Over a quarter of a million domestic law enforcement officials under a unified command. KGB?
On Mar 1, 2017 8:16 AM, "Travis" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/23/president-bush-was-rig > ht-before-he-was-w > Why We Should Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security > <http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/23/president-bush-was-right-before-he-was-w>Let's > dismantle the Frankenstein monster and divide its responsibilities more > effectively. > > Matt A Mayer <http://reason.com/people/matt-a-mayer/all>|Jun. 23, 2015 > 9:30 am > > [image: Description: DHS]DHSAfter the September 11, 2001, terrorist > attack, President George W. Bush rightly resisted Congress' urge to create > a new federal department charged with the homeland security mission. Bush > believed the federal government could protect America with a strong > homeland security council managed by the White House, similar to the > National Security Council. Following relentless pressure, he acquiesced and > the federal government gave birth to the U.S. Department of Homeland > Security (DHS) on March 1, 2003. > > The new department largely consists of agencies and offices pulled from > other existing cabinet departments. After twelve years of mediocre-to-poor > operations and countless scandals, it is clear President Bush's initial > instinct was right. The core functions overseen by DHS can be managed more > effectively elsewhere, especially where territorial battles undermine > operational efficacy. > > It is time to eliminate DHS and put the various components where they are > a better fit. Eliminating DHS would result in annual fiscal savings of more > than $2.5 billion, with 4,000 fewer employees. Those reductions, however, > only represent part of the rationale for eliminating DHS. The other reasons > to do so are that DHS is riddled with performance inefficiencies and that > its existence creates inefficiencies in other federal entities due to the > need to coordinate across organizational boundaries. America can't afford > more of the same as terrorist threats reemerge. > > With a new President getting elected in a year-and-a-half, starting this > discussion now hopefully will spur proponents and opponents to enter the > fray, and help presidential candidates to think about how they might more > efficiently and effectively protect America during their time in office. > > I spent nearly two and a half years at DHS where I first oversaw the > terrorism grant, training, and exercise programs for state and local > governments under Secretary Tom Ridge. When Michael Chertoff took over, I > became the Counselor to the Deputy Secretary on policy and operational > issues. My time included the response to Hurricane Katrina. In the nine > years since I left DHS, I likely have written more on DHS than just about > anyone <http://www.heritage.org/search?query=%22matt+mayer%22&=nomobile>, > including a book, *Homeland Security and Federalism: Protecting America > from Outside the Beltway > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0313355223/reasonmagazineA/>*. > > It goes without saying that I observed up-close the dysfunction, turf > battles, and inherent limitations in an entity that does so much. These > problems are exacerbated due to the fact that, in many cases, the > activities DHS engages in require enormous coordination with entities > embedded in other federal departments. > > For example, the Transportation Security Administration must continually > coordinate with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. > Department of Transportation (DOT) given the overlap among their > responsibilities. By moving the non-air components to DOT and the air > components to the FAA, decisions would be made more quickly and without the > turf battles between department heads. > > Similarly, with the creation of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for > Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, having the U.S. Coast > Guard (USCG) outside of the U.S. Department of Defense is nonsensical. > Syncing the four military branches that focus on our external threats with > the military branch that secures our domestic waterways will enable unified > command and control capabilities and streamlined support systems. > > Two entities within DHS that would align better elsewhere are U.S. > Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) and its Ombudsman. USCIS's > functions are closely associated with the U.S. Department of State's Bureau > of Consular Affairs (BCA). A quick look at their respective mission > statements shows how similar the two entities are. The mission of USCIS is: > > USCIS will secure America's promise as a nation of immigrants by providing > accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and > citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of > citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system. > > The mission > <http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/about/mission.html> of > BCA is: > > The mission of the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) is to protect the lives > and interests of American citizens abroad and to strengthen the security of > United States borders through the vigilant adjudication of visas and > passports. CA contributes significantly to the USG goal of promoting > international exchange and understanding. Our vision is to help American > citizens engage the world. The Bureau issues the travel documents that > allow Americans to travel the globe and lawful immigrants and visitors to > travel to America and provides essential cycle of life services to American > citizens overseas. > > With such similar missions, what efficiencies and effectiveness measures > are gained by having these entities in separate departments? BCA's more > extensive mission easily could absorb USCIS's complementary functions. > > A final example is the domestic federal law enforcement functions within > U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs > Enforcement (ICE). Those two entities consistently must coordinate with > numerous elements at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including: the > Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the > Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives; and the U.S. Attorneys. > By having those entities under a separate cabinet official, the opportunity > for turf battles and arbitrage are heightened. > > Equally problematic is the multi-headed hydra faced by state and local law > enforcement. With a large portion of state and local terrorism funding > residing at DHS and ICE's existence in the department, state and local law > enforcement must contend with multiple intelligence entities (DHS' weak > fusion centers, DOJ's Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and the FBI's Field > Intelligence Groups), coordinating bodies, and funding offices. This > fragmentation only ensures that key items will fall through the cracks > between these departments, whose personnel spend far too much time fighting > each other for primacy than they should. Our enemies couldn't ask for a > more fertile environment within which to attack us. > > During my time at DHS, I unfortunately spent too much time fending off > fiefdom building efforts by Michael Brown and his staff at the Federal > Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over the $3.5 billion terrorism grant > programs that I ran and Brown wanted. During the transition from Secretary > Ridge to Secretary Chertoff, Brown and I engaged in a running debate over > whether preparedness functions should reside outside or inside of FEMA. I > won the debate when Secretary Chertoff keep the terrorism preparedness > functions outside of FEMA. > > At the time, I focused on the importance of protecting terrorism > preparedness operations from the constant operational natural disaster > response and recovery tempo of FEMA. I made the case that terrorism > preparedness operations tended to wither on the vine because FEMA needed to > divert resources to ensure successful responses to natural disasters. With > the ever-increasing natural disaster declarations coming out of FEMA > since 1993 > <http://dailysignal.com/2012/02/05/chart-of-the-week-obamas-abuse-of-fema-declarations/>, > I had real concerns in our post-9/11 environment that terrorism would play > second fiddle to the nationalization of natural disasters. > > In the congressional actions after Hurricane Katrina, FEMA finally got the > terrorism preparedness functions it had long sought. Though it's hard to > admit, I have to concede that combining the preparedness, response, and > recovery elements in FEMA hasn't resulted in terrorism preparedness getting > weakened. That doesn't mean it has improved either. Much of FEMA's recent > success is due to the excellent leadership of FEMA Administrator Craig > Fugate combined with the limited number of major natural disasters during > the Obama Administration. The experience of the FEMA Administrator is > clearly critical to its operational success. > > In fact, given how often the FEMA Administrator interacts with the > President, creating a layer of secretarial management between the two makes > little sense. Having the FEMA Administrator report, instead, directly to > the president is especially important because it simply reflects the > reality of what happens anyway when a major natural disaster strike > America. FEMA should once again become a stand-along agency. That said, the > terrorism-related grants, training, and exercise programs should revert > back to DOJ, thereby strengthening the connection among domestic terrorism > entities in federal, state, and local governments. > > As for the U.S. Secret Service, its main mission > <http://www.secretservice.gov/mission.shtml> is: > > to ensure the security of our President, our Vice President, their > families, the White House, the Vice President's Residence, national and > visiting world leaders, former Presidents, and events of national > significance. The Secret Service also protects the integrity of our > currency and investigates crimes against our national financial system > committed by criminals around the world and in cyberspace. > > Given that very specific mission, the Director should report directly to > the person his agency is charged with protecting. Perhaps the scandals and > failures of the last few years are due to the agency's lost standing > incumbent with being placed in the bowels of a department. It is hard to > think that reporting directly to the president will not up the > accountability level. > > Beyond the fiscal savings of eliminating inefficient and, at times, > ineffective layers of management, operations should improve. Things > certainly couldn't get worse. As DHS Inspector General > <https://www.oig.dhs.gov/> and U.S. Government Accountability Office > <http://www.gao.gov/browse/a-z/Department_of_Homeland_Security,_Executive> > reports over the last twelve years unequivocally demonstrate, DHS has not > been a model of success. To boot, surveys of personnel consistently show > that DHS employees have the lowest morale > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/homeland-security-has-done-little-for-low-morale-but-study-it--repeatedly/2015/02/20/f626eba8-b15c-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html> > in the federal government. > > As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, it is wise to stop > digging. Good intentions led to creating a new cabinet department with > 180,000 employees and a nearly $38 billion budget that has ballooned to > 240,000 employees and a $61 billion budget. Those increases represent a 33 > percent jump in employees and a 61 percent budgetary explosion in just 12 > years. More people and money did not result in better outcomes. > > My proposed reorganization may not be correct on all counts, but it would > be better than the status quo. Spending another decade allowing a > department to grow even larger while it continues to get weak results will > only ensure it becomes yet another permanent, and ineffective, federal > bureaucracy. We can and should do better. President Bush instinctively had > it right. It's now time we fix what politics got wrong. > > > ------------------------------ > > [image: Description: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNXZwNjVwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0ODgzMTgwMTk-> > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcXM5MnAwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ4ODMxODAxOQ--> > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe > <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> • 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. > -- -- 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.
