DHS has not helped protect us from police terrorism or even domestic terrorism any better than existing agencies and their various agendas. In the wake of 9/11 it is classic budgetary overreach and
pork-barreling. As long as the
GOP Congress wants to use it as a bargaining chip it's time to go all in and examine why such a bloated bureaucracy of 200,000 people is needed by a GOP that is supposedly against
big government. At those kinds of numbers we could have any number of troop "surges" on international soil. And of course one doesn't have to go far to see how DHS funds are being used for "internal security'. The
security theater boondoggle needs to stop since we'll never achieve level green, and
the elimination of Cabinet departments is a feature, not a bug in GOP election rhetoric
when they can remember to count to three.
The Case for Abolishing the DHS
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.
cutting the head off would not affect the body