Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposal to abolish SAFER

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

  • fireinfo10
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ktb9780
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • islandfire03
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SLY4420
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rands1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DTaa66
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • wtfd2940
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SLY4420
    replied
    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!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bones42
    replied
    I'll call them and tell them it's a good idea. SAFER should go.

    Leave a comment:


  • rands1
    started a topic Proposal to abolish SAFER

    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.

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X