Uncontrolled Government Spending Has Harmed the US - Essay Example

Reckless Government Spending has harmed the US of the of the Uncontrolled Government Spending has harmed the US Introduction The Department of Homeland Security spends money on matters that have proved ineffective in promoting security measures. The following discussion substantiates this contention. There is a considerable amount of abuse, fraud, and wastage with regard to the expenditure incurred by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This excessive spending begins with this department. At the time of its inception, the proponents of the DHS had contended that an entity was being created that would be vested with the sole fiscal responsibility, with regard to the efforts being undertaken by the government to fight terrorism (de Rugy, 2006, p. 24). These entities had painted the new department’s functioning in glowing colors and declared vociferously that it would prove to be a paragon of transparency, efficiency and information sharing. The reality has belied these farfetched beliefs, and none of these attributes have been realized (de Rugy, 2006, p. 24). Several of the activities of this department do not directly protect the homeland. Analysis With regard to the fiscal year 2006 budget of $41 billion, the department was expected to spend just $27 billion on homeland security related activities. The balance of the budget was to be allocated towards various activities, such as hurricane aid, and rescues conducted by the Coast Guard. A major proportion of the expenditure incurred by the DHS pertains to activities that are external to this department (de Rugy, 2006, p. 24). Around $50 billion had been diverted to the homeland security activities, in the fiscal year 2006. Out of this $23 billion was to be allocated outside the DHS. Approximately, $9.5 billion was to be diverted to the Department of Defense. This seems to be justified. However, some of the other allocations are puzzling. Some instances are the allocation of funds to the Commerce Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (de Rugy, 2006, p. 25). Congress and the DHS find it difficult to exercise proper oversight, due the funds being distributed between a veritable plethora of departments and programs. The DHS has been provided with authority over the agencies that have been absorbed into it. However, it has no control over the several other security related entities. Thus, the secret service, which is seized with the security of the president has been transferred from the Department of Treasury to the DHS. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation continues to remain with the Department of Justice, despite its significance to homeland security (de Rugy, 2006, p. 25). There has been a marked failure on the part of Congress to match the consolidation of its oversight regarding the constituents of the DHS with the consolidation of the DHS. This is of great importance. Committee chairs have demonstrated their disinterest in surrendering their jurisdiction over the 22 agencies and activities that had been transferred to the DHS (de Rugy, 2006, p. 26). This had compelled the DHS to present itself before 88 congressional committees and subcommittees, in the year 2005. Any agency tends to leave no stone unturned in its attempts to enhance its budgetary allocation. Moreover, agencies prove to be aggressive defenders of their statutory mandates. The extreme diffuseness of the spending on homeland security activities has rendered the contemporary structure profligate (de Rugy, 2006, p. 26). Moreover, Homeland security funds tend to be squandered all over the nation. One of the highest risk prone area of the nation is Washington, D.C. The first installment of these funds were employed in this area for deploying a computerized car towing system. In addition, $100,000 of these funds were diverted to the mayoral summer jobs program (de Rugy, 2006, p. 27). In addition, spending by the DHS has been subjected to several audits, and none of these audits had disclosed the occurrence of abuse of fraud. In fact, several of the dubious purchases by this department had been permitted by its guidelines. However, no cognizance was taken of the fact that the disbursal system with respect to the homeland security funds was founded on perverted priorities. These audits did not discern any systemic issues. However, some of their recommendations have strengthened the impression that the entire system is farcical (de Rugy, 2006, p. 28). Furthermore, it had been declared in the audit of the DHS by the inspector general that there was an urgent need to improve the efforts to measure and monitor the effect of first responder grants. It was also stated in the inspector general’s report that several of the grants had been provided to projects that were apparently unconnected with promoting security against terrorist acts (de Rugy, 2006, p. 28). As such, Homeland security activities funds have been allocated in a haphazard manner. Thus, $58,000 were allotted for a rescue vehicle with the capacity to tunnel through concrete in Colchester, Vermont, which has a population of just 18,000. This is clearly a waste of resources. Congress has found a solution to the allocation of funds to low risk areas. It has instituted the Urban Area Security Initiative, which allocates funds on the basis of an objective evaluation of risks. Instead of proper allocation of funds, Congress has increased expenditure on homeland security (de Rugy, 2006, p. 28). Additionally, every year the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sanctions grants to the various States of the Union. This disbursal of grants has been criticized to a major extent. The critics of this disbursal contend that politicians tend to obtain as high a share of the DHS funds as possible, which results in considerable disparity in the funding of the states (Prante & Bohara, 2008, p. 243). One outcome of this disparity is that some of the smaller states with relatively less danger of being subjected to terrorist attacks, acquire a disproportionate quantity of the DHS funds. This is a very serious assertion, due to the gravity of the nature of terrorism and the consequences of making improper allocation of funds. It has also been alleged that the DHS funds have been spent in an indiscriminate manner in the rural regions, and that the allocation of these funds to the higher profile areas would have proved to be more beneficial (Prante & Bohara, 2008, p. 244). For instance, some of these funds had been used for furnishing a small and remote Alaskan village with surveillance cameras. In another case, these funds had been utilized for providing stray animals with dwellings, and this transpired in California. Furthermore, a bridge that was 14 miles in length, was constructed with these funds, in Alabama (Prante & Bohara, 2008, p. 244). In addition, a major accusation levelled against the DHS funding has been that political considerations have largely determined the allocations. The gravity of this allegation can be gauged from the fact that not only the media but also some members of Congress have come out with this claim (Prante & Bohara, 2008, p. 244). As such, several misgivings have been expressed, regarding the procedure adopted in the distribution of these grants. It had been the erstwhile practice, up to the year 2006, to adopt a formula for the distribution of homeland security grants. This had entailed, each state being provided with a base level funding that was 0.75% of the total distribution of a grant program. The remaining funds had been allocated in proportion to the population of the state in question (Prante & Bohara, 2008, p. 244). Some of the programs, wherein the above cited procedure had been adopted were; the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHGP), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), and the Citizens Corps Program (CCP). It was realized that this disbursement procedure had failed to address the issues at stake. The use of a mechanism that was based on a population prototype for allocating DHS grants culminated in an allocation of funds that was wasteful. In fact, the Congressman Chris Cox had declared that the allocation of funds should be seized with promoting national security and not politics (Prante & Bohara, 2008, p. 245). Moreover, the manner of distribution of homeland security grant program grants was changed drastically due to the enactment of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriation Act of 2006. Each state, after this Act, continues to receive a base amount that is 0.75% of the total distribution of a program. However, the balance of the SHGP and LETPP funds are distributed on the basis of the risk that the particular state is exposed to. The previous allocation procedure based on population has been discarded (Prante & Bohara, 2008, p. 245). Furthermore, there have been a large number of allegations regarding malfeasance. The significance of this issue makes it necessary to determine whether the distribution of grants had been influenced by political considerations. Although, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2006 has enhanced the importance of the risks posed by terrorism, via its allocation of grants, there is scant information regarding the extent of the success achieved by the DHS (Prante & Bohara, 2008, p. 246). In addition, a major criticism of the DHS is that it basically serves the purpose of providing vast fund for the favored congressional districts. The majority of these districts do not envisage any significant security threat. A few examples of this uncalled for and ill – advised governmental largesse are enumerated below. The first example that comes to mind is that of the Blackfeet Nation of Montana which received $436,504 for the fiscal year 2010. The purpose of this grant was to strengthen the nation against the danger of possible terrorist attacks (Applebaum, 2011, p. 57). The second example relates to the million dollars provided to the village of Poynette, Wisconsin for the fiscal year 2009, in order to set up an emergency operations center. A third instance of this uncalled for generosity is provided by the supply of $67,000 worth of surveillance equipment to the Marin County of California. Even after four years, this equipment had remained intact in its original packaging. As such, every State of the Union, despite the extent to which it is landlocked or its population, receives a fixed proportion of the homeland security grant, on an annual basis (Applebaum, 2011, p. 57). It