|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Homeland Security: the New Barrel of Pork? |
|
|
|
(Source: Frost & Sullivan; issued Nov. 17, 2004)
|
|
|
|
On October 18, 2004 President George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005. According to Frost & Sullivan’s annual report, U.S. Federal Homeland Security Markets, this bill provides the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with $40.70 billion in funding for 2005. Included in this bill is $28.90 billion in net discretionary spending, an increase of more than 6.6 percent over 2004 and a 106 percent increase over 2001.
This money will be spent on everything from the Coast Guard, to the Secret Service, to explosive detection systems. Homeland Security is however, fast becoming another bureaucratic pork-barrel wish list. The effects of this are felt by the first responders in high-risk areas like New York City, companies that provide innovative homeland security solutions, and not least of all, the American people.
Homeland Security grant money will total over $4.00 billion in 2005.The funds are distributed using a complicated formula, written into law by Congress. Each state receives a minimum of three-quarters of 1.00 percent of the total allocation of money, which means 40% of the funds, are divided up equally among states, regardless of the population size. This formula virtually guarantees states such as Alaska and Wyoming get more money per person than high-risk states like California and New York.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) found the funding should be spent based strictly on threat and vulnerability assessment. The commission established that, Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.
Elected representatives have battled over homeland security dollars in the same way they fight for defense dollars, putting local desires above national need. Although members of Congress are elected to defend the interests of their constituents, they also have a moral obligation to do what is necessary to protect the United States. Congress had attempted to fix the problem of shortchanging high-risk cities, but the politics of pork have so far prevailed. Congress passed the Urban Area Security Initiative in 2003. Funding was supposed to go directly to those cities deemed at highest risk for terrorist threats. At that time, 7 cities were on the "high risk" list, now however, the list has grown to include over 51 cities.
The lack of planning and standards by DHS has greatly contributed to additional pork while adversely affecting the homeland security industry. Money has flowed to the states with little or no federal guidance on how to spend the money. There is no federally mandated plan of action for cities and states. Instead of providing cities and states with a strategic plan containing priority criteria that must be met in succession, Congress simply disperses the money without regard on how it is spent.
The government’s lack of planning has lead to waste. Unquestionably, some of the money is put to good use.
However without agreed upon standards, money has been used by local officials to fill budget gaps, complete pet projects, and purchase equipment that is not needed or not related to homeland security. Maryland for example cut funding for local healthcare and then substituted federal homeland security dollars to fill the shortfall. Washington D.C. recently spent over $100,000 for leather jackets for its police officers, using homeland security money. D.C. justified this use of homeland security money by stating that officers need to be comfortable in adverse weather conditions when responding to homeland security threats.
In the 2005 Homeland Security budget, the Senate sought to include over $3 billion in drought relief for mid-western farmers. Additionally, without a coherent plan, cities are purchasing equipment that is often not needed, for example Grand Rapid; North Dakota has more bio-chemical suits than police officers.
Homeland Security budgets will continue to grow, as the defense budget has grown, due to the modern political phenomenon which pressures politicians against voting down security or defense bills. Therefore, the majority of these bills will pass, as a result of the inability to vote against them. This makes the system hard to fix, most people do not understand the complexities of the issue, only that you voted against funding our troops.
This lack of government planning has had a profound effect on the homeland security industry. At first glance additional pork would be considered a boon for this industry, and in some instances it is, however most of the funds are used inefficiently. The homeland security industry produces some truly innovative technologies, which help defend the homeland.
However, this private innovation is being stifled by government’s inability to form a coherent homeland security strategy. With no record being kept on how most of the $4 billion in homeland security grant money is being spent, businesses are left in the dark on where and to whom they can provide their innovative solutions. Companies that provide homeland security equipment are unable to determine the cities that need this equipment, which adversely affects their business and the security of the cities and states.
If Congress is able to leave homeland security out of the barrel of pork, companies within this industry will greatly benefit. Companies will be able plan and prepare to provide the capability that the government affirms is critical for security. Of course, what may secure one city, may not work for another. There will be no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution.
Additionally, while rural and less populated states do need some type of homeland security capability, small town Wyoming is not in as great a risk as NYC; the dispersing of Homeland Security money should reflect this. That being said, the federal government must partner with the private sector to identify high-risk areas in order to achieve the most efficient security solution.
Allowing threat and vulnerability to dictate funding priorities will allow businesses to better understand their market, while better protecting and serving the citizens of the United States.
-ends-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
