• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Oldtimer about to lose a state perk

A

Anonymous

Guest


Under fire, Napolitano halts projects for review



Email this Story

Sep 16, 6:13 PM (ET)

By EILEEN SULLIVAN
Google sponsored links
Master's In Public Safety - The Demand For Public Safety Professionals Is Growing Rapidly!
www.LewisUniversityOnline.co


Homeland Security Degree - 100% Online Bachelors Degree in Homeland Security & Public Safety.
www.Herzing.edu








WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing criticism for her handling of federal stimulus money, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she would not start any new border construction projects while the department reviewed how projects were selected.

Napolitano has faced questions since The Associated Press reported last month that Homeland Security officials did not follow their internal priority lists when choosing which border checkpoints would get money for renovations. Under a process that is secretive and susceptible to political influence, officials planned to spend millions at tiny checkpoints, passing over busier, higher-priority projects.

The criticism peaked Wednesday when a senior Senate Democrat, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, said that, despite Napolitano's assurances, he felt Homeland Security was treating the economic stimulus plan like a "bottomless pit" of taxpayer money. It was unusually pointed criticism from a member of the president's own party about how the administration is handling economic recovery spending.

"There's no common sense at all to a requirement that says you've got to put up a $15 million facility for a small port of entry that's host to about five vehicles an hour," Dorgan, whose state stood to receive $128 million for checkpoint improvements, said in a telephone interview.

Within hours, Napolitano promised not to begin any new border construction projects and set up a 30-day review of how the projects were selected.

"At the end of that review, I will make all information, not involving national security concerns, public," Napolitano wrote in a letter to Dorgan.

So far, Homeland Security has refused to release its internal priority list or its justifications for deviating from it. Instead, officials say the final project list is all they need to make public.

While Napolitano's review may disclose information about the selection process, it appears unlikely to change much. That's because Homeland Security has already signed many construction contracts, including low-priority projects such as the $15 million renovation for the sleepy border checkpoint at Whitetail, Mont.

Congress required the department to create a priority list in 2003 but the Obama administration added its own subjective decision-making to the process, making it vulnerable to the political influence that Obama pledged to keep out of the stimulus.

Two Montana Democratic senators, for instance, said they personally appealed to Napolitano to get money for lower-priority border projects. That includes the $15 million plan for Whitetail, which will build a checkpoint the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion at a crossing that serves three travelers a day.

Napolitano defended those decisions in her letter, saying northern border stations could be repaired for a fraction of the cost of busier checkpoints. But she said the department would review those decisions.

"Americans should have confidence in the objectivity and openness with which Recovery funds are spent and the Department of Homeland Security is committed to upholding this responsibility," Napolitano wrote.

Dorgan sits on the powerful Appropriations Committee, which helps control the purse strings for the federal government.

"We're deep in debt, we really do need to be smart about how we spend money," Dorgan said. "In my judgment, this is not a smart investment."


w
 

Mike

Well-known member
Dorgan sits on the powerful Appropriations Committee, which helps control the purse strings for the federal government.

"We're deep in debt, we really do need to be smart about how we spend money," Dorgan said. "In my judgment, this is not a smart investment."

:lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The problem exists in that either the ports need to be upgraded and brought up to standards-and living quarters made liveable for the federal immigration employees they transfer in there -- or closed.....I know until they upgraded the one just north of Opheim a couple years ago- the toilets didn't even work most the time....

Personally- now with all the Passport restrictions and stuff- I don't forsee myself making any trips to Canada- so wouldn't care if they closed them....

The ports scheduled to receive improvements were:

•Port of Scobey, built in 1978, was slated for $15 million, and a design-build contract has been awarded. It processed 438 personal vehicles and nine commercial trucks in June. Last January, 228 personal vehicles and 38 trucks passed through the port.

•Port of Wild Horse, built in 1964, was scheduled for $15.9 million, and a design-build contract has been awarded. In June, it handled 1,425 cars and 145 commercial trucks. In January, the figures were 613 cars and 178 commercial trucks.

