Also it needs to be contextualized further: fighting wildfires is done to save lives. When they have to make a distinction between funding for prescribed burns, which are a mitigation but not prevention measure, and having the people and resources on hand to defend settlements then they're going to choose the latter.

Prescribed burns are treated as a panacea whenever there's wildfires, but they are only a mitigation strategy - you're still always going to have wildfires, the degree of severity and in what areas is what matters (they're also not cheap: it is after all, just starting a forest fire you try to keep under control).