1. #1
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default Call your Congressfolks - 2010 AFG Levels from House

    From the CFSI email that just came in:

    On Friday, June 12th, the House Appropriations Committee approved the Fiscal Year 2010 spending bill for homeland security (bill number pending at press time). The bill funds the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant program at $420 million, twice the amount that was appropriated for this important program in Fiscal Year 2009. Unfortunately the bill funds the Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE) Grant program at only $380 million, a 33% reduction from the Fiscal Year 2009 level. While it is disappointing to see the FIRE grant funding reduced, it is important to note the House committee rejected the Administration's proposal to cut the FIRE Grant program by as much as 70%.

    In addition to funding FIRE and SAFER grants, the bill also provides funding for the United States Fire Administration (USFA). The House bill provides a slight increase for USFA, funding the agency at $45.5 million.

    The bill will now proceed to the full House for consideration, which is expected to occur the week of June 15th. The Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to consider its version of the FY10 Homeland Security spending bill, but at a hearing on May 26th Senator Robert Byrd (WV), Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, stated his intention to approve a bill by mid-June. Once both houses of Congress have approved their respective spending bills, they will still need to resolve any differences before sending the final bill to the White House for the President's signature.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,983

    Default

    Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant program at $420 million, twice the amount that was appropriated for this important program in Fiscal Year 2009. Unfortunately the bill funds the Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE) Grant program at only $380 million, a 33% reduction from the Fiscal Year 2009 level.
    Forgive me for asking a stupid question. Although I am happy to see SAFER get more money, it comes at the cost of AFG. What sort of logic is there in giving more money to a program for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response" if you don't have adequate gear for the personnel you already have (since most of AFG goes to Operations and Safety).

    Shouldn't there be a relationship between the need for Adequate Staffing and Operations and Safety? I see as AFG being the priority over SAFER but then again I can only approach this from my viewpoint which is outside of the fire service.



    For whatever reason, this makes me think of that old debate argument, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
    Last edited by superchef; 06-12-2009 at 06:14 PM.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superchef View Post
    Forgive me for asking a stupid question. Although I am happy to see SAFER get more money, it comes at the cost of AFG. What sort of logic is there in giving more money to a program for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response" if you don't have adequate gear for the personnel you already have (since most of AFG goes to Operations and Safety).

    Shouldn't there be a relationship between the need for Adequate Staffing and Operations and Safety? I see as AFG being the priority over SAFER but then again I can only approach this from my viewpoint which is outside of the fire service.



    For whatever reason, this makes me think of that old debate argument, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
    Agreed. Also, how many departments had to refuse SAFER funding due to not being able to pick up the tab at the end. That's quite a bit of cash that could buy all sorts of firefighting equipment and training.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    308

    Default

    I agree. Safer seems like it is more for the bigger departments. Personally i would rather lump the new funds into AFG

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Of course SAFER is for the big paid FD. UNION FD. This administration owes every piece of their anatomy to the AFL-CIO (etc). Not just owes but is OWNED. Everything they do has a significant segment to advance the power and wealth of the unions.

    SAFER in the paid FD has been a failure. So expand it. Even by the typical standards of DC that is stupid. This it the "Change You Can Believe In". Got buyers remorse yet?

    And while you're talking to your Congresscritter blast them on the stupid format/rules of the station grant program (see also union building).

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Marion, Mississippi
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlandfordFire View Post
    Agreed. Also, how many departments had to refuse SAFER funding due to not being able to pick up the tab at the end.
    We did.

    The continuation idea is good for the future, but not when there is no way of making that happen.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Of course SAFER is for the big paid FD. UNION FD. This administration owes every piece of their anatomy to the AFL-CIO (etc). Not just owes but is OWNED. Everything they do has a significant segment to advance the power and wealth of the unions.

    SAFER in the paid FD has been a failure. So expand it. Even by the typical standards of DC that is stupid. This it the "Change You Can Believe In". Got buyers remorse yet?

    And while you're talking to your Congresscritter blast them on the stupid format/rules of the station grant program (see also union building).
    BINGO!!!!,,,, There will be more of this. Much more. We are on the express elevator to total dependence on the government and if your not a demographic(?) in a large population area, your about to get it from behind then front. They are out of control and headed our way gentlemen.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Brian, I will follow up my previous communications to our state senators and representatives. Do you think they get tired of repeated communications from same individual? I feel like I'm about to get blocked by their people who screen their correspondence. Last thing I want is for them to roll their eyes when they recognize my name. Or alias.

  9. #9
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    That's why you get a lot of other people involved also, not just yourself. You don't want to be the lone gunman, those tend to get lumped and ignored. Most are receptive if the conversation and correspondence is kept civil and fact presented. Argumentation is an art form, and yes that is a word. I thought it was made up until it was in my one MBA course on effective communications. I re-read it every grant period, helps set the frame of mind.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    I re-read 'Complete Idiots Guide to Negotiations'.

  11. #11
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    I'm an incomplete idiot, will reading that complete me?

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    72

    Default

    If people don't have jobs, they cant pay their property taxes. If they don't pay their taxes we don't get funded. Provide jobs with SAFER, you provide property tax revenue. Granted not nearly the revenue as with AFG but still revenue.

  13. #13
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    umm, not even close? the matching over the 5 years is still over 50 percent local money even with the no match in the first 2. normally feds only pay 66 percent at the $40k max per FF hired. so the local area will absorb $20k plus for the 3rd year and $40k for the 5th for each hire and get maybe $4k a year in taxes? Hence the reason SAFER has been failing since Day 1 as a long-term solution. money would be better spent elsewhere since no one can make the 5 year obligation. in some areas it is working but based on the number of declined awards not many. give awards for equipment would employ more long-term jobs and free up local funding for payroll. grand scheme of things we need to bring manufacturing jobs back here. neither SAFER nor AFG will help LA with a $39mil deficit. that's another soap box.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gps To Fail By 2010
    By boxmapsllc in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 01:45 PM
  2. 2010 emission changes
    By bookworm in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 11:51 AM
  3. Gas explosion levels house, damages 23 other structures
    By FireSlayer1098 in forum New York
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-21-2005, 11:28 AM
  4. Marking call locations when house is not visible
    By Firefighter430 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-27-2002, 01:44 PM
  5. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-14-2001, 12:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register