

Numbers don't lie.

In my opinion , this decrease in funding is mainly due to 2 factors. First one is the continued inability of the FFting community to lobby Uncle Sam in the same successful fashion that law enforcement does it. 2nd factor is the monster US budget deficit left to us by the Administration in DC.

We can debate 24/7 as to why the deficit exists (and motives behind it) but, the bottom line is that, once again, the US Fire Service got the short end of the stick...

[Guest]

"There is no doubt that terrorists have been, and will continue to try and attack the United States with the same, if not more, veracity as they did on 9/11. "

How will the major cities respond to the next attack without adequate manpower, training and equipment? You can't predict the next attack...where or when. Does the economy need help, certainly that's one of the functions of government. Yes the best way for gov't to help the economy is to tax less and spend more (demand creates supply). I agree that the President has not forgotten 9/11, he reminds us of it when he needs support for wire tapping, wars, etc. The purpose of SAFER is pretty obvious. You can't promise Americans that you are making every effort to ensure they are safe without spending on defense and home preparedness. I understand your point on targeting funding to specific locations based on probabilities. The fact is the larger cities have the largest concentration of career ff's, and that's where manpower is need most. I also understand that the union has a large stake in this cut, as is effects their membership goals. I am not a union member, but that is irrelevent. The bottom line is that we can't afford to lose another 343 brothers, and the federal gov't doesn't seem to be learning the lessons from 9/11. That's what I feel was meant by "I guess the definition of "never" from "never forget" is less than 5 years". No one will forget 9/11, but the lessons must be learned. We saw with Katrina the efforts necessary in the event of a national disaster. How will we respond? FEMA can't handle it. You need the manpower. Training is no good without manpower, equipment is no good without manpower. Career or volunteer our fire service is vital. Career fire fighters have an important role in that system. The federal gov't needs to be serious about supporting municipalities with regard to police, fire, ems, and health services.

[Guest 786XP]

I’m not a firefighter, but I am a student of political science. To cut to the chase, I support the President’s budget. Look, any way you cut it the President is in an extremely difficult situation. Not only do we have a war of immense proportions, but we are only recently coming out of a rough economic recession. The tax cuts clearly helped to fuel the economy, which has seen the most rapid growth in history. To keep the economy moving, the tax cuts need to continue. We also have a war on our hands. There is no doubt that terrorists have been, and will continue to try and attack the United States with the same, if not more, veracity as they did on 9/11. So, we have lower tax cuts, a multi-billon dollar war, and a need for better training and equipment. Not exactly a rosy economic situation. Naturally, programs will be cut – most of those social welfare programs because we cannot afford to cut defense spending at this juncture. However, the department of Homeland Security has adopted a new calibration system in which to deliver funds. Meaning, bumbelfuck, USA will no longer receive more money than the City of New York of Los Angeles. The new system is based on threat analysis and probability of attack. So, finally we have a system in place that will deliver money where it is most needed. Will the money ever be enough? Nope, probably never. The situation we face today just doesn’t allow it to be as such – there isn’t nearly enough money to fight an extremely expensive global war and provide everyone with the newest gadgets. I'm not saying i like the situation, or condone it but what else can we do? I wish all programs got more funding, but we dont live in that kind of world today.

To insinuate that the Bush Administration, or President himself, has forgotten about 9/11 is blatantly irresponsible and ignorant. Of anyone in politics today, President Bush has been worthy of praise time and time again for not forgetting 9/11. The man has resolve and I wouldn’t want anyone else in office today. If you want to point fingers, let’s blame those who deserve it. Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter – wire tapping, the war in Iraq, Abu Grahb, Gitmo. Seems as though they have been against much of everything which would give us the upper in this fight. If you were to ask me, these people are a grave threat to national security, least THEY forget what happened on 9/11/2001 at 8:46am.

p.s. - i hate to politicize anything, just watching some of these people talk makes me sick. No hard feelings to anyone.

←

Jared:

Sorry, no hard feelings taken. I guess the "blatantly irresponsible and ignorant" comments are now being taught at Marist as an acceptable way to comment on another person's opinion.

The post was about a change that the entire fire service (paid/volunteer/part-paid/combo/stipend/call/or whatever) will be affected by. Instead, you have chosen to express your affinity for the President and every possible decision he makes. Perhaps this is the "fair and balanced" approach.

