The Volokh Conspiracy - Domestic Infighting Over Domestic Security:

State and local governments are upset by the imposition of various requirements for the receipt of federal homeland security funds. In order to receive full federal funding, state and local governments are required to develop plans to ensure they are prepared for terrorist threats, such as the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), among other things. Yet local officials would rather focus their energies on other priorities, such as local gun violence and drug trafficking. As the NYT reports:

"I have a healthy respect for the federal government and the importance of keeping this nation safe," said Col. Dean Esserman, the police chief in Providence, R.I. "But I also live every day as a police chief in an American city where violence every day is not foreign and is not anonymous but is right out there in the neighborhoods."

The demand for plans to guard against improvised explosives is being cited by state and local officials as the latest example that their concerns are not being heard, and that federal officials continue to push them to spend money on a terrorism threat that is often vague. Some $23 billion in domestic security financing has flowed to the states from the federal government since the Sept. 11 attacks, but authorities in many states and cities say they have seen little or no intelligence that Al Qaeda, or any of its potential homegrown offshoots, has concrete plans for an attack.

Local officials do not dismiss the terrorist threat, but many are trying to retool counterterrorism programs so that they focus more directly on combating gun violence, narcotics trafficking and gangs — while arguing that these programs, too, should qualify for federal financing, on the theory that terrorists may engage in criminal activity as a precursor to an attack. . . .

Most of the $23 billion in federal grants has been spent shoring up local efforts to prevent, prepare for and ferret out a possible attack. Because official post-9/11 critiques found huge gaps in communication and coordination, billions of dollars have been spent linking federal law enforcement and intelligence authorities to the country's more than 750,000 police officers, sheriffs and highway patrol officers. Many Homeland Security-financed "fusion centers," designed to collect and analyze data to deter terrorist attacks, have evolved into what are known as "all-crimes" or "all-hazards" operations, branching out from terrorism to focus on violent crime and natural disasters. . . .

In Massachusetts, Ms. Kayyem regarded a potential grant this year of $20 million in federal homeland security money as too important to pass up, even though she said that technically one-quarter of it had to be spent on I.E.D.'s to qualify for the money. So, Massachusetts officials wrote a creative proposal, pledging to upgrade bomb squads in many of the state's 351 cities and towns. It also proposed buying new hazardous-material suits, radios to communicate between law enforcement agencies and explosive-detection devices.

But Ms. Kayyem acknowledged that much of the equipment was chosen to serve double duty. Hazmat suits could be useful in the event of a bombing, but would be even more help with accidents that state officials regarded as much more probable, like chemical spills on the Massachusetts Turnpike.

The Department of Homeland Security may well impose substantial conditions on the receipt of federal funds. In practice, this simply means that a portion of the grant money must get spent on federal priorities. So, if a $20 million grant requires spending $5 million, then the state only gets $15 million to spend. The first $5 million may be wasted -- the federal government often imposes "one-size-fits-nobody" mandates -- but the mandate does not impose an added burden on the state, which always retains the option of not taking the federal funds in the first place.

From what is reported in the NYT story, it appears that states want their federal money with no strings attached so they may spend it on their own security priorities. But if that is how states want to spend money, why should federal taxpayers foot the bill? To be sure, the federal tax burden makes it more difficult for state and local governments to raise funds for state and local priorities. But the way to address this is not to dole out more federal money with fewer strings attached. Rather, it is to send less money to Washington in the first place. Yet state and local officials rarely make that case.

	[Jonathan Adler, May 26, 2008 at 8:23am] Trackbacks Domestic Infighting Over Domestic Security: State and local governments are upset by the imposition of various requirements for the receipt of federal homeland security funds. In order to receive full federal funding, state and local governments are required to develop plans to ensure they are prepared for terrorist threats, such as the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), among other things. Yet local officials would rather focus their energies on other priorities, such as local gun violence and drug trafficking. As the NYT reports: "I have a healthy respect for the federal government and the importance of keeping this nation safe," said Col. Dean Esserman, the police chief in Providence, R.I. "But I also live every day as a police chief in an American city where violence every day is not foreign and is not anonymous but is right out there in the neighborhoods." The demand for plans to guard against improvised explosives is being cited by state and local officials as the latest example that their concerns are not being heard, and that federal officials continue to push them to spend money on a terrorism threat that is often vague. Some $23 billion in domestic security financing has flowed to the states from the federal government since the Sept. 11 attacks, but authorities in many states and cities say they have seen little or no intelligence that Al Qaeda, or any of its potential homegrown offshoots, has concrete plans for an attack. Local officials do not dismiss the terrorist threat, but many are trying to retool counterterrorism programs so that they focus more directly on combating gun violence, narcotics trafficking and gangs — while arguing that these programs, too, should qualify for federal financing, on the theory that terrorists may engage in criminal activity as a precursor to an attack. . . . Most of the $23 billion in federal grants has been spent shoring up local efforts to prevent, prepare for and ferret out a possible attack. Because official post-9/11 critiques found huge gaps in communication and coordination, billions of dollars have been spent linking federal law enforcement and intelligence authorities to the country's more than 750,000 police officers, sheriffs and highway patrol officers. Many Homeland Security-financed "fusion centers," designed to collect and analyze data to deter terrorist attacks, have evolved into what are known as "all-crimes" or "all-hazards" operations, branching out from terrorism to focus on violent crime and natural disasters. . . . In Massachusetts, Ms. Kayyem regarded a potential grant this year of $20 million in federal homeland security money as too important to pass up, even though she said that technically one-quarter of it had to be spent on I.E.D.'s to qualify for the money. So, Massachusetts officials wrote a creative proposal, pledging to upgrade bomb squads in many of the state's 351 cities and towns. It also proposed buying new hazardous-material suits, radios to communicate between law enforcement agencies and explosive-detection devices. But Ms. Kayyem acknowledged that much of the equipment was chosen to serve double duty. Hazmat suits could be useful in the event of a bombing, but would be even more help with accidents that state officials regarded as much more probable, like chemical spills on the Massachusetts Turnpike. The Department of Homeland Security may well impose substantial conditions on the receipt of federal funds. In practice, this simply means that a portion of the grant money must get spent on federal priorities. So, if a $20 million grant requires spending $5 million, then the state only gets $15 million to spend. The first $5 million may be wasted -- the federal government often imposes "one-size-fits-nobody" mandates -- but the mandate does not impose an added burden on the state, which always retains the option of not taking the federal funds in the first place. From what is reported in the NYT story, it appears that states want their federal money with no strings attached so they may spend it on their own security priorities. But if that is how states want to spend money, why should federal taxpayers foot the bill? To be sure, the federal tax burden makes it more difficult for state and local governments to raise funds for state and local priorities. But the way to address this is not to dole out more federal money with fewer strings attached. Rather, it is to send less money to Washington in the first place. Yet state and local officials rarely make that case.