The Case for Abolishing the DHS
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Case for Abolishing the DHS

  1. #1
    Gunco Regular jfreakofkorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Feedback Score

    Default The Case for Abolishing the DHS

    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 complained.

    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 the 36 hours that Barack Obama was in that country. 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.

  2. #2
    Gunco Addicted for life j427x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)


    DHS should have been shut down years ago and other ineffective and redundant police/spy/counter terrorist agencys should also be cut or eliminated.

    one of the reasons why we have so much problems apprehending terrorist stateside IS that there are too many agencys and departments.

    instead of helping each other they sit on information, they discount the local PDs and sheriffs departments who have "real" info and continue to ignore information and tips gained by the help of other intelligence agencys abroad.

    what is going on is the administration wants a reason to keep pouring billions of dollars into domestic spying. the administration doesn't want to be shown up by some small town PD or foreign agency.

    the classic sign of a corrupt and incompetent agency is the "not invented here" syndrome. if they didn't make the lead --they look the other way every time.

    the administrations domestic operations are so bad it looks like their trying to help alquaida and the terrorist jehadist. the exact opposite of what their being funded for!

    what should we expect form an administration that uses the BATF to smuggle AKs to mexican drug cartels anyway?

    if your on the other team the obama administration is the best thing ever --if your alquaida!

  3. #3
    Gunco Veteran FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Feedback Score


    Couldn't agree more. Close it down and redistribute the work to other already in place federal law enforcement agencies.
    Life's a crap shoot. Sometimes you say crap and sometimes you shoot. Make sure that you don't mess those 2 up!

  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #4
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)


    Hell I take napolitinos spot how much does it pay ? I d love a job were you can screw every thing up an tell people what to do an then get paid. hell I might even be able to over throw a state or two . LOL

    The DHS is going no were it will be the presidents private army for years to come . I see it turning into the KGB or similar .

    Im all for out agencys all working together an in unision but that will never happen.

  6. #5
    GuncoHolic Tommo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)


    Sounds great to me!

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts