For years, top officials at the Department of Homeland Security have touted "fusion centers"—designed to share security information between state, local, and federal government agencies— as a "vital tool for strengthening homeland security," a "proven and invaluable tool," and "one of the centerpieces of our counterterrorism strategy." But a blistering new bipartisan Senate report paints a radically different picture, exposing these centers as a costly boondoggle that flouted civil liberties safeguards, lacked basic accountability, and produced "intelligence" that was overwhelmingly useless or irrelevant—or as one particularly candid official put it, "a load of crap."
How costly are they? Incredibly, DHS can't even say for certain: Estimates of federal spending on the centers range from $289 million to $1.4 billion. Given that most states had a distinct shortage of real terrorists to keep tabs on, much of that money went to purposes utterly unrelated to actual counterterrorism analysis. One center blew $75,000 on dozens of flat-screen televisions, supposedly for an intelligence training program that never materialized. Now the TVs are being used to display calendars, and for "open-source monitoring"—also known as "watching the news." Other popular purchases included Sport Utility Vehicles, laptops, and high tech surveillance toys for ordinary law enforcement—many of which were then given away to other local government agencies.
How useless are they? One official estimated that 85 percent of the reports they produced were of no benefit whatever, and the large majority of reports were unrelated to terrorism. Most of these weren't published or circulated for months, and they often just regurgitated information from public press reports. Almost all these reports came from centers in just three states: Most of the 77 fusion centers produced little or nothing at all. Sorry, make that 68 fusion centers—it turns out the official DHS tally included several that didn't actually exist.
For a nice overview of the counterproductive incoherence of Republican education efforts over the decades, check out this piece by Frederick Hess and Andrew Kelly of the American Enterprise Institute. And for a sense of how confused conservatives remain when they write pieces telling other conservatives how to have "good" federal education policy, read the same piece. Its history section gives you the first part, and, unfortunately, its other sections give you the rest.
Hess and Kelly -- who are generally pretty sharp -- furnish a terrific overview of what happens when you talk "local control" of government schools and decry federal micromanaging, but can't stop yourself from spending federal money and love "standards and accountability." Basically, you get a great big refuse heap of squandered money, red tape, educational stagnation, and political failure.
Having laid all that out pretty nicely, you'd think that Hess and Kelly would reach the logical conclusion: Conservatives should obey the Constitution and get Washington out of education. But they don't. Instead they give precious little thought to the Constitution, and make policy prescriptions that fundamentally ignore that government tends to work for the people we'd have it control. You know, concentrated benefits, diffuse costs; iron triangles -- basically, the big problems Hess and Kelly decry at state and local levels.
Start with their constitutional argument (such as it is):
Join us Wednesday, October 3rd at 8:45 PM ET for live commentary during the first debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Tweet questions during the debate to the live blog participants below:
- David Boaz, Executive Vice President (@David_Boaz)
- Gene Healy, Vice President (@GeneHealy)
- Daniel J. Mitchell, Senior Fellow (@DanielJMitchell)
- Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies (@MFCannon)
- Walter Olson, Senior Fellow (@WalterOlson)
- Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst (@AlexNowrasteh)
- Neal McCluskey, Associate Director, Center for Educational Freedom (@NealMcCluskey)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science (@CatoMichaels)
- Daniel J. Ikenson, Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies (@DIkenson)
Follow the Twitter list of all live blog participants here. You can also join the conversation with the official hashtag #DebateDenver and by following @CatoInstitute.
Click here for information on how to watch the debate online.
***UPDATE: You can watch the full debate video here.***
Since the U.S. and E.U. first enacted sanctions against Iran, in 2010, the value of the Iranian rial (IRR) has plummeted, imposing untold misery on the Iranian people. When a currency collapses, you can be certain that other economic metrics are moving in a negative direction, too. Indeed, using new data from Iran's foreign-exchange black market, I estimate that Iran’s monthly inflation rate has reached 69.6%. With a monthly inflation rate this high (over 50%), Iran is undoubtedly experiencing hyperinflation.
When President Obama signed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, in July 2010, the official Iranian rial-U.S. dollar exchange rate was very close to the black-market rate. But, as the accompanying chart shows, the official and black-market rates have increasingly diverged since July 2010. This decline began to accelerate last month, when Iranians witnessed a dramatic 9.65% drop in the value of the rial, over the course of a single weekend (8-10 September 2012). The free-fall has continued since then. On 2 October 2012, the black-market exchange rate reached 35,000 IRR/USD – a rate which reflects a 65% decline in the rial, relative to the U.S. dollar.
The rial's death spiral is wiping out the currency's purchasing power. In consequence, Iran is now experiencing a devastating increase in prices – hyperinflation. As Nicholas Krus and I document in our recent Cato Working Paper, World Hyperinflations, there have been 57 documented cases of hyperinflation in history, the most recent of which was North Korea’s 2009-11 hyperinflation. That said, North Korea’s hyperinflation did not come close to the magnitudes reached in the recent, second-highest hyperinflation in the world, that of Zimbabwe, in 2008, nor has Iran’s hyperinflation – at least not yet.
I was traveling when the Washington Post published this article on D.C.‘s efforts to implement ObamaCare:
If you want to know what health reform in action looks like, here’s what you should picture: a nondescript conference room, on the fourth floor of a government building, with about four dozen people sitting in rows of red chairs and one fluorescent light that keeps flickering on and off…
[T]his is actually a pretty important place. It’s where government officials decide what the Obama administration’s signature legislative achievement will look like for residents of the nation’s capitol…
It started with the first agenda item: Deciding what set of essential health benefits the District of Columbia will require all insurance carriers to cover. Even in one of the most Democratic‐leaning districts in the country, there’s was not exactly enthusiasm for this new piece of federal regulation.
“This is mandated by the law,” District of Columbia insurance commissioner Bill White noted. “This is not something anyone here decided to do.”
Still, they did have to set an essential benefit package…
That sounds like to me like bureaucratic hell in action more than health care reform in action. And the last part, about ObamaCare or federal bureaucrats requiring D.C. to make these decisions, isn’t even true.
One consolation is that it looks like not even the 14 states that want to establish ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges will be able to do so on time.
Even with widespread support, the District still has a to‐do list that stretches 11 PowerPoint slides long…
All of it is supposed to be done by Jan. 1, 2013, but officials here recognize, despite their commitment, it’s just not possible. Even the most stalwart of Obamacare supporters just simply have too much work to meet that deadline…
“No state is going to be able to be fully certified on Jan. 1,” said Bonnie Norton, D.C’s acting director of health reform.. “When they passed the ACA, they were highly optimistic about the timeline for states to implement exchanges.”
Does anyone really think that ObamaCare’s Exchanges will be up an running on time by October 1, 2013?
Here’s a story from the sports pages with relevance to current debates on welfare, dependency, and whether college is good for you.
After the European win in the Ryder Cup, sports reporter Matthew Futterman of the Wall Street Journal wonders why “the best European golfers are better than the best Americans now.” His tentative answer:
One difference is that the 12 Americans on the Ryder Cup team all attended college. Just two members of Europe’s team, Graeme McDowell and Luke Donald, spent those crucial, formative years of development playing collegiate golf.…
Here’s what happens when top golfers, tennis and soccer players attend college: They subject themselves to rules about how often they can compete and practice. They throw themselves at the mercy of coaching that is not always world‐class. They live in housing filled with…let’s call them distractions. And in order to play, they have to pass classes in biology and political science.
Compared with the experience of Rory McIlroy or other European golfers, who turn pro as teenagers, then do little else but practice and compete (sometimes for their next meal or train ticket), the college life is pretty appealing.
And why is that a problem?
…the college life is pretty appealing.
But it’s also a safety net. It’s not crazy to think that the European approach creates athletes who work a bit harder and perhaps become just a wee bit tougher.
And that insight might apply to more than golf and tennis. As Peter Thiel suggests, smart young people might do better to leave college and “dedicate themselves to their work.” “Safety net” programs might trap people in long‐term welfare dependency, unemployment benefits might prolong unemployment, and establishing religion might make the established church lazy.
I live in Virginia, which is a battleground state, and my mailbox has been littered with political propaganda in recent weeks. Here are some questions for the candidates:
- George Allen (R) for Senate promises to “protect defense jobs from devastating cuts” while “restoring fiscal discipline in Washington.” But Allen was already in Washington and his party didn’t restore discipline. Is he proposing anything different this time?
- Rep. Jim Moran (D) promises to “stand up for women” and protect their “rights” by ensuring they “have access to affordable contraception.” But what about men? Shouldn’t they get a tax credit for condoms or something?
- Romney/Ryan (R) promise to “begin reducing the deficit and balancing the budget.” But how? Apparently not with defense savings because they will “protect and strengthen Virginia’s military jobs,” nor with Medicare savings because they will “preserve and strengthen” that program.
- Romney/Ryan (R) promise to “champion small business.” But what about big business? Big business employs tens of millions of Americans and is subject to more intense global competition than is small business. So why do R/R want to specially favor small businesses?
- Tim Kaine (D) for Senate says that he “dramatically increased the percentage of state contracts issued to small, women‐owned and minority‐owned businesses.” But are women’s businesses more important than men’s businesses? And is Kaine saying that he will use government power to favor minority businesses over other businesses? How does that square with his promise to create opportunities “for all”?
- Tim Kaine (D) for Senate also promises to “strengthen Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.” Is he saying that even though rising spending on these programs will cause government finances to implode in coming years, he wants to spend even more on them? Does Kaine think it’s fair to enslave young people with even more debt from these programs just to gain votes from greedy geezers?
In sum, I’m seeing a lot from both parties about “strengthening” spending, “protecting” big government, and “championing” some groups of Americans over others. What about voters who want their leaders to strengthen individual rights, protect equality under the law, and champion the United States Constitution?