Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency

texmaster · Dec 30, 2009

Now that our attention is focused on airline security measures thanks to the failed airline attack on Christmas Day, it's worth mentioning that one senator took money away from aviation security to line the pockets of a constituency that supported his presidential campaign in a big way.

Back in July, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., proposed an amendment reducing aviation security appropriations by $4.5 million in favor of firefighter grants -- a notoriously inneffective program. In fact, the money was specifically "for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems."

Can't say I'm surprised but I hope he gets a beating in the press for doing this.

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

RightinNYC · Dec 30, 2009

texmaster said:
Now that our attention is focused on airline security measures thanks to the failed airline attack on Christmas Day, it's worth mentioning that one senator took money away from aviation security to line the pockets of a constituency that supported his presidential campaign in a big way.

Back in July, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., proposed an amendment reducing aviation security appropriations by $4.5 million in favor of firefighter grants -- a notoriously inneffective program. In fact, the money was specifically "for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems."

Can't say I'm surprised but I hope he gets a beating in the press for doing this.

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

And the screening in this case failed in Nigeria and Amsterdam. Even if this money had been designed for that, the idea that this $4.5 million would have made the difference is absurd.

Trying to pin blame for this incident on one party or the other is ridiculous.

texmaster · Dec 30, 2009

RightinNYC said:
And the screening in this case failed in Nigeria and Amsterdam. Even if this money had been designed for that, the idea that this $4.5 million would have made the difference is absurd.

Trying to pin blame for this incident on one party or the other is ridiculous.

Trying to excuse cutting funding from airport security is even more ridiculous.

How you can pretend 4.5 million isn't a lot of money for security is really sad.

BTW, I never said it would have prevented this guy from getting on the plane with these explosives. Just another fabrication by you.

MC.no.spin · Dec 30, 2009

Dodd is one of the senators who may lose his seat in 2010 and is in a tight race. This will get blown up for sure.

RightinNYC · Dec 30, 2009

texmaster said:
Trying to excuse cutting funding from airport security is even more ridiculous.

So everyone who ever opposed an increase in funds for airport security is just as bad?

How you can pretend 4.5 million isn't a lot of money for security is really sad.

In terms of domestic security, it's absolutely not. Sorry.

BTW, I never said it would have prevented this guy from getting on the plane with these explosives. Just another fabrication by you.

But that's the obvious implication, isn't it?

ptif219 · Dec 30, 2009

RightinNYC said:
And the screening in this case failed in Nigeria and Amsterdam. Even if this money had been designed for that, the idea that this $4.5 million would have made the difference is absurd.

Trying to pin blame for this incident on one party or the other is ridiculous.

So you have no problem with a democrat taking money from national security to give it to one of his big money special interest groups?

jujuman13 · Dec 30, 2009

ptif219 said:
So you have no problem with a democrat taking money from national security to give it to one of his big money special interest groups?

I do not think that is what he said nor implied.

ptif219 · Dec 30, 2009

jujuman13 said:
I do not think that is what he said nor implied.

It is when he is obviously defending what Dodd did.

RightinNYC · Dec 30, 2009

ptif219 said:
So you have no problem with a democrat taking money from national security to give it to one of his big money special interest groups?

Firefighters are a "big money special interest group"?

And it's not "taking money from national security" if it was used for emergency preparedness under another section of FEMA.

Redress · Dec 30, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Firefighters are a "big money special interest group"?

And it's not "taking money from national security" if it was used for emergency preparedness under another section of FEMA.

Why would you want to rain on Texmasters hyper-partisan whine thread with something as trivial as facts?

ptif219 · Dec 30, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Firefighters are a "big money special interest group"?

And it's not "taking money from national security" if it was used for emergency preparedness under another section of FEMA.

Fire fighters union.

From the OP

The amendment was also sponsored by Sen. Lieberman, D-Conn., and Sen. Carper, D-Del., but Dodd deserves to be singled out here because the firefighters union is a pet constituency of his. In 2007 he campaigned all through Iowa with the firefighters union. It was one of the few distinguishable features of Dodd's ill-fated presidential bid.

Redress · Dec 30, 2009

ptif219 said:
Fire fighters union.

From the OP

The amendment was also sponsored by Sen. Lieberman, D-Conn., and Sen. Carper, D-Del., but Dodd deserves to be singled out here because the firefighters union is a pet constituency of his. In 2007 he campaigned all through Iowa with the firefighters union. It was one of the few distinguishable features of Dodd's ill-fated presidential bid.

As usual, the whole union thing is a red herring. FEMA | Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program | AFG, FP&S, SAFER

A program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), grants are awarded to fire departments to enhance their ability to protect the public and fire service personnel from fire and related hazards. Three types of grants are available: Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG), Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S), and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER). This Website provides a description of the three types of grants available and offers resources to help fire departments prepare and submit grant requests plus information on the new SCG Grant.

Which part of protecting the public and fire service personnel from fire and related hazards are you against? Why do you oppose funding a program that actually effects more Americans than terrorism?

ptif219 · Dec 30, 2009

Redress said:
As usual, the whole union thing is a red herring. FEMA | Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program | AFG, FP&S, SAFER

Which part of protecting the public and fire service personnel from fire and related hazards are you against? Why do you oppose funding a program that actually effects more Americans than terrorism?

So then firefighters are more important than People on airplanes? Firefighters are more important then national security?

This was a clear payoff to a union that supports Dodd.

Redress · Dec 30, 2009

ptif219 said:
So then firefighters are more important than People on airplanes? Firefighters are more important then national security?

This was a clear payoff to a union that supports Dodd.

Firefighters are more clearly at risk on a day to day basis.

RightinNYC · Dec 30, 2009

ptif219 said:
Fire fighters union.

From the OP

The amendment was also sponsored by Sen. Lieberman, D-Conn., and Sen. Carper, D-Del., but Dodd deserves to be singled out here because the firefighters union is a pet constituency of his. In 2007 he campaigned all through Iowa with the firefighters union. It was one of the few distinguishable features of Dodd's ill-fated presidential bid.

ptif219 said:
So then firefighters are more important than People on airplanes? Firefighters are more important then national security?

This was a clear payoff to a union that supports Dodd.

Quick Quiz: Which group had more people die on 9/11, Airplane passengers or Firefighters?

The idea that emergency preparedness for first responders is not related to national security is just absurd.

ptif219 · Dec 30, 2009

Redress said:
Firefighters are more clearly at risk on a day to day basis.

Tell that to the people that stopped the bomber last week.

ptif219 · Dec 30, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Quick Quiz: Which group had more people die on 9/11, Airplane passengers or Firefighters?

The idea that emergency preparedness for first responders is not related to national security is just absurd.

Whats absurd is you defending a politician taking money from airline security to give as a payoff for a unions support.

rathi · Dec 30, 2009

I fully support removing funding from airport "security". Spending millions to do nothing more than annoy passengers is not worth it. I am willing to fund airport security if it actually does something useful, but until then its just pissing money down the drain.

ptif219 · Dec 30, 2009

rathi said:
I fully support removing funding from airport "security". Spending millions to do nothing more than annoy passengers is not worth it. I am willing to fund airport security if it actually does something useful, but until then its just pissing money down the drain.

You miss the point of what the money was for, From the OP.

(b) The total amount of appropriations under the heading "Aviation Security'' under the heading "Transportation Security Administration'' under title II, the amount for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems under the first proviso under that heading, and the amount for the purchase and installation of explosives detection systems under the second proviso under that heading are reduced by $4,500,000.

texmaster · Dec 30, 2009

RightinNYC said:
So everyone who ever opposed an increase in funds for airport security is just as bad?

Never said that either. Still fabricating things I see.

This is about cutting funding for security and reallocating it for another project. Starting to get it now?

In terms of domestic security, it's absolutely not. Sorry.

Really. Exactly how much money do you think security personnel cost annually?

At 50k a piece that would be 90 security personnel

How about the full body scanners?

at 190k each that would be 23 full body scanners.

Still want to pretend 4.5 million isn't a lot of money?

The ridiculousness of your statement is really sad.

But that's the obvious implication, isn't it?

Only to someone who doesn't read carefully or sloppy conclusions not supported by facts.

texmaster · Dec 30, 2009

Redress said:
Why would you want to rain on Texmasters hyper-partisan whine thread with something as trivial as facts?

Right. When we can excuse the incident of another Democrat making us less safe and make Redress' day

obvious Child · Dec 30, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Firefighters are a "big money special interest group"?

And it's not "taking money from national security" if it was used for emergency preparedness under another section of FEMA.

Is it me, or has this forum recently gotten quite a bit dumber lately?

Toothpicvic · Dec 30, 2009

texmaster said:
Now that our attention is focused on airline security measures thanks to the failed airline attack on Christmas Day, it's worth mentioning that one senator took money away from aviation security to line the pockets of a constituency that supported his presidential campaign in a big way.

Back in July, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., proposed an amendment reducing aviation security appropriations by $4.5 million in favor of firefighter grants -- a notoriously inneffective program. In fact, the money was specifically "for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems."

Can't say I'm surprised but I hope he gets a beating in the press for doing this.

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

I don't care. "Aviation security" thus far has been - "Make a woman drink her baby formula to see if it contains explosives (but be sure not to appear to be "profiling" Muslims because this could be interpreted as 'racist').

texmaster · Dec 30, 2009

Toothpicvic said:
I don't care. "Aviation security" thus far has been - "Make a woman drink her baby formula to see if it contains explosives (but be sure not to appear to be "profiling" Muslims because this could be interpreted as 'racist').

All the more reason not to cut funding to it.

RightinNYC · Dec 31, 2009

texmaster said:
Never said that either. Still fabricating things I see.

This is about cutting funding for security and reallocating it for another project. Starting to get it now?

How is that different from voting against supporting funding?

Really. Exactly how much money do you think security personnel cost annually?

At 50k a piece that would be 90 security personnel

How about the full body scanners?

at 190k each that would be 23 full body scanners.

Still want to pretend 4.5 million isn't a lot of money?

And spread those 90 or 23 amongst all of the hundreds of airports in the world. ****ING FAIL.

The ridiculousness of your statement is really sad.

You know nothing about nothing. Sorry.

obvious Child said:
Is it me, or has this forum recently gotten quite a bit dumber lately?

It's not just you. I took a month off to focus on finals and was praying that I would return to a better forum. Guess that was dumb of me.

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency

Hippie Hater

Girthless

Hippie Hater

Fool & Troll Handler

Girthless

Girthless

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Girthless

Count Smackula

Hippie Hater

Hippie Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Hippie Hater

Girthless

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency