The administration touts an 8 percent budget increase in fiscal 2008 for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Sen. Joe Lieberman and others in Congress, however, counter that the allocation of dollars in the DHS budget actually reduces funding for first responders. As such, Lieberman has called for a $3.4 billion increase in the DHS budget to improve funding for first responders.
Who's right? They both are.
The administration has increased the DHS's budget, but much of that increase is devoted to border security and other security-focused initiatives. Critics in Congress are right to say that boosting funding for these programs essentially reduces the grants available for state and local responders.
The administration chose to put more dollars into fencing the U.S.-Mexico border and increasing the number of Border Patrol agents.
Some would say this is a political reaction to the results of the midterm election where public sentiment strongly favored making our borders more secure to limit illegal immigration. Critics say the idea of the fence is impractical, and that it will never be fully funded by Congress. The administration counters that no nation can ever be truly secure if its borders aren't protected.
Everything in life is a trade-off. If more funding goes to border security, and Congress is unwilling to increase the deficit to fund both the border initiatives and increased grants for first responders, then something has to give.
The question we have to ask ourselves as a society is: Is slowing the tide of illegal immigration important enough to reduce the dollars available to prepare for and respond to terrorist threats and natural disasters?
The fence along the U.S.-Mexico border has little, if anything, to do with keeping foreign terrorists out of our country. Well funded terrorist groups can find many access points on our coasts, in addition to the Canadian border. But the fence, on the other hand, is designed to keep illegal workers and drugs out.
The real economic impact of both illegal immigrants and drug smuggling may well justify the cost of building the fence. Most state and county governments are suffering financially from the cost of providing benefits and education to illegal immigrants, and allotting money for increased drug enforcement. But those costs must be weighed against the cost of human lives and property loss because we don't have the resources we need to plan, mitigate, respond to and recover from the natural disasters that hit our country each year.
It would be a welcome change if the administration and Congress could stop the tug of war and find ways to work more closely to fund these important initiatives.
