Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposal to abolish SAFER

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposal to abolish SAFER

    House Republicans have proposed HR1 to completly abolish the SAFER grant. If we want this grant to continue, start calling your reps now.

  • #2
    I'll call them and tell them it's a good idea. SAFER should go.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

    Comment


    • #3
      Wow, politicians can do some good.

      Just be sure that they don't snake all that money away to other programs...we need to keep it well involved in our emergency services grants.

      There was more money allotted to SAFER in FY2010 than there was in AFG. Keeping thousands of FFs, EMTs, Rescue crews, and communities "safer" with better AFG funded equipment is a far more beneficial Federal investment.

      There would be more jobs created in the US for sales and manufacturing due to the amount of equipment purchased with $420 of SAFER money being dumped in the AFG pot than SAFER has ever, unsustainably, funded.

      Just think...$390M AFG + $420M SAFER = $810M AFG!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree that SAFER has its problems, but shiny firetrucks and equipment won't put out fires if there isn't anyone to use it. We need the equipment, but cutting a program for staffing and placing it into equipment doesn't solve the greatest problem facing the fire service, the problem being adequate staffing (career or volunteer). I get the feeling that the SAFER program isn't embraced by all because it basically caters to career staffing, and to some that is a threat. Unfortunately, it shouldn't be viewed that way. I have seen my fair share of departments that have nice equipment, but when it counts it sits in the firehouse while adequately staffed departments drive by to put their fire out.

        Comment


        • #5
          You have a point on Safers, but more people is going to join a department that has good equipment than one that does not. They feel safer in that department knowing the equipment will provide safety to them if used correctly and have proper equipment to use.
          I strongly feel that Safers should be cut back more than it is receiving at this time

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe that the main idea behind the origianal SAFER grant was good, I think that it could stand some (ok maybe alot)fine tuning. With the way that the economy is going now a days, SAFER put too many restraints on the local governments that applied for it. Nobody can say what a local government finiacal situation will be 2 years after accepting the grant, it could be better or more than likely worse.
            One way that I look at it, put more money into AFG. Local fire departments then buy equipmnet that they need. Most of it is made here in the good old USA. People keep their jobs, some factories may even add jobs, people with good paying jobs pay their taxes, the more taxes that come in, the better the chance that the local fire department will get their proper funding (vol. or carreer). I believe it is called the trickle down effect.

            Just my cent and a half.

            Comment


            • #7
              I was the recipient of nearly 1/2 million dollar SAFER grant. It was a good program that offered some benefit. Did it prove useful to our organizations? Absolutely.

              As a taxpayer, do I feel that money would have been better spent providing equipment to needy departments? Absolutely.

              Comment


              • #8
                Safer as it was originally intended , was to allow growing departments the funding to assist them with new hires. To ASSIST them with funding for NEW positions with a decreasing amount of the cost of those positions paid by the feds [taxpayers].

                SAFER as with all of the AFG programs was supposed to be a hand up: NOT a hand out!

                It has become another pork barrel project to allow cities & towns to put their hands out and for a two year period, pay all the cost for rehiring a position they can't afford within their own budget.
                Dumping hundreds of millions of dollars over a two year period is not going to solve the underlying budget issues that these cities & towns are dealing with.

                At the end of two year period of grant funding the same positions will be back on the unemployment line and things will be worse than they are now.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We can't have it both ways unfortunately. We either have to bite bullet and accept that our taxes are going to rise and do away with SAFER or allow big brother to exert more control of our local towns and cities. Personally, I'll chip in the extra hundred bucks in local taxes to keep my public safety agencies staffed with well trained members as long as Uncle Sam can keep helping them out with equipment so they can do their jobs.

                  By the way, while you are making those calls to your Congressional types remind them that they need to join the Congressional Fire Services Caucus and while your at it, invite them to come see your station or go for a ride along; education is a powerful tool!
                  Kurt Bradley
                  Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
                  " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rands1 View Post
                    House Republicans have proposed HR1 to completly abolish the SAFER grant. If we want this grant to continue, start calling your reps now.
                    Good. Perhaps revamp Vol FD recruiting/retention part so it is more useable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just as an FYI - look at the headline on the home page here today. Presidents budget wants $420 million for SAFER, $250 million for AFG.

                      Of course when we look at this morning's grants.gov list serve email we all need to be sending congratulations to:
                      • Zambia - $100,000,000
                      • Tanzania -$600,000
                      • Sawziland - $9,000,000
                      • Ehtiopia = $10,000,000
                      • Haiti - $30,000,000
                      • San Salvador - $30,000,000 ( to study deforestation)


                      The first 5 on the list have grant solicitations open now for AIDS/HIV prevention efforts under the President s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).Let's see that's $179.6 million for what? Its disgusting. Wake up America!
                      Kurt Bradley
                      Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
                      " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ktb9780 View Post
                        Just as an FYI - look at the headline on the home page here today. Presidents budget wants $420 million for SAFER, $250 million for AFG.

                        Of course when we look at this morning's grants.gov list serve email we all need to be sending congratulations to:
                        • Zambia - $100,000,000
                        • Tanzania -$600,000
                        • Sawziland - $9,000,000
                        • Ehtiopia = $10,000,000
                        • Haiti - $30,000,000
                        • San Salvador - $30,000,000 ( to study deforestation)



                        The first 5 on the list have grant solicitations open now for AIDS/HIV prevention efforts under the President s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).Let's see that's $179.6 million for what? Its disgusting. Wake up America!
                        Kurt I could not agree with you more!!! It sure would be nice to take care of our own instead of everybody else.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I would like to see the safer go because its a short temporary fix. What is going to happen when the awarding city can not come up with supporting funds as the years go? They will be back at square one! When you get equipment it last at lot longer and you get more bang for your buck. Isn't there a military saying about 5 to 10 well trained and equiped men can do more damage then 100 men?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I would like to see SAFER continue, but only as it was originally intended. There are many departments that have used this grant to start staffing fire departments in jurisdictions that would otherwise have no protection. It has also helped many understaffed departments come up to standards so that their personnel are working in a SAFER environment. These are areas where all that was needed was the initial help to get things going on their own. With all that said I do not agree with using the funds as they are presently, if a jurisdiction has no financial plan to maintain the staffing levels after the grant is over then it is a waste of tax dollars. I hope they continue the program, but take out the loopholes for not maintaining the staffing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              i agree

                              Originally posted by hceschief View Post
                              I would like to see SAFER continue, but only as it was originally intended. There are many departments that have used this grant to start staffing fire departments in jurisdictions that would otherwise have no protection. It has also helped many understaffed departments come up to standards so that their personnel are working in a SAFER environment. These are areas where all that was needed was the initial help to get things going on their own. With all that said I do not agree with using the funds as they are presently, if a jurisdiction has no financial plan to maintain the staffing levels after the grant is over then it is a waste of tax dollars. I hope they continue the program, but take out the loopholes for not maintaining the staffing.
                              I cannot agree more. Revert to the old method and a gradual ramp up for the towns over 5 years. SAFER should never have been used as a political pawn. At least fund 50/50 SAFER and AFG. I would bet the SAFER safety net has actually lead to more firefighters being layed off.
                              Mark

                              Comment

                              300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                              Collapse

                              Upper 300x250

                              Collapse

                              Taboola

                              Collapse

                              Leader

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X