Wednesday, July 17, 2013

The Case for Abolishing the DHS



The Case for Abolishing the DHS

Posted by: Charles Kenny on July 15, 2013



On Friday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano resigned to take

up a post running California's university system. With her departure, there

are now 15 vacant positions at the top of the department. That suggests it

would be a particularly humane moment to shut the whole thing down. The U.S.

Department of Homeland Security was a panicked reaction to the Sept. 11

attacks. It owes its continued existence to a vastly exaggerated assessment

of the threat of terrorism. The department is also responsible for some of

the least cost-effective spending in the U.S. government. It's time to admit

that creating it was a mistake.


In 2002 the George W. Bush administration presented a budget request for

massively increased spending on homeland security, at that point coordinated

out of the Office of Homeland Security. "A new wave of terrorism, involving

new weapons, looms in America's future," the White House said. "It is a

challenge unlike any ever faced by our nation." In proposing a new

cabinet-level agency, Bush said, "The changing nature of the threats facing

America requires a new government structure to protect against invisible

enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons." Because of

"experience gained since Sept. 11 and new information we have learned about

our enemies while fighting a war," the president concluded that "our nation

needs a more unified homeland security structure."


More than a decade later, it's increasingly clear that the danger to

Americans posed by terrorism remains smaller than that of myriad other

threats, from infectious disease to gun violence to drunk driving. Even in

2001, considerably more Americans died of drowning than from terror attacks.

Since then, the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in

the U.S. or abroad have been about one in 20 million. The Boston marathon

bombing was evil and tragic, but it's worth comparing the three deaths in

that attack to a list of the number of people in the U.S. killed by guns

since the December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn., which stood at 6,078 as

of June.


This low risk isn't evidence that homeland security spending has worked:

It's evidence that the terror threat was never as great as we thought. A

rather pathetic Heritage Foundation list of 50 terrorist plots against the

U.S. foiled since Sept. 11 includes such incidents as a plan to use a

blowtorch to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and "allegedly lying about

attending a terrorist training center"-but nothing involving weapons of mass

destruction. Further, these are alleged plots. The list of plausible plots,

let alone actual crimes, is considerably smaller. From 2005 to 2010, federal

attorneys declined (PDF) to bring any charges against 67 percent of alleged

terrorism-related cases referred to them from law enforcement agencies.


That hasn't stopped a bonanza of spending. Homeland security agencies got

about $20 billion in the 2002 budget. That rose to about $60 billion (PDF)

this year. Given that spending is motivated by such an elusive threat, it's

no surprise a lot is wasted. The grants made by DHS to states and cities to

improve preparedness are notorious for being distributed with little

attention to either risk or effectiveness. As an example, economist

Veronique de Rugy has highlighted the $557,400 given to North Pole, Alaska,

(population 1,570), for homeland security rescue and communications

equipment. "If power companies invested in infrastructure the way DHS and

Congress fight terrorism, a New Yorker wouldn't be able to run a hair dryer,

but everyone in Bozeman, Mont., could light up a stadium," de Rugy



Or take the U.S. Coast Guard-which recently got in hot water with the U.S.

Government Accountability Office because it was 10 years into a 25-year, $24

billion overhaul to build or upgrade its 250 vessels, had spent $7 billion

on the project, and had only two new ships in the water to show for it.

Reassuringly, the head of the Coast Guard admitted, "We weren't prepared to

start spending this money and supervising a project this big."


The DHS also runs the U.S. Secret Service, an agency that just spent an

estimated $100 million guarding a weeklong presidential trip to Africa. That

would be more than the entire economic output of Tanzania during Barack

Obama's visit. The Secret Service traveled around the continent with 56

vehicles, including three trucks full of bulletproof glass. The cancellation

of a planned Obama family safari at least meant there was no need for the

assault team armed with high-caliber rounds against the threat of

Taliban-sympathizing cheetahs.


The problem with DHS is bigger than a bloated budget misspent. An overweight

DHS gets a free pass to infringe civil liberties without a shred of economic

justification. John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State

University, notes that the agency has routinely refused to carry out

cost-benefit analyses on expensive and burdensome new procedures, including

scanning every inbound shipping container or installing full-body scanners

in airports-despite being specifically asked to do so by the GAO. Again,

it's unsurprising that the result of a free hand in enforcement has been

excessive and counterproductive security measures, as I've argued before:

like TSA agents taking away a GI Joe doll's four-inch plastic gun because it

was "a replica," and deterring so many passengers from airline travel that

more than 100 people have died on the roads because they substituted a

dangerous means of transportation (driving) for a safe one (flying).


Not all of the department's activities are similarly high-cost, low benefit.

About a quarter of its budget goes to the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, for example. FEMA has apparently done a better job after Hurricane

Sandy than it did after Katrina flooded swaths of New Orleans. But both

events occurred when FEMA was under the department's umbrella, and neither

had anything to do with terrorism-so the benefit of lumping its operations

in with the Secret Service under one cabinet secretary is unclear.



The U.S. government clearly has a responsibility to control who and what

comes in and out of the country as well as to ensure travel is safe from

violent attack. But all of the bureaucratic consolidation, additional

regulation, and unchecked spending of the past 12 years have served to make

trade and travel harder, with little benefit. And DHS has helped create

institutional inertia: Its very existence suggests the domestic response to

the threat of terror is of equal weight with defense, transport, health,

labor, or foreign affairs. It heaps largesse on a range of contractors, all

of whom have an interest in hyping the threat of terror to ensure the money

keeps flowing.


That's unfortunate. Beyond the waste of money and the overregulation, the

expansion of the homeland security state has created unnecessary fear among

a population that should be able to trust its government to send accurate

signals about risk. So let's start sending the right signals. Shut down the

DHS, and redistribute the agencies under its umbrella back to other

departments, including the justice, transportation, and energy departments.

Then start bringing their budgets into some sort of alignment with the

benefit they provide.


Treating the terror threat with the contempt it deserves would be good for

the deficit and the economy, and a relief for anyone who travels. If that

let us focus on bigger dangers instead, it might even save some lives.

Closing the DHS is a small government solution that works.



(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this

message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to

these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed

within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with

"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The

Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain

permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials

if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,

teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria

for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies

as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four

criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is

determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not

substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use

copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:









No comments:

Post a Comment