Paying the bills Affordability is an emerging concern in the fight against terrorism

Paying the bills
Affordability is an emerging concern in the fight against terrorism

Oct 27, 2001

Sept. 11 is a month and a half behind us. We may not be "back to normal," but we’re developing a new definition of normality. In New York, workers are still digging through the rubble of the World Trade Center. In Washington, as a similar but less gruesome process takes place at the Pentagon building, politicians are debating what to do next. In Afghanistan, we continue to destroy targets without seeming to make much progress toward our eventual goal of ridding the world of terrorism. We all examine our mail a little bit more closely, and the public health system is scrambling to cope with both the reality and the threat of bioterrorism.

And the bills mount.

Tom Ridge, director of the new Office of Homeland Security, deflected pleas from the nation’s mayors for help in paying millions of dollars in costs associated with overtime for police and firefighters responding to the attacks and their aftermath.

Ridge praised those same people for guarding the "frontline of domestic security," and he said he’d be the mayors’ "best friend in the White House" — a dubious benefit — but he left dangling the question of who will pay the bills.

For six weeks now we’ve been focusing on the psychological costs of terrorism, but there can be no doubt that the financial costs are huge as well. Those heroic firefighters and police officers are only the beginning. Safeguarding our government, our airports, our ethnic minorities, our mail — that all costs real money, as does the mind-boggling effort of determining who exactly is responsible and how we should stop them. On top of all that is the military effort, and all of this is taking place in a faltering economy.

Our situation is likely to get worse, and considerably more costly, before it gets better. Congress has begun handing out piecemeal relief, starting with the airlines. That’s all well and good, but basic economics teaches us that money spent on airlines can’t be spent on firefighters or antibiotic stores, or even education and agriculture. There is a bottom line. There is a finite supply of funds.

The metropolitan mayors are concerned because without help in meeting the payroll for law enforcement and emergency services, other pieces of the picture will start to dim. In a city whose budget was balanced before Sept. 11, paying for extra police coverage will mean there’s not enough money for other municipal services. In the short term, perhaps funding can be found by paring Christmas decorations, staff retreats, parks and rec programs, urban planning, etc. When that money is gone, though, can cuts be made in such programs as water and wastewater treatment or mass transit? Can such cities appeal to states, which fund education and highways? What happens when states look to the federal government, already burdened with defense, public health, etc.?

We are very accustomed to expecting governmental entities to be available, and able, to meet our emergency needs. Right or wrong, the operative reality has been that much of our tax money flows to Washington and is redistributed from there. Tom Ridge should understand that. He needs to understand the fiscal and statutory constraints under which political subdivisions operate. And he needs to begin, very quickly, to develop a plan that will allow a coordinated crisis response that is supportable over the very long term.