Homeland Spending Like A Drunken Sailor, Uh, Security
Veronique de Rugy writes in Reason about how our homeland security dollars are being spent:
What do gym memberships, the Fourteen Mile Bridge in Mobile, Alabama, and a promotional campaign for a child pornography tip-line have in common? Answer: They all were funded with your homeland security dollars.Since September 11, Congress has appropriated nearly $180 billion to protect Americans from terrorism. Total spending on homeland security in 2006 will be at least $50 billion—roughly $450 per American household. But far from making us more secure, the money is being allocated like so much pork. States and cities are spending federal homeland security grants on pet projects that have nothing to do with homeland security; state and local officials fight over who will get the biggest share of the money, regardless of whether they have a legitimate claim to it. And when Congress isn’t doling out cash indiscriminately, it’s overreacting to yesterday’s attacks instead of concentrating on cost-effective defenses against the most likely current threats. The result is an edifice that, far from preventing terrorist assaults, actually makes us more vulnerable by diverting resources from worthier projects.
One of the reasons she gives is a "failure to prioritize":
If power companies invested in infrastructure the way DHS and Congress fight terrorism, a New Yorker wouldn’t be able to run a hairdryer but everyone in Bozeman, Montana, could light up a stadium. Efficient expenditures concentrate limited resources on the most cost-effective initiatives; not every need is worth funding, and the greatest priorities and risks must be addressed first. But because Congress is more interested in politics than security, it gives every threat, every state, and every interest group a share of the homeland security pie, regardless of risk.It doesn’t take a security expert to realize that some anti-terror expenditures are more cost-effective than others. Simple cockpit barricades, which the airline industry has now installed at relatively low cost, can prevent all 9/11-style attacks. In contrast, the burgeoning U.S. system for screening the bags of every airline passenger has already cost $18 billion during the last four years but will do little to prevent 9/11-style hijacking. Nor does the screening system prevent the destruction of airplanes, since it doesn’t systematically check carry-on bags or air freight for explosives.
Another example: Congress insists that DHS hand out ever greater portions of its budget to “first responder” programs—essentially federal funds for state and local police and fire departments. But as James Carafano has shown in a 2005 study for the conservative Heritage Foundation, a dollar spent on preventing the next terror attack is vastly more cost-effective than a dollar spent recovering from it.
That’s not to say it isn’t prudent to prepare for an attack. But federalizing first-responder programs accentuates the incentive problems that already plague the political process. When such programs are a state responsibility, legislators have a strong incentive to accurately assess the risk and potential damages to their states. They have to decide whether to spend more on homeland security or on other accounts. When these programs are funded at the federal level, by contrast, a congressman from Wyoming has no incentive to admit that his state is not a likely target or that if it ever were a target, the damages would be limited. He has no incentive to turn down federal money and even less incentive to volunteer taxpayers’ dollars for other states.
The bottom line is that our country is being run by a bunch of idiots on the take to lobbyists and whose idea of government is funneling pork through to their own states over the protection of the nation. Until we all stop electing them, we're all to blame.
Can you believe that some people want to put those same idiots in charge of our health care as well?
nash at March 8, 2006 12:26 AM
>>The result is an edifice that, far from preventing terrorist assaults, actually makes us more vulnerable by diverting resources from worthier projects.
Like, for example, the Lake Ponchartrain levees?
Gary at March 12, 2006 7:57 PM
I'm all for some kind of basic care for the dirt poor, but the idea of government funded health care for all is a nightmare. It's bad enough having Kaiser, and having to fight for what should be basic care -- such as a breast ultrasound (since my family's something of a cancer factory, and this is an area that should be, well, supervised a little. I got it, of course, one office visit, two letters, two phone calls and one screaming match later. And I'm fine, in case you're wondering. The thing is, it's not like I'm some medical-care sucking hypochondriac looking for a full-body scan and worried that my pancreas is going to blow at any moment. I'm basically extremely healthy and barely use my health care. And, thanks, Kaiser, I'd like to keep it that way with an ounce or two of preventive medicine. Buttwads!
And just think what happens (or rather, doesn't, healthcare-wise) for the girls who aren't somewhat articulate and huge pains in the ass, along with being pretty on top of family genetics and such.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2006 8:11 PM
>>an ounce or two of preventive medicine
You know, you'd think that an industry that's so focused on the bottom line (insurance) would understand the financial value of early detection.
Almost any disease is easier to treat, and more likely to be treated successfully, if detected early. And it doesn't even require a shred of compassion for human beings on the part of the insurance companies -- just basic accounting sense.
Even if you take an ultra-cynical view of it, doesn't it make sense for the insurance company to spend a few extra bucks curing me now, so I can send them premium checks into my 80s instead of dying when I'm 62?
It's enough to make you question capitalism.
Gary at March 14, 2006 10:12 PM
Leave a comment