After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an umbrella organization that would oversee 22 preexisting federal agencies. The idea was to improve the coordination of the federal government’s counterterrorism effort, but the result has been an ever-expanding bureaucracy.
DHS has too many subdivisions in too many disparate fields to operate effectively. Agencies with responsibilities for counterfeiting investigations, border security, disaster preparedness, federal law enforcement training, biological warfare defense, and computer incident response find themselves under the same cabinet official. This arrangement has not enhanced the government’s competence. Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu epidemics.
National defense is a key governmental responsibility, but focusing too many resources on trying to defend every potential terrorist target is a recipe for wasteful spending. Our limited resources are better spent on investigating and arresting aspiring terrorists. DHS responsibilities for aviation security, domestic surveillance, and port security have made it too easy for politicians to disguise pork barrel spending in red, white, and blue. Politicians want to bring money home to their districts, and as a result, DHS appropriations too often differ from what ought to be DHS priorities.
The Department of Homeland Security should be abolished and its components reorganized into more practical groupings. The agencies tasked with immigration, border security, and customs enforcement belong under the same oversight agency, which could appropriately be called the Border Security Administration. The Transportation Security Administration and Federal Air Marshals Service should be abolished, and the federal government should end support for fusion centers. The remaining DHS organizations should return to their former parent agencies.
Terrorism remains a serious problem, but policymakers ought to be more candid with the American public. Instead of pandering to fear and overreacting to every potential threat, policymakers should keep the risk of terrorist attacks in perspective and focus public resources on cost-effective measures.
Download the full analysis here.
David Rittgers is a legal policy analyst with the Cato Institute.
You must log in to post a comment.
Flag this messageMSNBC.com Article: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutionalWednesday, September 26, 2007 7:52 Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/from/ET/
September 16, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Hi Robert — thanks for leaving this here. Please post it in our Conservative Spotlight (find it on the top right of the homepage, under the top banner ad). These are the sort of things we need in there.
September 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm
When Homeland Security was created by President Bush, I was working as a Federal Law Officer at San Ysidro, California; I knew many agents from Border Patrol, Customs, INS and local law enforcement: Most of the agents that I knew, all agreed that Homeland Security had nothing to do with protecting America, but that of controlling American’s!…Case in point, if this was truly about protecting America from terrorism, why on earth would President Bush nominate former governor Tom Ridge as the head of Homeland Security? Mr. Ridge may be a nice guy, even an outstanding governor, but had no Anti-Terrorism experience to speak of!…There were at least 100 super qualified anti-terrorism experts in America that should have headed this new agency! Then came the ‘Patriot Act’…How many Americans have read the 300 plus pages of this Un-Constitutional Act? Do Americans understand how many of their Constitutional Right’s have been ‘Revoked’ by the US Federal Government by ‘Fiat Decree’ ? Don’t take my word for my stament’s…Research a Federal Lawsuit in Portland, Oregon a couple of years ago…It was about an attorney in Portland that had his Constitutional Right’s violated by the FBI, in an out of court settlement with the FBI, this attorney was paid 2 million Dollars settlement and the ‘Right’ to sue the US Federal Government for the Un-Constitutional portion of the ‘Patriot Act’. The Federal Government petitioned the Federal Court to have this case thrown out in a ‘Summary Judgment’. The Federal Judge refused to rule in the US Government’s favor and upheld that portion of the ‘Patriot Act’ as Un-Constitutional! The Government did not apeal the Judge’s decision, as it would have ended up in the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court would have upheld her decision, it would have been ‘Case Law’ for all of America, instead of just the Portland, Oregon Federal Court District. People, do your own research, ‘We the People’ better wake up!
September 16, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Good share Robert — keep the government ‘transparent’!
September 16, 2011 at 8:35 pm