Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposal to abolish SAFER

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

  • NewHampshireFF
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • fireinfo10
    replied
    So SAFER is still sucking $ off a program that actually works.

    Leave a comment:


  • ktb9780
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • fireinfo10
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rands1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bones42
    replied
    Originally posted by BC79er View Post
    Free money has never solved any real deficiencies, just delays the inevitable.
    Statement of the year.

    Leave a comment:


  • ktb9780
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • volfireman034
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ktb9780
    replied
    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"!

    Leave a comment:


  • mwtetreault
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • hceschief
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • admpaul
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • dnfire49
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ktb9780
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X