has been suggested that the DHS could be subdivided into its component parts. In addition, special funding and planning at the federal level should be provided solely for the buildings and cities that were actually in danger of being targeted by terrorists. In fact, New York City requires much more DHS funding, per capita, than Poynette. Furthermore, Poynette, in reality, does not require any funds for warding off terrorists attacks. The bitter lesson provided by the Islamic terrorist attacks of 9/11, is that the nation has to make better use of the intelligence at its disposal and apply it expeditiously and efficiently. There is little if any necessity to increase spending upon the law enforcement and fire fighting agencies (Applebaum, 2011, p. 57). As such, the wastage and improper use of homeland security funds has reached epic proportions. For instance, after the destruction of the World trade Center towers by the Islamic terrorists, Marin County was provided with $100,000 worth surveillance equipment. This equipment was intended to safeguard its water treatment mechanism from Islamic terrorist attacks. However, after the passage of four years, it came to light that $67,000 worth of equipment had not been unpacked. This equipment was never utilized (Schulz, 2009). Furthermore, the balance of these funds were deployed for setting up an alarm system to protect the remote pump and tank sites. These systems failed to work and had to be abandoned. Several examples of such wastage have come to light over the years. For instance, California Watch had unearthed several instances of wasteful spending, violations during purchases, accounting that was defective, and oversights due to slipshod working at agencies across the state (Schulz, 2009). Several questions arise upon perusing the chaotic nature of homeland security spending in California. These relate to the safeguards in the system, and have to be viewed in the backdrop of Washington’s grant of $465.2 million as economic stimulus funds for public safety programs. These funds constitute a component of President Obama’s endeavor to protect the struggling economy of the nation. It is the intention of Obama and the lawmakers that these funds should be spent as quickly as possible (Schulz, 2009). It has been clearly declared by the government auditors that the DHS in unable to assess the extent to which these grants have promoted safety in the US. On the other hand, experts and local officials have expressed the fear that the singular absence of foresight, with regard to the deployment of these funds, could lead to a repetition of the mistakes that had transpired with anti – terrorism funding. In fact, Richno, the deputy director of the Modoc County Office of Emergency Services had stated that the guidance provided by Sacramento was ambiguous on several occasions (Schulz, 2009). Moreover, these instructions and rules were difficult to comply with and had sometimes been clearly unreasonable. However, in some areas of the nation, there had been an improvement in the management of federal funds. This prompted Murphy the director of grants management for the California Emergency Management Agency to declare that several areas of the state had actually improved in the handling of federal funds. He had also expressed that the site inspections conducted by his officials had reduced the instances of negative findings (Schulz, 2009). Several of the states had neglected the carrying out of the necessary oversight. With regard to the state of California, this state commenced site visits, only in the year 2006. This was after several years had gone by and a large portion of the money had been distributed. As a result, issues with the grants had been improperly utilized, prior to the discovery of such misuse by the state inspectors (Schulz, 2009). The presence of important landmarks and cultural icons has made California the foremost recipient of funds. It boasts of the Golden Gate, Disneyland, and the Los Angeles International Airport. Grant programs had provided this state with approximately $1.9 billion, from 2003 to 2009 (Schulz, 2009). However, a substantial portion of these grants had not been used properly. Conclusion The above discussion discloses the fact that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense have not accorded priority for spending funds in a manner that would implement effective security measures against terrorism. On several occasions it had been observed that such spending had been wasteful. References Applebaum, A. (2011, Jan/Feb). Homeland Security Hasnt Made us Safer. Foreign Policy, p. 1. de Rugy, V. (2006). Are We Ready for the Next 9/11? Reason, 37(10), 24 – 31. HR 5441 – 109th Congress: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. (2006, October 4). Washington, District of Columbia, USA. Prante, T., & Bohara, A. K. (2008). What Determines Homeland Security Spending? An Econometric Analysis of the Homeland Security Grant Program. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 243 – 256. Schulz, G. W. (2009, September 10). Homeland Security Marked By Waste, Lack of Oversight. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from The Center for Investigative Reporting: http://cironline.org/reports/homeland-security-marked-waste-lack-oversight-2296 Read More