AN INSECURE NATION

Follow the Port Security Money

Published: February 28, 2005

efending the United States from terrorist attack requires an enormous budget, skillfully spent. So why is the federal government spending money to protect Martha's Vineyard while underfinancing New York and Los Angeles?

A new audit of spending on port security - often called the nation's "soft underbelly" - reveals a disturbing trifecta: far too little money appropriated; much of the appropriated money not spent; and much of the money that was spent going for the wrong things. This is all part of a larger problem of misplaced priorities in the homeland security budget.

If terrorists try to bring in a weapon of mass destruction, there is a good chance it will be by placing it in one of the six million shipping containers that arrive every year from overseas. The Coast Guard has estimated that the inspectors, scanning equipment and other measures needed to secure the ports would cost $5.4 billion over the next 10 years. But the federal port security grant program has allocated less than $600 million since 2002, far less than is needed, and only a small fraction of what is being spent on airport security.

Now, the Homeland Security Department's inspector general has found serious problems in how port security funds distributed between June 2002 and December 2003 were spent - or not spent. An audit said that just $107 million of the $515 million allocated - about 20 percent - had been spent by last September, an inexcusably slow pace. Many recipients failed to complete their projects within the one-year limit envisioned by the program.

The ports facing the greatest threat are ones like New York and Los Angeles, located in population-dense areas. But New York, which handles 12 percent of the nation's cargo traffic, received just 7 percent of the grants, and Los Angeles was similarly shortchanged. At the same time, security money was found for ports in St. Croix in the Virgin Islands and Martha's Vineyard, Mass.

Even the money that went to appropriate ports was, in many cases, misspent. The inspector general found that the government "funded several hundred projects despite dubious marks by its evaluators against key criteria." A grant of $180,000 for lighting went to a "small, remote facility that receives less than 20 ships per year," for improvements that an evaluation team found would have "minimal impact." One for $495,000 paid for security additions that field reviewers evaluated as "nice to haves rather than critical needs."

The audit also found that a disturbing amount of money went to private companies that operate ports, in some cases for projects that "appeared to be for a purpose other than security against an act of terrorism." It noted that there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that companies are not using grants to cover their normal cost of doing business. Nor does the government require these for-profit recipients to share the cost. Private companies must not be allowed to raid the port security fund to increase their bottom lines.

Port security is symptomatic of a larger problem. Security spending of all kinds is being distorted by bad choices and pork barrel politics. Wyoming received $38 per person last year, compared with New York's $5.50. The formula was improved late last year, but not enough. As Michael Chertoff, the new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, takes up his new responsibilities, one of his highest priorities should be making sure scarce funds go where they are most needed.

---

Homeland Securty = the new pork. reckless defense spending hasn't been curtailed either. the corrupt self serving professional campaigners up there in washington all want a piece of the money pie, that is why states that are not even afterthoughts for terror attacks are getting millions of dollars pumped into their economies for kneejerk 'security precautions'.

we as americans are all to blame for continually reelecting the same bunch of fiscal failures, because they supposedly represent the interests of their constituents, namely us. it's a systemic problem, where we once again are unable to balance tradition with need, thereby sticking with traditions and completely disregarding our needs. it doesn't matter red blue or purple, elected officials need to get off the spending like america needs to get off that crude. 52$/barrel and rising.