There is something seriously wrong with government priorities when billions of dollars can be mobilized to address one population’s needs while the agency specifically established to serve our military veterans operates on a budget of only a few million dollars. I am not talking about political party affiliation, race, nationality, or whether someone deserves compassion. I am talking about responsibility, accountability, and the obligations government has to the people who have already sacrificed for this country.
According to New York City’s financial records, the city spent approximately $3.02 billion on asylum-seeker services in fiscal year 2025. In the same fiscal year, the New York City Department of Veterans’ Services had an adopted budget of approximately $6.37 million. Those figures should prompt every taxpayer to ask a serious question. What exactly are the government’s priorities, given that we continue to elect it?
Before anyone attempts to twist my words, let me be clear. The $6.37 million is the budget of the city’s dedicated veterans’ agency, not every dollar spent on veterans through federal, state, and other city programs. The $3.02 billion also includes state and federal funding, not just city tax dollars. These are different budget categories, but that does not make the comparison meaningless. It raises a legitimate question about the scale of government commitments and what those commitments reveal about public priorities.
WHEN GOVERNMENT WANTS TO FIND MONEY, IT FINDS MONEY
One thing I learned during my 33 years in law enforcement is that government always has an explanation for what it cannot do. There is never enough money to address longstanding problems, nor enough personnel, resources, or funding to improve conditions. Yet when something becomes a political emergency, government suddenly demonstrates an extraordinary ability to mobilize resources.
New York City established emergency shelters, contracted with hotels, provided meals, coordinated transportation, and organized an extensive network of services for asylum seekers. That effort required tremendous administrative coordination and billions of dollars. Whatever your position on immigration, you cannot deny that the government demonstrated what it can accomplish when an issue receives urgent attention.
Now imagine that same level of urgency applied to veterans sleeping in shelters, struggling with mental health challenges, navigating disability claims, or trying to rebuild their lives after military service. Imagine the government approaching veteran homelessness with the same intensity it brought to emergency migrant housing.
Why should our veterans have to compete for attention in a city that has demonstrated its ability to mobilize billions?
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPASSION AND OBLIGATION
I believe in helping people. My years of community service have taught me that people face hardship for many reasons. However, compassion should never be an excuse for government to neglect its obligations.
Military veterans entered into an agreement with this country. They agreed to serve, follow orders, accept the risk of injury, and, if necessary, sacrifice their lives. In return, this nation made commitments to their care, benefits, and treatment after service.
Those commitments should mean something.
We constantly hear elected officials thank veterans for their service. Every Veterans Day, politicians attend ceremonies, deliver speeches, take photographs, and post patriotic messages on social media. They speak of sacrifice, courage, and honor. But I have reached a point in my life where I am no longer impressed by speeches that are not followed by measurable results.
You cannot pay someone’s rent with a proclamation. A homeless veteran cannot sleep beneath a politician’s patriotic speech. A veteran struggling to obtain medical treatment cannot use a ceremonial certificate to get the care they need.
Respect must be demonstrated through action, not political theater.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE APPLIED ECONOMIC COMMON SENSE?
The economist Thomas Sowell has spent decades examining the difference between political intentions and the actual consequences of government decisions. That is precisely the kind of thinking missing from much of today’s public debate.
Politicians want the public to judge programs by the compassion expressed when they are announced. I believe taxpayers should judge those programs by their costs, effectiveness, and results.
The issue is not simply that New York City spent $3.02 billion on asylum-seeker services. The issue is whether taxpayers received responsible management of those funds and whether comparable urgency is being applied to longstanding problems affecting existing residents.
Who received the contracts? How much was spent on administration rather than on direct assistance? How many people achieved permanent housing or financial independence? How much money went toward temporary arrangements that produced no lasting solution?
These questions are not attacks on migrants. They are questions directed at government officials who authorize expenditures and contractors who receive taxpayer money.
Government spending should not be confused with government success. Spending billions does not automatically mean a problem has been solved, just as operating an agency on a small budget does not automatically prove that its services are inadequate.
