Former New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly made a startling claim last Sunday. Or at least it might seem startling to people unaware of the backstory. In a local radio interview with John Catsimatidis, he said the Obama administration cut antiterrorism funds for New York City in the latest White House budget in retaliation for Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., opposing President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Given the ostensible purpose of such funding, to prevent or mitigate terrorist attacks in America’s largest city, this seems a serious matter. The allotment for the Urban Area Security Initiative was slashed from $600 million to $330 million.
Kelly’s comment about how it happened cannot easily be dismissed, because the White House has pretty much admitted, even boasted, its act of petty retaliation. When asked about the cuts to terrorism funding last week, which drew protests from Schumer and New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest went unprompted into a discussion of Schumer’s opposition to Obama on Iran.
“At some point, Sen. Schumer’s credibility in talking about national security issues, particularly when the facts are as they are when it relates to homeland security, have to be affected by the position that he’s taken on other issues,” said Earnest.
To adapt the cynical retaliatory words once used by an aide to Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, “Time for some terrorism funding problems in New York City.” Except that cutting off terrorism protection from New York is orders of magnitude more serious than blocking a lane of traffic during morning rush hour.
This incident highlights an ugly aspect of the Obama era and its use of Chicago-style threats in federal politics. It is by no means the first obviously identifiable public example.
In 2009, members of Congress who dared criticize Obama’s ill-fated and ineffective stimulus package received a milder form of retaliation. When Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., complained that the stimulus was not doing much for his state’s economy, four different Obama cabinet secretaries simultaneously sent letters to his state’s governor, asking whether this meant funding for all the projects in Arizona should be summarily pulled. (Needless to say, there was no corresponding offer to exempt the state’s residents from having to pay for the stimulus.)
“Nice state ya got there, senator; would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”
One of the Obama cabinet secretaries who sent a mild threat in this case, former Illinois Republican congressman Ray LaHood, later tried to dodge saying if he’d been put up to it by the White House. Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J. needed to repeat the question seven times before LaHood finally answered, claiming that no one in the White House had put him up to it. Rather, he maintained improbably, the cabinet secretaries all miraculously thought to do this at the same time.
Funny how that happens.
This may all seem amusing, especially if, like many people, you aren’t fond of Schumer. But this sort of retaliation is cancerous in politics. It fosters a culture in which, for example, the IRS targets and harasses the president’s political opponents. Or whistleblowers suffer retaliation at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Or political appointees comb through journalists’ Freedom of Information requests to keep tabs on their activities. Or the Justice Department wiretaps journalists’ phones.
The law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. It is grossly improper for Obama and his minions to single out the people of Arizona, New York City or anywhere else for punishment just because the president doesn’t like this or that opinion expressed by their senator.
Washington is bad enough already; let’s not turn it into Chicago.
