…against this New York Times editorial:
AN EDITORIAL IN THE NEW YORK TIMES CLAIMED THAT THE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM IS BASED ON PORK-BARREL SPENDING: “The new grants…are more about pork barrel politics than security.” (“Pork 1, Antiterrorism 0”, New York Times, 06/02/06)
BUT NEW YORK CITY HAS RECEIVED SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN ANY OTHER URBAN AREA IN THE COUNTRY…
PORK-BARREL SPENDING PLAYED NO ROLE, AS THE NATION’S FIVE URBAN AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST RISK HAVE RECEIVED 46% OF ALL UASI AWARDS, AMOUNTING TO NEARLY $1.3 BILLION…
THE EDITORIAL CLAIMED THAT NEW YORK CITY’S EVALUATION DID NOT CONTAIN NATIONAL LANDMARKS OR MONUMENTS: “New York City’s evaluation found that it had no ‘national monuments or icons.’” (“Pork 1, Antiterrorism 0”, New York Times, 06/02/06)
BUT LANDMARKS IN NEW YORK CITY WERE CONSIDERED, AS WERE THOUSANDS OF OTHER ASSETS IN THE CITY:
· The Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, and Brooklyn Bridge WERE ALL CONSIDERED In The Analysis:
The Empire State Building was reviewed as a tall office building and the Brooklyn Bridge was reviewed as a bridge in the analysis for New York City.
DHS purposely placed these structures into these categories, as they result in higher ratings than would be scored for national monuments and icons, since they fully account for the potential human and economic consequences of an attack. The Statue of Liberty is located on federal land and was included in the analysis for the State of New York. Critical infrastructure around the Statue of Liberty, including its ferry system and two maritime port facilities, were included in the analysis for New York City.
· 6,964 Assets Were Considered in NYC’s Analysis: Nationally, more than 200,000 assets were reviewed and considered in the analysis process. Nearly 7,000 came from New York City alone.
THE EDITORIAL CLAIMED THAT THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS WAS TOO FOCUSED ON “POLITICS”: “The panels appear to have been too focused on politics, and not enough on safety.” (“Pork 1, Antiterrorism 0”, New York Times, 06/02/06)
THE PEER REVIEW PANEL WAS COMPRISED OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROFESSIONALS FROM ALL ACROSS THE NATION, INCLUDING NEW YORK CITY. THESE EXPERTS WERE NOMINATED BY STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE PROFESSIONALS AGREED THAT THE PROCESS WAS FAIR AND OBJECTIVE:
· 96% Said the Panel Had “Balanced Representation” and 83% Said the Panel Results Were “Objective”: Representatives from 48 states and two territories, including the District of Columbia, and 38 urban areas, including New York City, comprised the peer review panels that determined the effectiveness of each applicant’s justifications for funding. 96% of the panel’s participants agreed that the panel included balanced representation, and 83% agreed that the peer review resulted in objective scores and results.
THE EDITORIAL CLAIMED THAT THIS YEAR’S GRANT AWARDS “SLASH” FUNDING FOR NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON: “The new grants, which slash spending for New York and Washington…” (“Pork 1, Antiterrorism 0”, New York Times, 06/02/06)
BUT THEIR PERCENTAGE SHARE OF THIS YEAR’S AWARDS MATCH THEIR SHARE THROUGH THE HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM…