shut'er down ... starting with the politicians in DC. On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 8:30:25 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sums it up brilliantly...it was a nonsense move from the beginning. > > > > B > > > > ========================== > > > http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/26/who-needs-the-department-of-homeland-security-anyway/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=2014_FlashPoints%20RS2%2F26# > > > > Who Needs the Department of Homeland Security Anyway? > > > > Why the case against a shutdown isn't a slam dunk. > > • BY JOHN HUDSON > > • FEBRUARY 26, 2015 > > > > With two days left until funding for the Department of Homeland Security > dries up, Jeh Johnson has been pleading with Republicans to save his > department from a partial shutdown. > > > > That job might be easier if the 12-year-old department weren’t so widely > derided on Capitol Hill and beyond for its size and clumsiness. > > > > Misgivings about DHS, held by members of both parties, have been steadily > growing in the years since then-President George W. Bush proposed the > creation of a new agency assembled from a motley collection of disparate > parts ranging from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the > Coast Guard to the Secret Service. > > > > To be sure, this week’s standoff stems from Republican opposition to > President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration, but the fact > that so many Republicans do not view the department as sacrosanct is making > Secretary Johnson’s life dramatically harder. Skepticism about the > department also highlights the continued debate over Bush’s legacy as his > younger brother Jeb considers a presidential run. The creation of DHS was > one of Bush’s signature accomplishments, but it has come under fire from > libertarian-leaning Republicans in the House and Senate. > > > > On Wednesday, Johnson made an unusual appeal to conservatives by enlisting > his Republican predecessors, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, in a news > conference at DHS headquarters. The three men spoke in succession about the > “critical” role DHS plays in keeping the United States safe. > > > > “There are concrete, dramatic consequences for the homeland security of > this nation if we allow the funding of the department to lapse,” Johnson > said. > > > > “Having a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security is going to > cause a lot of pain and difficulty for American citizens,” warned Chertoff. > > > > “Given what is going on in the world … we cannot afford to be distracting > the men and women on the front line of our homeland security,” said Ridge. > > > > But even the entreaties of the two Republican heavyweights weren’t enough > to stop a letter campaign by 30 House conservatives urging House Speaker > John Boehner to “stand firm against these unlawful executive actions” and > reject an emerging funding deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch > McConnell. > > > > McConnell has proposed getting around the immigration impasse by first > passing a “clean” bill that would fund the rest of the department and then > seeking to undo the immigration executive orders in a separate bill. > > > > McConnell’s plan may be a tough sell, in large part because Johnson’s dire > warnings about the impact of a budget cutoff ring hollow. One reason is > practical: 80 percent of DHS employees are deemed “essential” to national > security and would still show up to work in a shutdown — albeit without > pay. All core functions of agencies such as Customs and Border Protection, > the Transportation Security Administration, and the Secret Service would > remain intact; the only people from the department’s 240,000-person > workforce who would be furloughed would be 30,000 nonessential employees, > mostly office workers. > > > > But another reason for the lack of urgency boils down to one word: respect. > > > > Forged in 2002 in the panicked aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the > department remains the source of the least cost-effective spending in the > federal government. Many outside DHS view it as a superfluous layer of > bureaucracy in the fight against terrorism and an ineffective player in the > ongoing efforts to handle natural disasters and other emergencies at home; > FEMA’s performance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was so poor that > many from both parties called for the emergency-response organization to be > removed from DHS and be allowed to operate independently. > > > > Views are just as bad inside DHS, which suffers from the lowest morale of > any major federal agency. In the past five years, turnover at the > department was almost twice the rate in the federal government overall, and > senior-level positions often remain unfilled for months. One key position, > inspector general, was vacant for two years before John Roth assumed the > job in March 2014. > > > > The fact that the FBI, the agency tasked to “protect and defend” against > “terrorist and foreign intelligence threats” is housed outside DHS > indicates the department’s awkward and uncertain place in America’s > national security bureaucracy. > > > > “DHS’s biggest problem is that it is still less than the sum of its > parts,” said Daniel Byman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown > University and a contributor to Foreign Policy. “The whole point of it was > integration of homeland security functions, but it is still a divided > organization with few synergies — so it has the problems of a big > organization without the benefits.” > > > > Even the department’s name — spawned from the German word Heimatland— > strikes many as “creepy.” > > > > “The name is very redolent of fascism and is an unfortunate misnomer,” > Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) told Foreign Policy as lawmakers neared closer > to a shutdown. > > > > The department’s defenders say it is too often blamed for the failures of > other arms of the government, such as the FBI or the State Department. They > also say it is hopelessly bogged down by Congress’s outdated oversight > architecture. A dizzying array of 90 committees and subcommittees maintain > some jurisdiction over DHS — three times the number of panels that oversee > the Pentagon. The amount of