Dissolution of the Department of Homeland Security - Essay Example

Dissolution of the Department of Homeland Security Dear Mr. President, Like many of my fellow citizens, I am deeply troubled with regards to the overall level of debt and the seemingly non-sustainable course that successive government budgets over the past several years have taken. However, rather than seeking to blame a single party, president, or factions within the congress, it is the opinion of this author that there is more than enough blame with regards to this issue to go around. As such, the purpose of this brief memo is not to seek to ascribe blame to you or to either of the political parties that exist; rather, the purpose of this memo is to seek to elaborate on one highly expensive and seemingly low-yield federal agency that can ultimately be dissolved due to inefficiency and a low level of need. The fact remains, in an era where a litany of other government programs have been cut to the bone, workers reduced, and services drastically cut, the Department of Homeland Security still operates in what can be considered a type of budgetary bubble; seemingly inoculated against the budgetary crisis taking place around it (Jones, 2004). One need look no further than the seemingly ever increasing nature of the annual budgets within which DHS must manage its mandates to see evidence of this. For instance, in 2012 alone, your budget allocated 43.2 billion USD to the Department of Homeland Security as a means of meeting the goals and mission objectives that it has been tasked with (Vandermey, 2011). Although one of the main reasons why both republicans and democrats have argued for the perpetuation of the Department of Homeland Security is due to the fact that there has not been a single domestic act of widespread terrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, this logic is faulty due to the fact that absence of an attack does not actually correspond to the effectiveness of the agency in general. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the actual distribution of power that the Department of Homeland Security oversees appears to be one of its greatest weaknesses. Moreover, it is the belief of this citizen that the argument for the furtherance of the Department of Homeland Security by congressional share-holders has been partly born out of a fear for voting to discontinue such an entity and then facing the electoral ramifications of what this could portend for them, as well as for their party, should another terrorist attack similar to the scale of September 11th, 2001 take place again within the United States. This fear is not only warranted but it is also indicative of a type of thinking that continues to place the United States in a great deal more debt than it would otherwise have. Prior to its creation in October of 2011, the Department of Homeland Security’s ultimate functions were not merely nonexistent. I would ask that your administration keep this in mind as it considers funding and furtherance of the Department of Homeland Security into the future. Due to the fact that many of the individual aspects of the Department of Homeland Security’s ultimate purview were handled by other government entities, what the current Department of Homeland Security has come to represent is a government agency charged with an extraordinarily high level of oversight. As a function of this extremely high level of multiple oversights that the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with, it is the opinion of this author that this ultimately makes the mission, vision, and goals of the Department of Homeland Security untenable. Moreover, many critics have claimed that the department itself is ineffective due to the extremely wide breadth of instances that it attempts to protect against. Although it is laudable what the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to do with regards to protecting the population of the United States against natural and man-made threats to its continued existence, the fact of the matter remains that it is has seemingly become yet another bloated arm of Washington bureaucracy which is ineffective in accomplishing the tasks that are put before it (Magnuson, 2012). Moreover, as a direct result of the fact that its ultimate mission is too broad, it is the further opinion of this author that the different functions that the Department of Homeland Security speaks to would be better served back under the original departmental and agency umbrellas in which they were originally housed prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001. In keeping with the theme that has been previously raised with regards to the Department of Homeland Security’s overall effectiveness, it should be noted that the GAO (Government Accountability Office) itself noted that a thorough analysis of the Department of Homeland Security revealed that the department perpetually was not able to meet the metrics and milestones that had been set for it. A few snippets of comments from the GAO report include the following: “DHS needs better project information and coordination among four overlapping grant programs” as well as “Agriculture inspection program has made some improvements but has major management challenges which persist”. These comments could of course be taken out of context; however, the underlying theme is not with reference to the fact that these programs are not needed; rather, the underlying theme is that the monstrosity of the Department of Homeland Security is itself incapable of running such a large program and providing the necessary oversight with which to ensure that each of these programs is maximized to peak efficiency. This of course ties back in to the prior assertion that the mission itself is too broad and each of these unique needs would be better served under the respective agencies and departments from whence they were originally robbed in order to facilitate the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Finally, as has been mentioned within the first few lines of this memo, the main reason for dissolving the Department of Homeland Security has to do with overall cost. This should of course not be meant to mean that by outright dissolving the department, a total of 42 billion dollars in savings will be realized. Many of these functions will be transferred back into the realms within government that they have traditionally belonged. The ultimate reason for this cost savings is due to the fact that an entirely new oversight and staff is required for each of the Department of Homeland Security’s current programs. By reducing the redundant funding streams required to support and develop programs that could jus as well be served by existing branches and departments within the federal governmental system, it is conceivable that at least 40% cost savings annually could be realized (Caldwell, 2010). It is of course important to note within this memo that although the author has called for the Department of Homeland Security to dissolved, this does not mean that it is the belief of this author that many of the missions that the Department of Homeland Security performs are without merit or use within the current system. Rather, these interests can still continue be served elsewhere throughout the federal governmental system just as they have been for decades prior to the September 11th attacks that coaxed then President George W. Bush to seek to create such sweeping federal governmental changes. As a means for your current government to show that a new and fresh approach has been enacted, it is the opinion of this citizen that seeking redefine and re-establish the role and need for the monstrosity which is the Department of Homeland Security should be engaged. References Caldwell, S. L. (2007). MARITIME SECURITY: One Year Later: A Progress Report on the SAFE Port Act. GAO Reports, 1-51. Jones, P. L. (2004). Transfer of Budgetary Resources to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): GAO-04-329R. GAO Reports, 1. Magnuson, S. (2012). DHS Centers of Excellence Spared from Budget Cuts. National Defense, (701), 14-15. Vandermey, A. (2011). SECURITY CENTRAL. Fortune, 164(4), 8-9. Read More