Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposal to abolish SAFER

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by mwtetreault View Post
    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
    Lack of a sustainability plan simply flies in the face of a grant being a hand-up and not a hand-out! Grants are supposed to be "seed money" or " a temporary bridge between lack of funding and a critical need"!
    Kurt Bradley
    Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
    " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

    Comment


    • #17
      Changing it was a vote move, plain and simple. Ironic of course because it cost more votes than it gained since all the other departments in many large cities got mad on why there was a grant to save FD jobs but not anyone else's. Also the stipulation that if they do have to cut jobs after accepting the award it has to be across all departments, not just targeting the FD. That's caused a few internal struggles in places too.

      The original plan worked, and continues to work since many are still in their POPs. They have sustainability plans, and the jobs created will be kept. Free money has never solved any real deficiencies, just delays the inevitable.
      Brian P. Vickers
      CEO - Vickers Consulting Services, Inc
      FH.com/Firehouse Mag Contributor
      www.helpmewithgrants.com
      www.facebook.com/vcsinc

      Comment


      • #18
        I think, as was orginally intended, SAFER started out as a beneficial and productive program. As said, many times above, it was to give towns a leg up and a head start. But now, there are so many exemptions that all a town has to do is decide to take the funds alloted for the paid fire department and move the funds to the road department or some other city department. They then cry poor to the federal government for an exemption so the feds end up funding the fire departments.
        I am a volunteer firefighter, so I don't know all the realities. I certainly don't want ANY paid firefighters to loose his/her job. I just read that they want to increase SAFER and lower AFG and allow tons more exemptions. I wish I knew the right words to say to make local governments wake up and see how important firefighters really are to their communities.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by volfireman034 View Post
          But now, there are so many exemptions that all a town has to do is decide to take the funds alloted for the paid fire department and move the funds to the road department or some other city department.
          And that move is exactly what many towns forfeit when and if they accept an award which is the flip side of this program and why so many will not accept the award, as it removes that option from them. Thus is why they had to have 2 applications periods open to even get enough applications submitted to this program.
          Kurt Bradley
          Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
          " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BC79er View Post
            Free money has never solved any real deficiencies, just delays the inevitable.
            Statement of the year.
            "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


            • #21
              I am now hearing that not only do the Republicans want to get rid of SAFER, they also want to cut AFG by 20%. I think that this may be the beginning of the end for these two grants. Start calling your reps now.

              Comment


              • #22
                Given that 20% cut is barely a start on what MUS happen with the Fed budget we can figure our pet program is going to have to share in the process. As something like 35% of our current Fed spending arrives is in form of loans from the Chicoms there's your start point.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Breathe a little easier!

                  February 16, 2011 – Overcoming long odds, fire fighters nationwide scored a significant victory when the U.S. House of Representatives voted 318-113 to reject massive cuts to fire fighter grants.

                  Under H.R. 1 -- House legislation to continue funding the federal government – the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant program would have been completely eliminated, and the Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE Act) grants would have been cut by more than 20 percent.

                  Recognizing the threat to fire fighter safety, Representative Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) offered an amendment to restore funding for the two programs. The amendment passed February 16 with a large bipartisan majority.
                  Kurt Bradley
                  Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
                  " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    So SAFER is still sucking $ off a program that actually works.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      That's just the CR. The actual budget may still contain the cuts.

                      If the cities and the union wanted me to care about cuts to SAFER, maybe they shouldn't have countenanced a raid on AFG.

                      Live by the sword, die by the sword.

                      Comment

                      300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                      Collapse

                      Upper 300x250

                      Collapse

                      Taboola

                      Collapse

                      Leader

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X