Click here to view CPA’s progressive talking points in response to the attacks

States Respond to the Attacks

State legislatures are operating in a whole new environment as a result of the terrorist attacks on America. New initiatives addressing homeland security are taking center stage, while spending programs face cutbacks forced by the economic downturn.

As they develop proposals to protect Americans from terrorism, progressive state leaders are beginning to understand the challenge of getting policies right. Anti-terror programs must not endanger the basic rights and freedoms that make us a model for the rest of the world. Fiscal austerity must not undermine the economic security of working Americans.

Among the good and bad proposals addressing the crisis, officials and activists can expect to deal with legislation:

Responding to the economic fallout. A number of states are considering expanded unemployment insurance for workers who lost their jobs as a result of the terrorist attacks and the resulting economic downturn. Others are considering bailouts of affected industries, tax cuts, and other measures proposed as "economic stimulis."

Protecting state buildings and state employees. Security used to be a matter of metal detectors, X-ray machines, concrete barriers around important buildings, and background checks. Now security considerations include protection against biological and chemical weapons.

Protecting state infrastructure. States have helped beef up security at airports. Some states are also considering background checks for pilot school applicants, new security for public water supplies, and measures to protect power plants and other key facilities.

Increasing security around hazardous materials. States are looking into the security of radioactive materials at nuclear power plants, hazardous chemicals hauled in trucks, and biological materials used by medical facilities.

Increasing law enforcement powers. Some prosecutors and police agencies are pushing for increased powers to wiretap phones, search Internet messages, seize evidence and detain criminal suspects.

Restricting access to information. A few states have removed certain public information from their websites (e.g. the location of water treatment facilities) in an effort to make it less accessible to terrorists. Some policymakers have proposed reassessing all open records laws for the same reason.

Increasing penalties for committing or abetting terrorist acts. Legislators in a number of states have proposed creating a new crime of terrorism, increasing penalties for aiding terrorists, and increasing penalties for falsely reporting a terror threat. Some are calling for the death penalty for terrorism.

Improving emergency preparedness. Several states have created special task forces or commissions to study emergency preparedness measures. Some are considering more funding for emergency medical facilities and technicians. Public health authorities have called for greater coordination and funding for health facilities and response plans for bioterroism.

Politically, the terror attacks may unite Americans with a new sense of social solidarity and a general awareness that government is not the problemin times like these, it is the only viable solution. Or they may polarize us further in furious legislative battles over budget priorities and civil liberties. Time will tell.