Document Actions
"Who Pays for the Cities?" - 01 September 2005 #3
By Dr Dave McIntyre, Director, Integrative Center for Homeland Security, 01 September 2005
Michael Chertoff, our new Secretary of Homeland Security, has announced his first set of priorities for federal funding – and created his first controversy with big city mayors. US public transportation systems are vulnerable to the type of attacks we saw in London and Madrid. And many US mayors think federal taxes should fund the expensive protective measures we need. Isn’t the safety of those who ride city subways and busses important? What could Chertoff be thinking?
Well, I’ll tell you, if you will give me “Just a Minute . . . for Homeland Security.”
I’m Dave McIntyre from the Integrative Center for Homeland Security at Texas A&M. When Secretary Chertoff announced the results of his “Second Look” at our homeland security program, he emphasized that the federal government cannot pay to secure everything, everywhere, all the time. It has to prioritize. And he set as his top priorities Prevention, Protection, Response and Recovery against the most catastrophic of threats. What would those threats include?
Former Senator Sam Nunn says the greatest danger we face is a nuclear weapon – or two or three – detonated in the US, and followed by the threat of more attacks if we don’t withdraw our troops and abandon our interests overseas.
Senators Frist and Lieberman say the greatest danger is a disease, whether natural or man-made, that could cause millions of deaths and keep Americans home from work and school for months, as it criss-crossed the nation in waves.
Richard Falkenwrath, number two to Secretary Ridge for years, testified that hundreds of chemical plants nationwide are still not safe from attacks that could be mounted easily and kill tens of thousands.
Chertoff has set these challenges as his top priority for limited federal funding. Experts call such dangers “Low Probability, High Consequence.” They are much less likely than the car and suicide bombings already mastered overseas. But the impact of chemical, biological or nuclear attack if they do take place would be catastrophic to the economy – and to thousands, perhaps millions of American lives. So they will be first in line for federal money.
But aren’t subways and busses important? Shouldn’t we pay to secure them too?
Well – here a difficult new logic takes over. We are familiar with concepts of National Security. Money goes from Houston, and Chicago and New York to Washington, where it might pay for an aircraft carrier that protects us all equally. But in Homeland Security, if that money goes from Washington to New York City for subway protection, Houston and Chicago are no better off at all. In fact, the more we spend to harden targets in New York, the more likely we make it that terrorists will move on to Chicago or Houston for their attacks. So maybe the expense of local protection ought to be born by local bus and subway riders, while national taxes pay for measures that protect the nation as a whole. It’s a new way of thinking about a new kind of war – and sure to prompt more debate.
I’m Dave McIntyre from the Integrative Center for Homeland Security at Texas A&M, and I hope you’ll join us next week on “Just a Minute . . . for Homeland Security.”