preparation required for the endless onslaught > of congressional hearings and briefings inhibit the department from doing > its actual job, according to officials. > > > > When Foreign Policy asked Johnson at the news conference whether DHS’s > problems on the Hill also reflect the department’s long-derided structural > problems, the secretary said he “couldn’t disagree more strongly” and cited > the benefits of bringing the disparate collection of agencies under one > roof in a crisis situation. > > > > “Just in my 14 months, I have seen the efficiency brought about by having > in one department at one conference table the persons responsible for > aviation security, border security, securing of our seaports and so forth, > in dealing with various situations we’ve had to deal with over the last > year,” he said. > > > > Ridge, a DHS secretary under the Bush administration, told FP that the > department is too often a scapegoat. “The department gets blamed for things > over which it has no control,” he said, citing the 2013 Boston Marathon > bombing and the 2009 failed bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over > Detroit. In the two cases, he cited failures by the FBI and State > Department in notifying DHS of the threat posed by the Tsarnaev brothers, > believed responsible for the Boston attack, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, > the Nigerian man who confessed to detonating plastic explosives hidden in > his underwear. > > > > But not everyone is sympathetic to Ridge’s blame-shifting. > > > > “The irony in that complaint is that the very reason DHS was founded was > to deal with the problem of insufficient coordination within the > government,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. > “If DHS failed to solve that problem, it’s unclear why it exists.” > > > > Even strong defenders of the department acknowledge that more needs to be > done to shore up support for DHS, but there’s very little agreement on how > that should be done. > > > > “In the last four years, they’ve come a long way in intelligence and > terrorism and cyber,” Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), the former ranking > member of the Intelligence Committee, told FP. “But if they’re going to get > where they need to be to be effective, they’re going to need a lot more > money.” > > > > That may be difficult to muster given the department’s spendthrift > reputation. In 2002, the federal budget allocated about $20 billion to > Homeland Security agencies. That figure rose to almost $60 billion in 2013 > and continues to climb higher. > > > > One of DHS’s most controversial initiatives is its grant program to > improve the preparedness of states and cities, widely criticized for its > lack of cost-effectiveness. Economist Veronique de Rugy highlighted an > example of this in discussing a $557,400 grant given to North Pole, Alaska > — a town of 1,570 people — for homeland security 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 hairdryer > but everyone in Bozeman, Montana, could light up a stadium,” de Rugy > charged. > > > > Another concern is that the department, forged in a fearful post-9/11 > environment, owes its existence to a wildly exaggerated understanding of > the terrorist threat to the United States. As Charles Kenny, a senior > fellow at the Center for Global Development, has pointed out, Americans are > substantially more endangered by threats such as infectious disease, gun > violence, and drunk driving than terrorism. In fact, the odds of being > killed in a terrorist attack in the United States or abroad are 1 in 20 > million. > > > > “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,” > wrote Kenny. > > > > This outlook hasn’t benefited DHS’s reputation across other departments of > the federal government. One official speaking to FP described the frequent > occurrence of interagency meetings where DHS officials show up in large > numbers and the Pentagon or State Department may have only one or two > representatives. “It feeds the impression that they don’t have anything > better to do,” said one State Department official. > > > > Clearly, morale issues are a problem. In September, the Washington Post > reported extensively on the near-constant turnover of top-level officials > at the department due to a “dysfunctional work environment, abysmal morale, > and the lure of private security companies.” > > > > A top executive of one of those security companies was present at > Wednesday’s news conference: Chertoff, the former DHS secretary and CEO of > the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm. His company can afford to > double or triple the $180,000 salaries earned by many officials at DHS, and > it has successfully pulled away some of the department’s top talent. > > > > Johnson seemed willing to forgive Chertoff for poaching skilled DHS > officials in exchange for the former secretary’s public support during the > budget debate. And Chertoff gladly stepped up on Wednesday to endorse the > importance of keeping his former workplace alive. “I’m delighted to join > with Secretary Johnson and Secretary Ridge [in a] bipartisan approach in > saying, let us fund DHS and let them do the job that’s most important to > all of us, protecting America,” he said. > > > > Although a shutdown still looms, most observers expect House Republicans > to cave in to political pressure and pass a “clean” funding bill by the end > of the week. Either way, at a time when U.S. media attention on terrorist > threats is at an all-time high, it’s ironic that a department dedicated to > homeland security has such a hard time justifying its existence. And until > it finds more solid footing within the national security bureaucracy, that > problem isn’t likely to go away soon. > > > > Photo credit: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images > > > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdmg4a2llBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MjUwODI0ODk-> > > > - New Members > > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMHJoOTRyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNDI1MDgyNDg5> > > 1 > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcHY2cWtyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQyNTA4MjQ4OQ--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > >
-- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
