Is Homeland Security just pork?

[bascule]

Like many, I've been opposed to the Department of Homeland Security from the start. I don't think another bureaucracy is the solution to our domestic security problems; I think existing agencies could've been augmented to correct those deficiencies. I think a substantial amount of money which has been pumped through the department has been squandered. I also think that DHS has had a negative impact on our civil rights.

 

Given that, I was somewhat incensed by this story:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/no_icons_no_mon.html

 

New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.

 

Is Homeland Security really doing any good, or is it just another tool that our elected officials can use to get money into the pockets of their constituency?

[ecoli]

yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I mean, the terrorist already destroyed the national icons in NY.

 

Oh wait... there are still at least a dozen other building in NY that can be considered national icons and/or monuments. Do they have their heads up their butts, or something?

[Sisyphus]

No, it's just very important that the money be diverted to swing states...

[bascule]

Apparently this doesn't count as a national monument/icon:

 

[zyncod]

This is fantastic. The crux of the matter is that subway fares are going to go up yet again.

[Pangloss]

This story has to be viewed in the context of the long-standing controversy over prior Federal money spent on "homeland security" in New York. Obviously NYC has important historical landmarks, and readers should not get hung up on that point. I don't particularly care how some bureaucrat phrases his paperwork, and neither should you.

 

I haven't decided one way or another on this issue, but I saw this story presented "live" on ABC News by Brian Ross on Thursday and my gut reaction was "Great, yet another MSM straw man." I was amazed they didn't tell me how Shiela, a single working mom, has been adversely affected by this dangerous new trend. But I guess they didn't have time for her story last night.

[scicop]

Yeah..states like Nebraska and Wyoming need to feel important.

 

Terrorist, just like normal US citizens, will "fly over" them states. Wasted money.

[Pangloss]

See what I mean? ^

 

Straw men work, and there's a reason why they use 'em.

[Jim]

Yeah..states like Nebraska and Wyoming need to feel important.

 

Terrorist' date=' just like normal US citizens, will "fly over" them states. Wasted money.[/quote']

 

I do not know whether it made sense to create the DHS and, obviously, NYC and Washington DC will remain the targets of choice for terrorists. It will take real courage to occupy the Freedom tower once built.

 

However, I'm not so sure that the next time terrorists, just like "normal" citizens, will fly over the heartland. Tim McVeigh made quite a stir once upon a time here in Oklahoma. There is a risk in defending the last attack instead of the next.

 

In any event, ABC reported NYC's Mayor who is obviously doing a very good job of advocating increased funds for his city. It would be nice to have another perspective before basing national policy on such an obviously slanted perspective.

 

See what I mean? ^

 

Straw men work' date=' and there's a reason why they use 'em.[/quote']

 

This is why I couldn't live without the Jim Lehrer News Hour. Each of the four major stories of the day has a point/counterpoint discussion and they do a good job of getting articulate spokepersons for both perspectives. I don't even really put them in the MSM for this reason. This is a great example of ABC hearing what it wanted to hear and rushing to print before checking the other side.

 

Not to say there is another side, just that there is no evident attempt to find it.

[Pangloss]

But Jim, MvVeigh doesn't count, he wasn't a "real" terrorist. He only killed a hundred+ "fly-over Americans". That's just not the same thing at all. Get with the program here! ;^}

 

Friendly kidding aside, I think you put it well there. We're always going to have a disproportionate amount of cash spent on certain cities like NYC and LA and various landmarks and so forth.

 

The unfortunate thing about this particular straw man is that it blinds us to more serious concerns. We still have 97% of all shipping traffic entering the country with no security whatsoever. The border is pourous, and airport security is a bad joke. But by golly we need to throw billions more at the Statue of Liberty.

 

Perspective is CRITICAL in issues like security. But perspective is the one thing that's MISSING from mainstream-media/straw-man stories like these.

 

Can you imagine a network administrator that fell prey to straw men like these? He'd be out of a job in a heartbeat if he, say, bought a fancy and expensive firewall, but left the administrator's password on the DEFAULT value. But that's what the mainstream media is constantly haranguing us to do with stories like this.

[ecoli]

The money isn't being thrown at the statue of liberty. MOst likely, it's getting spent increasing security amoung imported goods.

 

Right now, only something like 5% (source?) of ships are checked at NY harbor.

[Pangloss]

I find it hard to believe that no money is being spent on security at the Statue of Liberty. In fact I find it hard to believe that the story at the top of this thread is actually indicating what it purports to be indicating -- that no federal money is being spent on security at NYC landmarks. I find it more likely that it's a small piece of a much larger package, in which a great deal of federal money is being spent on NYC landmarks.

 

But as I said, I'm keeping an open mind about it. The story riles me up and pokes my sense of skepticism, but I'm certainly opposed to cutting off all federal spending on NYC landmarks. I simply don't want to see an overreaction to this story (as strongly indicated by several replies in this thread).

[scicop]

I'll be the first to agree, security blows across the nation, however it has gotten better since 9/11. I also include intelligence (gathring of information pertaining security) within security. DHS has its pitfalls, but I think overall it has been a good thing.

