CTA Tattler

Yep, that is exactly what they are doing. They figure that transit is for the poor and dark hued.

On a related note, security for Hummer dealerships has been quadrupled, so it's not like you can say they are leaving anyone who really counts vulnerable...

Seriously though, has the senate leadership advanced any rationale for this move? Of course it'll be BS doublespeak, but I'd really like to know how they are justifying this. Looking at the matter rationally, transit security probably is less important than doing more to protect our ports, water systems and utility infrastructure. Still, I'd like some kind of cause and effect statement that will detail how money removed from transit security will be used for the greater good. More money spent on faulty biometric scanners we don't need.

Personally, I'd rather they stop funding expensive gee whiz gadgetry that doesn't work half of the time and focus on realistic security measures. That way, maybe some money would be left over for the little things, like budget increases for transit operations in order to improve service...

Face it. Riding the bus is un-American. We're all supposed to be out there buying big cars and lots of gas.

Yeah, Kevin and Brendan, I'm with you on this one... I think the repubs have an agenda and they're sticking to it.

Do not discount the fact that 15 of the top 17 largest public transit agencies are in blue states.

This kind of hubris and foolishness is a prime example of why I have no faith in our country's leadership. But then again, maybe I'm underestimating their diabolical moxy. It seems like you'd wipe out more democrats than republicans if a terrorist attack took place on mass transit. Call me cynical....

They increased the spending on air transit and decreased public transportation because they say that planes have the potential to inflict more damange, even though more people take public transit per day.

Jaques:
Wow, that's amazing.

Considering the news programs and articles I've seen that report on the many security holes we have in the US, it seems incredibly foolhardy to pour more money into the one area that's already gotten the lion's share of security dollars.

Then this is the Chimp Administration we're dealing with.

The big thing they are either missing or have cynically decided to ignore isn't the sheer loss of life that could occur with a transit attack. The most powerful effect of such an attack would be the potent psychological fallout.

I think that people prepare themselves for a certain level of danger when they are flying in a plane or travelling abroad. Moreover, I think after 9/11 people would be horrified but not exactly surprised by an attack on an airliner. However, despite the expectation that obstacles like those chronicled on this site every day will happen occasionally on transit, I don't think many people give their safety that much thought. The London bombing will soon fade completely from the panic portion of most people's brains. Plus people think - "That's over there" or "They had that with the IRA already" But such an attack here would be unprecedented, so the effect would be chilling.

Nothing like crass political maneuvering.

Add to this today's story of how Homeland Sec money has been divided up among the states by clout rather than by threat level (Alaska gets 3x Illinois' share) and you require no further evidence that we are all screwed. Thanks Republicans (and Joe Lieberman, too)! (see http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits18.html for details)

Yeah, you're all right. Bush is out to kill all of us in the blue states. Give me a break. It's a lot more complicated than that. It's not ALL about money you know? NY City has billions allocated to them that remains unspent. Is that Bush' fault too?

As for Alaska getting 3x Illinois... that's per capita spending, not total dollars.