Somehow every liberal in Washington also made their way into it (I believe you forgot Jane Fonda and Frederick Engels in your diatribe). But, then again, you did state "I hate to politicize anything".

If my feelings that a 41% decrease in the level of funding for fire departments nationally is insinuating that the President has lost his focus on first-responders, then so be it. These funds may not have found their way into Larchmont VAC, but I can assure you that several other area first-responders have benefited from the grants (including the Department, which I am employed by).

Good luck with your future career in EMS, hopefully you will not have to respond to any incidents that would require the personnel/tools/or resources that the former grant money could have provided.

[Guest]

FD304, your 100% right. I wish the budget was greater. All im saying is, right or wrong, i dont think this was somthing the administration wanted to do intentionally. From my understanding of the budget, there were sweeping cuts across the the board. Hopefully Congress will pump up the allocation for the FAGP. Remember, the President's budget proposal isnt final, in fact he doesnt even have to submit a budget recomendation...thats a matter of somewhat recent tradition.

Jared:

Sorry, no hard feelings taken. I guess the "blatantly irresponsible and ignorant" comments are now being taught at Marist as an acceptable way to comment on another person's opinion.

The post was about a change that the entire fire service (paid/volunteer/part-paid/combo/stipend/call/or whatever) will be affected by. Instead, you have chosen to express your affinity for the President and every possible decision he makes. Perhaps this is the "fair and balanced" approach.

Somehow every liberal in Washington also made their way into it (I believe you forgot Jane Fonda and Frederick Engels in your diatribe). But, then again, you did state "I hate to politicize anything".

If my feelings that a 41% decrease in the level of funding for fire departments nationally is insinuating that the President has lost his focus on first-responders, then so be it. These funds may not have found their way into Larchmont VAC, but I can assure you that several other area first-responders have benefited from the grants (including the Department, which I am employed by).

Good luck with your future career in EMS, hopefully you will not have to respond to any incidents that would require the personnel/tools/or resources that the former grant money could have provided.

I think I respectfully responded to your comments/opinion on the matter with my own opinion. Concerning my “blatantly irresponsible and ignorant.†I’m not taking pot shots, but expressing my opinion (again, respectfully) that the President has not forgotten about 9/11 – by all means your entitled to think otherwise, but its my opinion that such a comment is ignorant.

I think that discussing one sect of issues that we face today doesn’t really have much bearing on my overall opinion of the President. I’d be glad to discuss this further, in private, if you wish.

I’m aware that such grants (FAGP included) are crucial to helping individual departments meet the demands faced since 9/11. I never denied or belittled that. I was simply trying to offer what I see as a more pervasive fiscal problem as the reason this particular grant and other programs took and are taking such hard hits.

Edited February 8, 2006 by 66Alpha1

[Guest]

All im saying is, right or wrong, i dont think this was somthing the administration wanted to do intentionally. From my understanding of the budget, there were sweeping cuts across the the board. Hopefully Congress will pump up the allocation for the FAGP. Remember, the President's budget proposal isnt final, in fact he doesnt even have to submit a budget recomendation...thats a matter of somewhat recent tradition.

←

66Alpha1:

I understand your point as well. However with proper management the federal gov't would not have been so strapped. That's not a stab at Democrats or Republicans, as it's been going on for years. The President is faced with an uncertain future with regard to the economy. Especially with Greenspan retiring. I am sure he's playing it safe with the budget to allow him more room for adjusting monetary policy where necessary. Also, his goal according to the State of the Union is to make significant gains with the National Debt. I think of we concentrate on steady progress with the national debt, rather than sweeping progess we can better manage the finances of the federal gov't. Though the way things are looking our troops may very well be in Iran by next year, going from one war economy to another. Who knows. I do feel that if cuts are necessary, cut over time instead of "shocking" the system. We also have to keep in mind that we are paying for Katrina. I haven't seen any numbers, but the loss of equipment must have had a significant effect. I am also sure that Federal Grants will be issued with priority to the gulf region next year, and that will swallow a great portion of the remaining funding. Not to mention the amount the Feds spent and continue to spend on aid to the gulf regions.