 

Local governments need to step up to the plate in order cover DHS blind spots and the City of New York has done a fine job filling in the blanks, i.e. NYPD has its own police officers stationed abroad for intel gathering, in addition they also have a Joint Terrorism Task Force that fosters communications between the PD, and the Intel Comm. While cities more prone to terrorist attacks should obvious y get more funding, less favorable "terror-target" cities can helps themselves at least with security. It only takes one PO, or gov't delegate to liase with the IC!

 

My apologies for the "fly over" comment, I should be the last to make that comment. Last year I took counter terrorism training given by the JTTF, their introduction, included a section called the "faces of terrorism". Their first picture was a white middle-aged woman, from a pro-life terror campaign. Their next was a Japaness guy..(mr. sarin explosion dude), their final picture was Osama (after like 10 others of people with diverse ethnicities and countires of origin). .....so sorry for the comment..pangloss is right with his assertion.

[Pangloss]

Sure, it's gotten better. 5% of the freight traffic is now inspected instead of 3%. At this rate we'll be fully secure... by the year 2054. ;-)

 

You're right, NYC has done a fine job on security. So. What do you need my money for? (grin)

 

 

(I don't think you owe us any apologies, btw, and I might've been a bit harsh or call-out-ish in my post after your "fly-over" comment, but I assure you it wasn't my intent. I'm not aiming any personal criticisms here; we're just discussin'.)

[zyncod]

If you look here:

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/states.htm,

you can see how the money is distributed. It seems fairly well distributed, given where I would think terrorists would be most likely to strike.

 

My only surprises were that Newark/Jersey City is getting $33M while Las Vegas is only getting $7M. And New York is still getting $40M more than any other city in the US.

 

And yes, they're probably throwing money at the Statue of Liberty, but the most money is going toward the subway system and probably the bridges/tunnels too since:

1. These are the easiest, softest targets.

2. Attacking either one would have a devastating impact on the economy of NY. Simultaneously hitting four or five bridges would absolutely cripple Manhattan. I doubt that it would ever come back.

 

It's just irritating that they're dropping the amount of DHS money since this is definitely going to make subway fares go up, and almost definitely they're going to stick it to commuters (the unlimited ride Metrocards vs the pay-per-rides for the out of towners). To go completely off-topic, I think that they should be socking it to those who commute by car, say at least a $15 toll to get in. I work by one of the exit ramps on the FDR Drive and 90% of the cars coming off only have one person in there.

[ecoli]

good idea Zyncod, hitting the automobile traffic, that is, though perhaps $15 is high. We want to promote subway and public transportation usage, but we still have the environment to think about.

[Jim]

But Jim' date=' MvVeigh doesn't count, he wasn't a "real" terrorist. He only killed a hundred+ "fly-over Americans". That's just not the same thing at all. Get with the program here! ;^}

 

Friendly kidding aside, I think you put it well there. We're always going to have a disproportionate amount of cash spent on certain cities like NYC and LA and various landmarks and so forth.

 

The unfortunate thing about this particular straw man is that it blinds us to more serious concerns. We still have 97% of all shipping traffic entering the country with no security whatsoever. The border is pourous, and airport security is a bad joke. But by golly we need to throw billions more at the Statue of Liberty.

 

Perspective is CRITICAL in issues like security. But perspective is the one thing that's MISSING from mainstream-media/straw-man stories like these.

 

Can you imagine a network administrator that fell prey to straw men like these? He'd be out of a job in a heartbeat if he, say, bought a fancy and expensive firewall, but left the administrator's password on the DEFAULT value. But that's what the mainstream media is constantly haranguing us to do with stories like this.[/quote']

 

 

Your point is very well made. I pity the poor policy makers who have to make actual decisions in this fog created by the MSM.

 

On the positive side, there are a lot of small changes that do add up. You can't just pull up in front of a federal court house and I've had to take off my shoes the last few times I've walked through the metal detector in the new federal court house in OKC. The federal court house here now requires a picture ID to get in the door.

 

There is a lot going on at this level which won't go into a tally of how much we are spending on terrorism.

 

My apologies for the "fly over" comment...

 

No worries Scicop. My main point was that I wouldn't be so sure that future terrorists will target the more secured targets.

 

Although the 9/11 attacks were focussed on symbols of US economic, military and governmental power, recalling how the OKC bombing gripped the nation, they could make a dramtic gesture in quite a number of places in between the coasts.

 

We MUST get control of our borders. I would also predict we'll have a national ID card after the next attack.

[bascule]

So are we seeing overall decreases in Homeland Security spending elsewhere?

[ecoli]

We MUST get control of our borders. I would also predict we'll have a national ID card after the next attack.

 

hell... it's been coming ever since social security numbers were used for that purpose.

 

It'll make it that much harder for time travelers, aliens and thawed out cavemen to mingle with us... sucks for them.

[SmallIsPower]

$127,200,000 of $42,700,000,000 Nationwide, I guess not many New Yorkers voted for Bush.

[ecoli]

$127,200,000 of $42,700,000,000 Nationwide, I guess not many New Yorkers voted for Bush.

 

that's true. New York has been solidly voting democrat for some time now. In fact, presidential candidates don't even bother campaigning here.

[Pangloss]

Hmm, yeah, he must want them all to die. That makes perfect sense.

[Sisyphus]

Hmm, yeah, he must want them all to die. That makes perfect sense.

 

Either that, or he doesn't take the spending seriously as anything but pork-barrel bribes for swing states.