Homeland Security measures ignore fiscal responsibility

Catching up on draft postings, this is one that is very timely today, although it was originally penned over a year ago.

-J

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:26:14 -0800
From: "Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah"
Subject: Cost/benefit

In commenting on yet another pointless "homeland security" proposal, the
INFOCON mailing list passed along this quote:

"The number one threat to American national security during this long
war is neither anthrax nor truck bombs . it is uncontrolled spending. We
cannot afford to put guards on every bridge and at every critical node
of our infrastructure. We cannot afford a sophisticated chemical and
biodetector in every government building. America cannot afford a
risk-free society in a world of global terrorism. The enemy's strategy
is to destroy our economy. We must not facilitate their efforts. America
will need to spend considerable sums of money to ensure our security .
but we must do it wisely . there will be no money to waste on irrational
fear and unconscionable pork. We must develop a strategic plan to guide
our efforts. This must include federal, state and local governments,
plus the private sector. Since 9-11, more than 130 bills regarding
homeland security have been introduced in the House of Representatives.
This is not the example of spending based on a strategic plan.

"The outcome of this war will determine the type of nation our
grandchild will know. I do not want that to be a nation that is
bankrupt."

Randall Larsen, Director, ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, at the
National Defense University Symposium on Quadrennial Defense Review 2001


====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Allowing an unimportant mistake to pass without comment is a
wonderful social grace. - Judith Martin
http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade