It's an old Washington trick to release bad news late on a Friday...

Let me put our position right up front: These proposed cuts are idiotic, dangerous and irresponsible and should be fought tooth and nail by every individual who is part of the homeland security community and every citizen besides.

But more about that later.

The background

According to an Associated Press report by Eileen Sullivan and Devlin Barrett, based on a Nov. 26 memo, the administration is planning to cut grant aid to first responders by over half in its fiscal year 2009 budget request.

Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wanted to provide $3.2 billion in grants, the White House and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided to only ask for $1.4 billion, allegedly based on the perception that previous grants had not been well spent. The new proposal calls for outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations including fusion centers.

DHS had requested $900 million for grants to cities at greatest risk but the proposed budget only provides $400 million for that program, to be divided among no more than 45 urban areas. Seven grant programs would be eliminated while two would be created, with $450 million for targeted investment grants, which would fund administration priorities such as Real ID, the Transportation Workers Identification Credential and state and local planning for catastrophic disasters. The other would be a $300 million discretionary grant program for terrorism preparedness, prevention and response, which would fund specific projects instead of sending a set amount to each state.

The reaction

Though the story got little play--I couldn't find it in the Washington Post, which never seems to pass up an opportunity to report bad news about homeland security--members of Congress from both sides of the aisle reacted with fury, particularly Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Charles Schumer (D-NY). Rep. Peter King (R-NY), never known as a shrinking violet, said that "If these cuts end up in the President's budget it will be absolutely disgraceful," adding that, "Some of these guys in the budget office have no sense of reality. One number's the same as the other."

At this stage of the game, decisions on budget requests are theoretically in flux, with OMB brokering the budget requests of all the different cabinet departments and agencies. In theory everything is fungible and nothing is really set in stone until the budget is finally passed by Congress and signed by the president by the end of the fiscal year, which in this case would be Sept. 29, 2008. (More about the likelihood of that later.)

Accordingly, OMB had a fallback position when asked about the plans for the cuts: "It would be premature to speculate on any details that will or will not be a part of the next fiscal year budget," said Sean Kevelighan, OMB spokesman.

The White House was defensive too. "Protecting the homeland continues to remain a top priority for the administration and although no final budget decisions have been made, we are confident future funding levels will appropriately reflect our dedication to homeland security," said Trey Bohn, a White House spokesman, according to Newsday.com.

Theoretically, then, this concept may change before it even gets to the State of the Union address in January or the budget submission stage in February. In fact, however, when the president makes up his mind--which OMB reflects--it is very difficult to make a change within the executive branch. Congress and the White House are already in a deadlock over the FY08 HS appropriation, the first time since 2003 that an HS spending bill hasn't passed on time. One can only imagine what kind of a reaction this proposal will receive if it arrives on Capitol Hill in February.

A light on a resignation

At this point, let me digress a bit and comment on the resignation of Frances Townsend, the White House homeland security and counterrorism advisor who abruptly resigned on Nov. 19.

I was stunned when Townsend resigned. This is an extraordinarily committed, articulate and intelligent woman who was totally absorbed by her duties, faithful to her mission and lived and breathed her job. She was also completely loyal to President Bush and certainly sang his praises when I interviewed her. (You can read the interview in our archives at http://www.hstoday.us/Archive/0702_Assessing_the_Threat.cfm).

To see a woman like Townsend suddenly depart for the private sector made no sense and was completely out of character. It was also out of keeping with a directive from Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton earlier this year that had anyone wishing to depart the staff doing so before Labor Day. Townsend hung in there; she was one of the lifers. Lastly, this energetic and animated woman was very subdued when she announced her resignation, so something was clearly wrong.

Last Friday I think I saw why Frances Townsend resigned.

This is entirely speculation on my part and I've received no inside information from anyone confirming it but I'd be willing to bet my class ring that Townsend fought these cuts inside the White House and lost and knowing that it would be her assignment to go out and fight for a budget in which she didn't believe. Instead, she chose instead to resign--a very principled position that would be in character.

Nor would her task have been simply to defend these cuts: These proposed cuts unravel everything she's done since going to the White House--indeed, everything she's done in her entire career. They undercut everyone in government and at the state and local levels who have been struggling to improve the security and preparedness of this country and who believed in her. They open up vulnerabilities that the administration has been boasting it closed. They are the triumph of complacency in an administration that boasts of its vigilance.

What is more, short of the president himself, there is probably no one else in government with more access to the threat intelligence, so Townsend knew better than nearly anyone the magnitude of the threat the United States faces--and how much these cuts would weaken American defenses.

For Frances Townsend to go out and sell this budget, no matter how great or deep her loyalty to the president, would have literally required a doublethink that I don't believe she possessed. It would have required a complete reversal of every effort, every memo and every speech she ever gave. It would mean ignoring the lessons of Hurricane Katrina that she knew better than anyone else.

And ultimately, it would have required a blind loyalty to one person over loyalty to the truth, principle and this homeland--and I don't think even her sense of loyalty took her over that precipice.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Why this budget is bad

Even if we concede that the administration is right and that the kind of sums that it has been spending on homeland security are no longer necessary (which I don't in fact believe), there are better ways to implement reductions than to suddenly slash funding and burn programs.

The sensible way to make reductions is to establish a multiyear plan that gradually reduces spending in clear, anticipated steps and enables long term planning by responsible officials.

Instead, the kind of cuts being discussed by the administration for FY09 leave homeland security officials hanging. Emergency responders and managers don't just make new purchases, they have to maintain and regularly upgrade the equipment and tools that they already have and they have to be able to plan this maintenance. To suddenly cut off their funding may leave them with expensive equipment that can't be maintained or operated. This also applies for new hires whose salaries must be paid.

Furthermore, much of the homeland security spending to date has been done in response to directives and mandates from Washington, covering everything from the National Incident Management System to the push for communications interoperability. These are initiatives that go beyond antiterrorism, they're basic to the security and safety of everyone under US authority from any hazard, natural or man-made. For all the stories of wasteful spending--and they are many, I'll agree--every personal protective suit purchased, every radiation detector bought, every exercise conducted has worked to the benefit of every American and strengthened every citizen's well being. Suddenly pulling the rug out from under the people who labor day in and day out for the security of this country is no way to reward them for their labors and no way to treat the American people.

Certainly, these cuts will freeze any new initiatives and prevent authorities from implementing any new measures to protect transit, port or aviation security, all of which remain vulnerable.

Tired of substance? Let's talk politics. We're non-partisan here, but let's look at this through two sets of lenses.

From a Republican standpoint, these cuts, combined with other stupid actions and wholesale ineptitude, will ensure that Republicans won't be able to elect a dogcatcher anywhere in the country in 2008. There's nothing quite like undercutting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which purpose this funding would serve, to make the American people feel unsafe, insecure and betrayed by an administration whose proudest boast to date is that it has stopped any recurrence of terrorist attacks. Far from implanting Karl Rove's permanent Republican majority, these cuts and other missteps will ensure a Democratic majority for the next two generations.

Democrats for their part owe a debt of gratitude to the White House and OMB. They've just been given a big, beautiful, flawlessly gift-wrapped issue: a club from the White House with which to beat their way into the White House. Sens. Schumer and Clinton may protest, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg may bluster, but if these cuts are actually sent to Capitol Hill in February Democrats should send an effusive thank-you note to President Bush for handing them the election--and then they should pass a robust homeland security funding bill. They will go from being the party on the defensive against charges that they're soft on terrorism to the defenders of the homeland--a label that should be proudly borne by anyone, Republican or Democrat--who opposes these cuts.

Going forward

You may have gathered by now that I think this proposed budget is a bad idea. You would be right.

If the purpose of leaking these proposals was to send up a trial balloon and get a reaction, I hope the perpetrators now have their answer, the balloon has been shot down and we'll see a sensible budget in February.

However, if this is the administration's final word and this is what it proposes, we in the homeland security community have our work cut out for us.

I call on the homeland security community to mobilize against these proposals as it has mobilized against terrorism.

I call on every association of police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, emergency managers, individual responders, state, local and tribal homeland security directors, governors, state legislators, members of Congress, National Guardsmen and women, industry executives and academics to tell your representatives and senators how much you oppose these cuts and to make that clear to the White House as well through letters, e-mails and phone calls. Need an address? Here's one: \n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > Put "Oppose homeland security cuts" in the subject line. \n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it >

If these proposals weather the OMB process and are submitted to Congress as a formal budget request in February, it will be time to mobilize to influence the congressional budget process. It will be time for the homeland security community to rally in Washington, to maintain the pressure on members of Congress and to oppose these proposals at every step of the deliberative process.

We have come way too far in securing this country to see it all undone now. There may have been those who thought that homeland security was a fad, or a façade or a political trick to keep the opposition at bay or appease the public. But the dead of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and Flights, 93, 77, 11 and 175 were all too real and so too is the threat to this homeland from the people who would plot against it as well as the forces of nature that would destroy what's built upon it.

Now is not the time to stop supporting homeland security--it is time to stop this budget.