The recent column by David McKay Wilson has sparked controversy by indirectly criticizing Rep. Mike Lawler for his vote alongside the majority of his New York House colleagues to ensure the government remained open and funded.
While State and local law enforcement received over $58 million in additional funding through the bipartisan spending package, including in the 17th District, Wilson’s column overlooked this significant aspect.
Instead, Wilson focused on the budgets of the FBI and ATF, suggesting massive cuts that would significantly impact the agencies’ day-to-day operations. However, this assertion is disputed.
The bulk of the reported $654 million in cuts to the FBI, approximately $620 million, stemmed from the elimination of a single earmark secured by former Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. This earmark, primarily for construction purposes, accounted for roughly 95% of the total cuts. For many in the Hudson Valley, eliminating such a sizable earmark for a federal agency with a substantial existing budget may seem like a sensible step toward fiscal responsibility.
Amid concerns about runaway federal spending and its repercussions on mortgage rates, credit card rates, and inflation since President Joe Biden took office, Lawler’s bipartisan efforts to rein in spending are appreciated by some constituents.
Even as he advocates for spending reductions, Lawler has successfully secured funding for projects across the 17th District. For Fiscal Year 2024, he secured almost $36 million for various projects, including critical updates for Mount Pleasant’s Police Department dispatch system, amounting to over $800,000.
Comparatively, Lawler’s predecessor, Mondaire Jones, has faced criticism for his stance on law enforcement. Jones, who has voiced support for the Defund The Police movement, failed to secure community project funding for local law enforcement during his tenure. Despite public assertions to the contrary, Jones has been associated with calls for police defunding, ending qualified immunity, advocating for felon voting rights, and supporting cashless bail.
The contrasting approaches of Lawler and Jones regarding law enforcement have prompted voters to consider their options carefully. While Lawler emphasizes support for local law enforcement, funding for municipalities and police departments, and a tough stance on criminals, Jones’s positions on police funding, felon voting rights, and bail reform have drawn criticism.
As the November elections approach, voters are urged to weigh these differences and make informed decisions based on their priorities for community safety and governance.