•Port of Morgan, built in 1963, was to receive $14.5 million, and a design-build contract has been awarded. In June, 619 cars and 57 commercial trucks passed through this port. Last December, it processed 405 cars and 53 commercial trucks.

•Port of Del Bonita, built in 1962, was scheduled for $16.5 in improvements, with a small business contract award scheduled for December. It handled 1,616 cars and 97 commercial trucks in June. The December figures were 883 cars and 74 commercial trucks.

•Port of Whitetail, built in 1964, was slated for $15.5 million. The Associated Press reported that a contract has been awarded, but the Department of Homeland Security did not list a contract for it, according to Kuban. In June, it was visited by 619 personal vehicles and one commercial truck. In December, it processed 47 cars and five commercial trucks for the month, according to figures provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

"These ports are over 40 years old and do not meet modern security and operations standards," a DHS briefing report states. "Many of the older facilities have health and safety concerns.

"Whitetail, for example, currently has workplace deficiencies that must be addressed, including asbestos in the port's two housing units and a condemned water well," it said. "Many of the smaller ports lack facilities needed for our officers to do their jobs, including detention and inspection facilities."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
The problem exists in that either the ports need to be upgraded and brought up to standards-and living quarters made liveable for the federal immigration employees they transfer in there -- or closed.....I know until they upgraded the one just north of Opheim a couple years ago- the toilets didn't even work most the time....

Personally- now with all the Passport restrictions and stuff- I don't forsee myself making any trips to Canada- so wouldn't care if they closed them....

The ports scheduled to receive improvements were:

•Port of Scobey, built in 1978, was slated for $15 million, and a design-build contract has been awarded. It processed 438 personal vehicles and nine commercial trucks in June. Last January, 228 personal vehicles and 38 trucks passed through the port.

•Port of Wild Horse, built in 1964, was scheduled for $15.9 million, and a design-build contract has been awarded. In June, it handled 1,425 cars and 145 commercial trucks. In January, the figures were 613 cars and 178 commercial trucks.

•Port of Morgan, built in 1963, was to receive $14.5 million, and a design-build contract has been awarded. In June, 619 cars and 57 commercial trucks passed through this port. Last December, it processed 405 cars and 53 commercial trucks.

•Port of Del Bonita, built in 1962, was scheduled for $16.5 in improvements, with a small business contract award scheduled for December. It handled 1,616 cars and 97 commercial trucks in June. The December figures were 883 cars and 74 commercial trucks.

•Port of Whitetail, built in 1964, was slated for $15.5 million. The Associated Press reported that a contract has been awarded, but the Department of Homeland Security did not list a contract for it, according to Kuban. In June, it was visited by 619 personal vehicles and one commercial truck. In December, it processed 47 cars and five commercial trucks for the month, according to figures provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

"These ports are over 40 years old and do not meet modern security and operations standards," a DHS briefing report states. "Many of the older facilities have health and safety concerns.

"Whitetail, for example, currently has workplace deficiencies that must be addressed, including asbestos in the port's two housing units and a condemned water well," it said. "Many of the smaller ports lack facilities needed for our officers to do their jobs, including detention and inspection facilities."


Its wastefull and lacking in need. Everyone knows that you all ready take care of Montanas liberal agenda. There is no need for more libs or those that seek to harm us to go to Montana you have all the bases covered with your liberal propaganda and desires to see America fall. Dont you post on 4 or 5 message boards? Talk about spreading it thin posting on all these sites, ranching, high sherriff, judge, coroner, and who knows what else.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The criticism peaked Wednesday when a senior Senate Democrat, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, said that, despite Napolitano's assurances, he felt Homeland Security was treating the economic stimulus plan like a "bottomless pit" of taxpayer money. It was unusually pointed criticism from a member of the president's own party about how the administration is handling economic recovery spending.
:lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
Look you guys are hypocrites of the first order.

You're utterly opposed to illegal immigration but the solution to the problem that the Bush government attempted was to throw money at closing and policing the borders both northern and southern and that is both futile and incredibly expensive.

You want security and don't want dangerous aliens sneaking in among the ordinary aliens.

You're so smart, what is your suggestion?

