Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!
January 27, 2026, 07:05:10 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: WE NOW HAVE A "GRIN" OR "GROAN" FEATURE UNDER THE KARMA.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Remember When Port Security Was Important?

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Remember When Port Security Was Important?  (Read 687 times)
0 Members and 47 Guests are viewing this topic.
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« on: March 01, 2011, 06:19:46 pm »

I recall a conversation elsewhere years ago about this and the furor from the right wing over funding for port security.

My. How things have changed!

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/02/26/2011-02-26_ports_face_big_cuts.html


Quote
The GOP war on government spending is set to claim an unexpected casualty: port security in New York and New Jersey.

A measure passed by the House to fund the rest of the fiscal year would slash federal anti-terrorism cash for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey by a stunning 66%, a Daily News analysis found.

Nearly $34 million was budgeted to help keep the ports safe, but the Republican-led House voted to spend only $11 million in its proposal to cut $61 billion this year.

I guess when that container ship blows up killing hundreds of union workers it'll all be Obama's fault.  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2011, 06:29:40 pm »

Oh. The borders too!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/028113.php

Quote
Fox News' Steve Doocy told viewers yesterday he feels sorry for Arizona, because as he sees it, federal officials aren't "doing their job" when it comes to immigration and border security.

This is a common complaint among Republicans. As the GOP sees it, policymakers can't even begin to discuss comprehensive immigration reform because the federal government isn't doing enough to "protect the border."

I tend to think most of this rhetoric is absurd, but this week, it took a more interesting turn. If the Republican emphasis is on border security, why did Republicans vote to reduce funding for their own priority?

In a letter sent on Monday to House appropriations leaders, Senator Charles Schumer of New York and two other Democrats said the House bill would shrink the Border Patrol by 870 agents and cut $272 million in funds for surveillance systems to monitor the border with Mexico. They said those cuts would cancel gains from a bill adopted last August, with virtually unanimous bipartisan support, that increased border funding by $600 million, adding 1,000 new agents to the Border Patrol.

"This magnitude of reduction is simply dangerous," wrote Mr. Schumer, who is chairman of the Senate judiciary subcommittee on immigration. Also signing were Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Jon Tester of Montana. [...]

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of slowing border enforcement, allowing illegal immigration and drug violence to run out of control. Support for their criticism came in testimony last week before a House Homeland Security subcommittee by Richard M. Stana of the Government Accountability Office. He reported that by the Border Patrol's own standards, its agents had "operational control" over only 873 miles of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico in 2010, or about 44 percent.

On Tuesday, House Republicans said this wasn't good enough. Three days later, those same House Republicans voted to make the security they consider insufficient considerably worse -- a smaller Border Patrol with fewer agents and less surveillance would mean a step backwards from the GOP's own goals.

The next question, then, is why in the world Republicans would demand improved border security and then vote to do the opposite. The answer, I suspect, is that House GOP officials don't really know what they're doing -- they looked at the budget for the fiscal year like a pinata, and just started swinging wildly while blindfolded. It seems quite likely to me that Republicans slashed funding for the Border Patrol without even realizing it.
Report Spam   Logged

FooFa
Founding Member
Noob
******

Karma: +1/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 2398



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Webmaster Search Windows User
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2011, 08:23:36 pm »



If I may make an observation based on reality and not be accused of being a conspiracy theorist I would appreciate...

According to the government we are under a massive threat from al-Qaeda and have spent billions on new agencies and security equipment and so forth. Yet less than 5% of the shipping containers entering the country are inspected.

How does that even approach being sensible?
Report Spam   Logged

Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2011, 09:50:34 am »


If I may make an observation based on reality and not be accused of being a conspiracy theorist I would appreciate...

According to the government we are under a massive threat from al-Qaeda and have spent billions on new agencies and security equipment and so forth. Yet less than 5% of the shipping containers entering the country are inspected.

How does that even approach being sensible?

Not sayin' it's a conspiracy theory...

Quote
The 95-percent figure is misleading and falsely implies that we do nothing to inspect cargo containers arriving at our seaports. We use intelligence to review information on 100 % of cargo entering our ports, and all cargo that presents a risk to our country is inspected using large x-ray and radiation detection equipment. Following 9/11, the Administration developed and implemented a smarter strategy to identify, target, and inspect cargo containers before they reach U.S. ports. While it is possible to secure a nation by closing its borders and inspecting everything and everybody that enters, doing so would render us obsolete.

None of the security measures implemented as a result of this strategy existed before 9/11.

Our strategy is to rule out potential threats before they arrive at our borders and ports. In fact, the security measures now in place allow us to rule out 94 % of the cargo as potential threats prior to its arrival into the United States. Six percent (6 %) of total cargo containers were identified this year as potential threats and were physically inspected immediately upon arrival. (The percentage will change annually because the inspections are based upon identified risk following intensive screening.) Dramatically increasing physical inspections after arrival is a waste of resources that will not appreciably increase our national security. In fact, the type of increase in physical inspections implied by this allegation would cost billions of dollars in resources and cripple not only the U.S. economy, but the global economy as well.
Report Spam   Logged

FooFa
Founding Member
Noob
******

Karma: +1/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 2398



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Webmaster Search Windows User
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2011, 11:12:45 am »



I take it the quote is from HLS or some official gov sight?
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy