
The Case for Abolishing the DHS - danso
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-15/the-case-for-abolishing-the-dhs#r=rss
======
shill
"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security was a panicked reaction to the Sept.
11 attacks."

The Hart-Rudman Commission recommended the creation of a National Homeland
Security Agency in January of 2001.

9/11 panic was just the grease to ram a massive new bureaucracy through a
congress controlled by the party of 'limited government'.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Commission_on_National_Sec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Commission_on_National_Security/21st_Century#Recommendations)

~~~
homosaur
Yes, thank you. Everything post-9/11 was already on the table including DHS
and the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 was for the Bush administration the simply a
huge amount of grease on that wheel.

~~~
tsotha
Bush didn't want to create the DHS. He was forced to by the "something must be
done" crowd.

~~~
homosaur
Bush didn't want to wipe his butt without permission. That's what happens when
you elect a weak leader with no experience and it's at the root of what's
happening now with Obama. These guys were and are over their heads. It took
Bush 6 years to grow a pair and actually stand up to Cheney. In a vacuum of
leadership, stronger personalities dominate. Say what you will about that
horrible troll monster, Cheney does not want for personality.

~~~
tsotha
Bush wasn't a weak leader. But he was a politician, and the people were
demanding Something Be Done. I think he decided it doesn't matter that much
whether or not yet another agency is created.

------
danso
I think the debate is not over whether to abolish the concept of Homeland
Security _period_ , but whether Homeland Security as an umbrella-department
(that encompasses such agencies as TSA, FEMA, Secret Service) makes more sense
than having these agencies as a part of other departments...the Secret Service
used to be part of the Treasury, TSA could become part of the Dept. of
Transportation, etc.

It's not just about changing-names...in a large bureaucracy, the organization
of agencies and officers is a real factor in how that bureaucracy effectively
functions.

In any case, I think DHS could be seen as an example as poorly conceived
bureaucracy...it's a department that will forever be waging turf battles with
the FBI, the NSA, and the DoD, among other groups in charge of our security.

~~~
Shivetya
This is the case for many of the "Department of" organization the United
States has; it probably applies just as well to other countries similar
organizations.

The issue with removing the DHS is, most people see it only as Airport
security and they WANT THAT GONE. How do you deal with the tens of thousands
of unionized government workers who do that job? Do we just hide them
elsewhere?

I doubt it will ever be gone, even the Department of Education; only active
since 1980; has produced no credible results and yet eats 69 billion a year.
Many of the services people attribute to it are actually handled by other
Departments. For the most part it just doles out grants - why can't that be
elsewhere?

We need to broaden our approach to reducing government agencies. First item on
the agenda is consolidating or eliminating similar programs. Then from that
eliminating programs that are obsolete or no longer needed. The list goes on
and on. So just picking one isn't enough, its government that needs a rethink.

~~~
rayiner
> has produced no credible results and yet eats 69 billion a year. Many of the
> services people attribute to it are actually handled by other Departments.
> For the most part it just doles out grants - why can't that be elsewhere?

The purpose of the Department of Education isn't to "produce credible
results." It's a welfare program for minorities, the poor, and the disabled (I
don't meant that pejoratively). ~72% of that $65 billion goes to just three
things: Pell Grants, Title I grants (direct aid to municipalities for the
disadvantaged), and IDEA grants (direct aid to municipalities for the
disabled). Sure, you're funneling money to the people statistically least
likely to benefit from it, but that's not the point. The point is that
everyone can get at least a minimum level of education, even if they are poor
or have a learning disability. It's the minimum basic guarantee we give to
people in a society where we pretend to be a meritocracy but tolerate
dramatically unequal starting positions for different people.

Municipalities could not provide this guarantee on their own. White flight in
the 1960's and 1970's left inner city school districts decimated. E.g. Chicago
Public Schools (CPS) is 86% black or hispanic and 87% low-income. 24% of the
system's budget comes from federal sources (about $1.65 billion). 31% comes
from the state, and 36% from local property taxes.

Inner city schools in the U.S. are mostly similar in terms of demographics,
and the result of a fragile political compromise. Middle class people fund the
systems, but don't want to send their kids to schools that are 85-90% low-
income minorities. As a result, you can tax them only so much before they just
move out to the suburbs. State and federal funding keeps these school
districts in existence, and with state budgets strapped as they are, the DoE
is the lynchpin that keeps the whole thing from collapsing.

~~~
tptacek
72% of the entire Department of Education budget goes to direct grant programs
to college students and local municipalities?

~~~
rayiner
2013 discretionary budget was $68 billion:
[http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget14/summary/14...](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget14/summary/14summary.pdf).

Pell Grants were $22.8 billion, Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
(called College and Career-Ready Students now), was $14.5 billion. Special
education grants to states was $11.6 billion (IDEA is state level, not
municipal level, my mistake). $48.9 / $68 = 72%.

There are some more in there too ($0.1 billion in grants for Indian education,
etc), but those three are the budget drivers.

~~~
tptacek
Head-explodey. Thank you.

------
at-fates-hands
The ironic thing about the DHS was it was supposed to make the communication
lines between the FBI, the CIA and other federal law enforcement agencies
better. This is one of the major failings of what happened on 9/11 - a total
lack of sharing of intelligence between the CIA and FBI.

And here we are, almost 15 years later and nothing has changed or improved.
Several commentators even argued if the DHS actually worked, several of the
recent terror attacks would have been prevented.

Either fix it, or get rid of it.

~~~
snowwrestler
Information sharing has most definitely improved. One example is the Prism
program, in which the FBI is responsible for data collection and then pipes it
to the NSA. Not saying that is good for the country overall, but the agencies
are definitely sharing more data.

~~~
dsl
That has nothing to do with DHS. As a result of the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
put the Office of the Director of National Intelligence "in charge" (in an
oversight capability) of the 17 major intelligence agencies we have here in
the US.

For better or worse it dramatically increased intelligence sharing and
cooperation, as well as effectively tearing down the walls between domestic
and foreign intelligence work.

~~~
snowwrestler
I didn't say that it did--just that information sharing has improved.

------
cpr
Even the name "Homeland Security" is an abomination.

A "homeland" implies some kind of empire where there's a homeland, vs.
outlands. The US should not be an empire (as it is today). It needs to return
to being a simple nation among equals.

Naming things has power; propaganda power if nothing else.

------
ianstallings
They're gonna have an uphill battle. The DHS is digging in, literally:
[http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/133423](http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/133423)

DC institutions don't just go away. They fight tooth and nail to survive. So
if you want to make it go away, prepare for a tough fight.

------
Dirlewanger
Yeah, while I'm sure a good deal of the public feels repugnance toward DHS,
anyone short of a much-needed cowboy like Rand Paul ain't shutting down this
abomination. More government is all the rage nowadays, haven't you noticed?

~~~
betterunix
I doubt that the majority of Americans feel repugnance toward the DHS. Most
people I have met seem to believe that the DHS is important to keep us and our
children safe from terrorists. Most people fall victim to the classic
"something must be done, this is something, and therefore it must be done"
fallacy.

~~~
Dirlewanger
Sorry, when I wrote that I was thinking the TSA. Forgot that the DHS is more
of a shell organization.

------
vermontdevil
Last time a government agency was shut down was the Civil Aeronautics Board a
long time ago.

Can't recall any big agencies ever shutting down since the New Deal days.

------
newnewnew
What's the last federal bureaucracy that was abolished?

This is never gonna happen. The size of government only goes one way.

~~~
rayiner
The size of the executive branch, including the postal service, peaked under
Bush I: [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-
eye/2010/09/how_man...](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-
eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html).

The current number of civilian executive branch employees is somewhere between
where it was in 1964 and 1970. Adjusted for population, the executive branch
is 40% smaller than it was during its peak under Nixon.

Now, the picture gets murkier if you include contractors, but they're not part
of the bureaucracy per se and it's not like contractors were doing poorly,
employment wise, during the Cold War.

Federal discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP is not exactly
monotonically increasing:
[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf)
(17). Aside from the recent bailouts and stimulus in response to the
recession, it's smaller in percentage terms than it was at the peak of big
government in the 1970's. Both defense and non-defense components of
discretionary spending are smaller as a percentage of GDP.

As a practical matter, agencies don't get abolished. But they do get
marginalized. Congress underfunds them relative to their original mandate,
which forces them to shrink relative to the rest of the government and the
rest of the economy. Is there hope of their doing this with DHS? Possibly. The
long-term trend for all defense-related spending is sharply downward.

------
ferdo
DHS is just another excuse for government contractors and unions to screw
taxpayers.

~~~
SwellJoe
As far as I know, unions had no involvement in the creation of DHS. There are
unions for DHS employees, just as there are for police, firefighters,
etc...but, it's difficult for me to see a connection between the creation of
the entity and those unions (which didn't exist as DHS employee unions until
after DHS employees existed).

~~~
ferdo
They certainly were involved with smoothing out the rough patches in the
beginning so they could get their piece of the pie:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/08...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501184.html)

If one group is plundering another group, it makes little difference if they
planned the plunder or are participating in the pillage after the raid.

------
mtgx
The DHS is about to become much worse soon, if the NYPD chief becomes its next
boss:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130714/22284823796/up-
ag...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130714/22284823796/up-against-wall-
america-sen-chuck-schumer-touts-nypd-chief-ray-kelly-as-potential-next-head-
dhs.shtml)

------
djKianoosh
The DHS budget is about 1/10 of the DOD budget. Just saying. If people want to
make more of an impact...

"Abolish" is a bit of a sensational word to use, especially because even if
the department is shut down, all the agencies under it would shift to other
departments or form new one(s).

------
linuxhansl
Never going to happen. Power, once gained, will not be given up without a
fight.

------
sigzero
The only thing needed is "information sharing" between the branches. We do not
need the DHS for that.

------
oofabz
The DHS includes the Coast Guard, Customs, Immigration, and FEMA. Abolishing
these critical functions would be like throwing the baby out with the bath
water.

~~~
saryant
And those functions can be moved out of DHS, just as they were pre-9/11.

------
JonSkeptic
Talk about sensationalist news. "The Case for Abolishing the DHS".

It may be one of the scariest departments in the government right now, but it
serves a fundamental purpose: to secure the nation from the many threats we
face. *[http://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs](http://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs)). It
should be steered back towards protection (and probably toward creating a
better mission statement as well), not dismantled.

When dealing with code and servers, sometimes you have to delete something and
start over and it usually sucks to have to do it; imagine how bad it would be
with an entire DEPARTMENT of the government. The article states that there are
15 vacancies at the top: this is an opportunity. Update it, fill it with new,
ethical, honest leadership and it could be everything it was originally meant
to be.

Shame on Businessweek for adding nothing to the discourse but for an emotional
headline.

~~~
JackFr
Indeed it is one of the scariest departments simply because of its name.
"Homeland Security" is ironically, especially un-American sounding, in that no
one ever uses the word 'homeland'. See
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_sp...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_special/2002/06/the_trouble_with_homeland.html)

They should have gone all in originally and just named it the "Committee for
Internal Security".

~~~
ericssmith
I was also creeped out (still am) by the name, especially given the spirit of
the times (eg yellow ribbons etc). I had the same sense as described here:
[http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/alyssa-
figueroa/dissecting...](http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/alyssa-
figueroa/dissecting-word-homeland-and-why-we-only-used-it-after-911)

I was also surprised at the time by often seeing "Department of Defense", as
we were bunker busting and daisy cutting the crap out of people across the
globe. I also just recently learned that we don't know the number of US
military installations around the globe (700?, 900?) and instead of
dismantling them after collapse of USSR, we found new justifications.

