Here’s a less than mainstream opinion on homeland security:
Americans who support Bush plan
on homeland security are naïve, Libertarians sayWASHINGTON, DC – Americans who believe that a Cabinet-level Department
of Homeland Security will make the nation safer are being naive,
Libertarians say.“We challenge every American to name one government agency that has
solved the problem for which it was created,” said Steve Dasbach,
Libertarian Party executive director. “The Education Department hasn’t
improved education, the Housing Department has produced only slums, and
the Labor Department has never created a job. So why should anyone
expect a new security agency to make America more secure?”The Department of Homeland Security, announced by President Bush last
week, would be the third-largest Cabinet agency, with a budget of $38
billion and 170,000 employees. The goal of the mammoth department, Bush
said, is “securing the American homeland and protecting the American
people.”“Libertarians are 100 percent behind Mr. Bush’s goal,” said Dasbach.
“But anyone who believes that spawning another huge bureaucracy will
protect America is being naive. The landscape of Washington, DC is
littered with gargantuan government agencies that do nothing but suck
billions of dollars out of the private economy while performing no
useful function.” For example:
The Education Department has cost taxpayers $550 billion since it was
created in 1980, yet student scores on ACT and SAT tests are still
lower than in 1970.The Department of Energy was initiated in 1977 to stabilize energy
prices and to promote America’s energy independence from foreign
suppliers - yet neither of these two goals has been achieved.The Agriculture Department funnels billions of welfare dollars to
corporate farms and even pays farmers not to grow crops.The Veterans Department, elevated to Cabinet status in 1989, was
supposed to provide health care and other services to military
veterans. Yet the system of VA hospitals is so bad that 90 percent of
eligible veterans choose private health care instead, according to a
recent Cato Institute analysis.“You don’t have to be a political scientist to detect a pattern here,”
Dasbach said. "Problem arises; politicians create a permanent Cabinet
agency to ‘solve it’; and decades and hundreds of billions of dollars
later, the problem remains - or even becomes worse."Yes, it would be nice if the Department of Homeland Security proved to
be the exception to the rule. But there’s no reason to believe it will
be - especially since most of the employees will be bureaucrats
shuffled in from other agencies that failed to prevent 9/11 in the
first place."The real problem is that we have too much government already, not too
little. Taxpayers already shell out money for dozens of ‘homeland
security’ agencies, such as the Pentagon, the FBI, CIA, and the NSA.
And many of them failed to share information because they were stymied
by the bureaucracy. So how can any sensible person believe that another
bureaucracy will solve the problem?"The best way to prevent another terrorist attack is to demand
accountability from the individuals who failed the first time - not to
hide them inside another Cabinet.“Until that happens, politicians will continue to promise that one more
government agency is all we need - and Americans will continue to
believe them.”
-Libertarian News Update
They have a point
The Problem isnt a problem that can be solved by locking our borders, patrolling our docks, ect. The Problem is a Human one. People don’t just blow themselves up for no reason.
Yeah, but I still think it would be a much better idea for these people to blow themselves up in front of a live national broadcast instead attack civilian targets. I think it would make a much “better” impact without making those who committed the offense as terror bombers on innocent people.
If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, thumbing my nose at You Know Who. - Bokonon
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-06-12 16:16 ]
Just a few things about the topic statment:
quote:“We challenge every American to name one government agency that has
solved the problem for which it was created,” said Steve Dasbach,
Libertarian Party executive director. “The Education Department hasn’t
improved education, the Housing Department has produced only slums, and
the Labor Department has never created a job. So why should anyone
expect a new security agency to make America more secure?”
This is a weak arguement.
What does past/other Government agencies successes or failures have to do with a New agency ability to help protect America.
“quote”"But anyone who believes that spawning another huge bureaucracy will
protect America is being naive
So, in other words, if you dont except this person arguement, you are naive.
“quote”* The Education Department has cost taxpayers $550 billion since it was
created in 1980, yet student scores on ACT and SAT tests are still
lower than in 1970.
When these Departments were created, was a deadline to when there their objectives had to be met?
“quote”* The Agriculture Department funnels billions of welfare dollars to
corporate farms and even pays farmers not to grow crops.
Again, how does the failure here have anything to do with a agency to help protect
America.
“quote”"The real problem is that we have too much government already, not too
little.
How does one know that there is “too much governmet”?
“quote”"The best way to prevent another terrorist attack is to demand
accountability from the individuals who failed the first time - not to
hide them inside another Cabinet.
How will accountability from the people who “failed” prevent another terrorist attack?
What does accountability from these people have to do with the New agencies ability to. again, protect the U.S.
“quote”“Until that happens, politicians will continue to promise that one more
government agency is all we need - and Americans will continue to
believe them.”
All Americans?, being a bit general here, he certainly doesn’t belive them.
What he is saying is that government bureacracy, especially at the national level, is generally not effective. Look at INS, which recently renewed the passport of one of the dead hijackers. Homeland security is another INS, only bigger and more expensive.
I thought the point of it was to take certain responsibilities away from the cia, fbi, and ins inorder to make them more efficient.
it probably won’t though.
Good points Mr. Ghoul, however i would be interested in what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation might come up with.
I understood that the new cabinet position was not to remove responsibilities from other agencies, but rather to enhance communication between them, use the best of all agencies in this one “super agency”.