The public deserves evidence, not political slogans.
BLACK VETERANS CANNOT BE LEFT OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION
As a Black American, I am particularly concerned about the veterans who come from communities that have historically struggled with poverty, housing discrimination, unemployment, and limited opportunities for wealth creation.
Black Americans have served in every major American conflict, including during periods when this nation denied them equal rights. Black soldiers fought for freedoms abroad while their families continued fighting discrimination at home.
That history should never be forgotten.
For generations, Black families viewed military service as an opportunity to obtain education, employment, homeownership, and economic stability. Military benefits helped many families establish a foundation that could be passed to their children.
But those opportunities mean very little when veterans cannot access the benefits they earned, obtain stable housing, or receive timely assistance.
We should be asking how many Black veterans in New York City are experiencing homelessness, how many are waiting for assistance, and how effectively the city is connecting them to available federal and state resources.
Those questions deserve more than another committee meeting or press conference.
Black political leadership should be demanding detailed answers because our community has contributed to this nation’s military history while too often being overlooked in discussions about economic security.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS
I have said repeatedly that I do not trust either political party to protect the interests of Black America without accountability. Political loyalty has become a substitute for political responsibility, and too many voters have accepted that arrangement.
Republicans and Democrats both speak about veterans. Both claim to support working families. Both promise responsible government. Yet neither party should receive a free pass simply because it knows how to deliver the right speech to the right audience.
If Democrats control New York City’s government, then Democratic leadership must answer for its spending decisions. If Republicans were making those same decisions, I would demand the same answers.
Accountability cannot depend on which political party happens to hold office.
I am also tired of the argument that questioning immigration expenditures automatically means someone lacks compassion. That is an intellectually dishonest way to avoid discussing public policy. A taxpayer should be able to question billions in expenditures without being accused of hating the people receiving assistance.
We must stop allowing political labels to replace serious discussion.
VETERANS NEED RESULTS, NOT ANOTHER POLITICAL PROMISE
New York City’s Department of Veterans’ Services performs important work connecting veterans to housing assistance, benefits, mental health resources, employment opportunities, and other services. Its adopted fiscal year 2025 budget of approximately $6.37 million supported that mission.
But here is what I want to know. Is that funding sufficient to accomplish the department’s responsibilities? How many veterans require assistance? What services are being provided directly, and what services depend on outside agencies? What additional resources would produce measurable improvements?
Those are the questions city officials should answer publicly.
I am not suggesting that the entire asylum-seeker budget should have been transferred to the Department of Veterans’ Services. That would ignore the different responsibilities, legal requirements, and funding sources involved.
I am saying that a government capable of coordinating a multibillion-dollar emergency response should be capable of developing an equally serious strategy to ensure that veterans do not fall through the cracks.
And that strategy should include measurable goals, transparent expenditures, and regular public reporting.
GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES ARE REVEALED THROUGH ACTION
We have developed a political culture where elected officials believe expressing concern is equivalent to solving a problem. They announce initiatives, create task forces, establish committees, and celebrate funding announcements. Meanwhile, taxpayers are left wondering whether anything changed.
The $3.02 billion spent on asylum-seeker services and the $6.37 million adopted budget for the Department of Veterans’ Services are not a complete accounting of how New York City supports either population. But they are enough to begin a serious public examination of how government allocates resources and measures its responsibilities.
I want the mayor, City Council, and every elected official who claims to support veterans to explain what the city is doing to ensure that those who served this nation have access to stable housing, healthcare, employment, and the benefits they earned.
I want actual numbers, actual outcomes, and actual accountability.
The public should demand the same transparency for every major government expenditure, regardless of who benefits or which political party supports it.
Our veterans should never become an afterthought in the country they were willing to defend.
And if government can mobilize billions when it declares something an emergency, then it should explain why longstanding problems affecting veterans are not treated with the same urgency.
That is not a question of compassion versus compassion. It is a question of government responsibility.
Because in the end, political priorities are not measured by what elected officials promise. They are measured by what government does.