Hey R2 why dont we enforce immigration against all illegals like we are enforcing it against the JEWS? This is your second opportunity to address this. Give it your best shot
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
You have to be the most ignorant person on PB.

You are equating Israeli citizens who enter the U.S. and overstay their visas with "JEWS".

So you're saying that we should allow citizens of a foreign country (Israel) to overstay their visas and not treat them like other illegal aliens?

What the "f" are you saying ignoramus?

You do realize that the Jewish Americans whose grandparents and great grandparents were born here are U.S. citizens?? :roll: :roll: And not Israelis? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ad Hominem Abusive

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
You have to be the most ignorant person on PB.

You are equating Israeli citizens who enter the U.S. and overstay their visas with "JEWS".

So you're saying that we should allow citizens of a foreign country (Israel) to overstay their visas and not treat them like other illegal aliens?

What the "f" are you saying ignoramus?

You do realize that the Jewish Americans whose grandparents and great grandparents were born here are U.S. citizens?? :roll: :roll: And not Israelis? :lol: :lol: :lol:

We are not enforcing jackcrap against the Mexicans. I am asking for equal treatment you know the kind the race baiters demand.
 

Steve

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Look you guys are hypocrites of the first order.

You're utterly opposed to illegal immigration but the solution to the problem that the Bush government attempted was to throw money at closing and policing the borders both northern and southern and that is both futile and incredibly expensive.

You want security and don't want dangerous aliens sneaking in among the ordinary aliens.

You're so smart, what is your suggestion?

how about enforcing the law and deporting every non citizen (illegal) that is detained, pulled over stopped for any reason..

and until that can be accomplished stop all immigration,.. with the exception of tourism, those actually attending an accredited university and those by direct marriage.ie spouse and minor children under sixteen.. why allow more in.. if we are overburdened already? focus on deporting the ones here. .start with the California prisons..

all possible immigration assets should be focused on enforcement and deportations.. period..

overflowing+cup.jpg
Our immigration policy.. our cup may be full,.. but keep on pouring until the cup floats away..
 

Steve

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
But Steve, Pig Farmer wants special treatment for Israelis who overstay their visas because they are Jews (or at least the ones who are not Muslims or Christians are Jews). Why don't you take it up with him?

I'll answer.. with out being dragged into your whiny argument.. no group should receive preferential treatment.. but our strong allies should also not be treated unfairly, nor should our neighbors.. .. nor should either expect preferential treatment when breaking our laws.

as for my first response to your last question.. (the one you ignored in favor of a fight)..

I responded to your question... why not answer to that instead of distratcing from it.?

BTW.. it seems to be an argument and not a debate at this point why drag me into it?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Steve said:
reader (the Second) said:
Look you guys are hypocrites of the first order.

You're utterly opposed to illegal immigration but the solution to the problem that the Bush government attempted was to throw money at closing and policing the borders both northern and southern and that is both futile and incredibly expensive.

You want security and don't want dangerous aliens sneaking in among the ordinary aliens.

You're so smart, what is your suggestion?

how about enforcing the law and deporting every non citizen (illegal) that is detained, pulled over stopped for any reason..

and until that can be accomplished stop all immigration,.. with the exception of tourism, those actually attending an accredited university and those by direct marriage.ie spouse and minor children under sixteen.. why allow more in.. if we are overburdened already? focus on deporting the ones here. .start with the California prisons..

all possible immigration assets should be focused on enforcement and deportations.. period..

overflowing+cup.jpg
Our immigration policy.. our cup may be full,.. but keep on pouring until the cup floats away..
re posted due to R2 distraction argument..
 

Steve

Well-known member
R2 said:
Look you guys are hypocrites of the first order.

You're utterly opposed to illegal immigration but the solution to the problem that the Bush government attempted was to throw money at closing and policing the borders both northern and southern and that is both futile and incredibly expensive.

yes I am utterly oppsed to illigal immigration and I am also utterly opposed to throwing money at any problem..


solutions must be ""effective"" and efficient.. not futile and incredibly expensive.

so I would be opposed to upgrading the border crossing beyond what is required to make it safe for the employees, effective and efficient..

can building new houses for them cost $ 77.5 million?

must be one hellova a housing development... is acorn in charge of the housing project?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
You have to be the most ignorant person on PB.

