Nozzlehead

[jam24u]

Anybody read Nozzelheads article in Fire Rescue magazine about the AFG and SAFER? I kind of get the impression that he doesn't agree with the Fire Act grant funding. Although he did give it the thumbs up for being one of the better run grant systems.

I know some apparatus reps that are unhappy with the AFG grants too. Firefighters also. Although I will mention that those who seem unhappy with the AFG are usually from well funded departments.

For us rural poor departments, there is no way to afford such high dollar equipment. Ever. With so much of the tax dollars going into urban areas that continue to demand more and more of our hard earned,,,blah, blah, blah.

Almost went on another rant again. I like to do that once in awhile.

[Station 49]

I think the problem is everyone is fighting for money. From the cash-strapped rural department with substandard PPE and 40 year-old apparatus to the big city department faced with furloughs, station closings and three-man engine companies, the fire service is hurting for dollars.

My biggest beef with AFG is that there isn't enough money to go around. There are scores of deserving departments that are denied every year.

[MG3610]

Anybody read Nozzelheads article in Fire Rescue magazine about the AFG and SAFER? I kind of get the impression that he doesn't agree with the Fire Act grant funding. Although he did give it the thumbs up for being one of the better run grant systems.

I know some apparatus reps that are unhappy with the AFG grants too. Firefighters also. Although I will mention that those who seem unhappy with the AFG are usually from well funded departments.

For us rural poor departments, there is no way to afford such high dollar equipment. Ever. With so much of the tax dollars going into urban areas that continue to demand more and more of our hard earned,,,blah, blah, blah.

Almost went on another rant again. I like to do that once in awhile.

you could do yourself a favor and cancel your subscription, its a birdcage liner anyway.

[LVFD301]

A different view.

I don't agree with the AFG programs. I simply don't believe we should be funding local protection on a federal scale. I think it is wrong.

That said, I have been successful with the AFG program, and I will strive to remain so.
If I was to not do so, I would be doing a dis-service to my patrons and to my firefighters.

But very few, if any of these programs should be in effect. Cops, Cops now, Cops Technology, AFG, AFA, LEAA etc should not have to be there. (I realize some are not now)

Again, if they are there, I am duty bound to try to utilize them, and I will, and I appreciate it, but should they be there?

If you want better local services, then fund them. If you move somewhere check out the services beforehand. (We have a large influx of people from California, who state they love this area because of the rural properties, and low taxes, but then they complain because it is not a full time paid department, that EMS transport comes from 20 miles away, that their dirt road they bought on is not paved)

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

I'm with Blake, I'd rather see more funding state local. I'm one of those wingnuts that thinks that more money should stay with the states in the first place instead of going to the IRS to filter back in the form of aid to the states from the feds. The more money moves around the more it costs, the less good the money does in the long run. Feds shouldn't run many a program like welfare and whatnot. Leave the money local by changing the tax structure and we might not have so many economic issues requiring Uncle Sam to step in.

Of course in the more rural areas there isn't much to begin with, but I think cutting the fed income tax down would leave more there too.

[jam24u]

I'm with Blake, I'd rather see more funding state local. I'm one of those wingnuts that thinks that more money should stay with the states in the first place instead of going to the IRS to filter back in the form of aid to the states from the feds. The more money moves around the more it costs, the less good the money does in the long run. Feds shouldn't run many a program like welfare and whatnot. Leave the money local by changing the tax structure and we might not have so many economic issues requiring Uncle Sam to step in.

Of course in the more rural areas there isn't much to begin with, but I think cutting the fed income tax down would leave more there too.

I too would like to see the same thing, except for one factor that forces the need for these grants. Since the 2001 events and the creation of Homeland Security, the fire service has experienced a huge flood of regulations and requirements that have one place where they end. The individual department. If the government side of emergency response had halted this explosion of huge numbers of agency creation, whose real goal is the continuation of their own survival. Then we wouldn't be forced to seek assistance/
In other words, they're the ones making the demands and if they want us to try and meet those demands, then they have to pay. That's how it works. The other part of the problem is that the taxpayer pays from beginning to end.

Frankly, I'm hoping someone finally cast their eyes on this problem and has the guts to say, "Just how much safer can we make our apparatus, and on down the line."
There has to be some fiscal responsibility somewhere and agency elimination is the first step.