You are equating Israeli citizens who enter the U.S. and overstay their visas with "JEWS".

So you're saying that we should allow citizens of a foreign country (Israel) to overstay their visas and not treat them like other illegal aliens?

What the "f" are you saying ignoramus?

You do realize that the Jewish Americans whose grandparents and great grandparents were born here are U.S. citizens?? :roll: :roll: And not Israelis? :lol: :lol: :lol:

R2 so are all those "anchor" babies the illegals have over here, which thena allows all the babies relatives to stay here...If you can get across that Rio Grande 5 ft. and spit out a baby you're home free.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
R2 said:
Look you guys are hypocrites of the first order.

You're utterly opposed to illegal immigration but the solution to the problem that the Bush government attempted was to throw money at closing and policing the borders both northern and southern and that is both futile and incredibly expensive.

yes I am utterly oppsed to illigal immigration and I am also utterly opposed to throwing money at any problem..


solutions must be ""effective"" and efficient.. not futile and incredibly expensive.

so I would be opposed to upgrading the border crossing beyond what is required to make it safe for the employees, effective and efficient..

can building new houses for them cost $ 77.5 million?

must be one hellova a housing development... is acorn in charge of the housing project?

Steve- not knowing each ports certain problems and needs-- I do know some of it goes beyond just the housing...The port facility themselves were falling apart...In the case of the one just north of me that they rebuilt a couple of years ago- when I was there with the kids once- they had to use the bathroom- but we were told their bathrooms didn't work anymore (sewer and water problems)...If the guard on duty needed to go to the bathroom he had to close the border gate- then walk over to one of the housing units...And the majority of these buildings/houses have an asbestos problem....
So I have no doubt many of these units need upgrading/repair or replacement....

The main question to me anymore is how many do we need? While these small facilities offer great benefits to many that live near, own land on, and work both sides of the border-both Canadians and Americans-some that even go back and forth to school- but with our tightening of security and seeminly further closing down of cross boarder movement- are they necessary or should they just be shut down- and our what was the biggest unfenced border in the world be even further shut down... :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
R2 said:
Look you guys are hypocrites of the first order.

You're utterly opposed to illegal immigration but the solution to the problem that the Bush government attempted was to throw money at closing and policing the borders both northern and southern and that is both futile and incredibly expensive.

yes I am utterly oppsed to illigal immigration and I am also utterly opposed to throwing money at any problem..


solutions must be ""effective"" and efficient.. not futile and incredibly expensive.

so I would be opposed to upgrading the border crossing beyond what is required to make it safe for the employees, effective and efficient..

can building new houses for them cost $ 77.5 million?

must be one hellova a housing development... is acorn in charge of the housing project?

Steve- not knowing each ports certain problems and needs-- I do know some of it goes beyond just the housing...The port facility themselves were falling apart...In the case of the one just north of me that they rebuilt a couple of years ago- when I was there with the kids once- they had to use the bathroom- but we were told their bathrooms didn't work anymore (sewer and water problems)...If the guard on duty needed to go to the bathroom he had to close the border gate- then walk over to one of the housing units...And the majority of these buildings/houses have an asbestos problem....
So I have no doubt many of these units need upgrading/repair or replacement....

The main question to me anymore is how many do we need? While these small facilities offer great benefits to many that live near, own land on, and work both sides of the border-both Canadians and Americans-some that even go back and forth to school- but with our tightening of security and seeminly further closing down of cross boarder movement- are they necessary or should they just be shut down- and our what was the biggest unfenced border in the world be even further shut down... :???:

even citing the housing problem, and the lack of a bathroom.. and running water.. $77.5 million...

how much waste is there? .. I would be willing to bet, I could fix the bathroom and housing problems with a few million and still give back some change...

no one objects to a sound wise effective solution to a problem.. but $77.5 million.. at $200,000 per house or bathroom is 385+ houses and bathrooms.. and a $200,000 bathroom better be one fine brick s---house .. :roll: :roll: :wink:
 
Top