Homeland Security and Other Boondoggles

The unintended consequences of the Bush administration’s signature reforms.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


“Government likes to begin things—to declare grand new programs and causes,” President Bush said in 2001 at the unveiling of his “Management Agenda,” a program aimed at improving the performance of federal agencies. “But good beginnings are not the measure of success. What matters in the end is completion. Performance. Results.” In subsequent years, the Bush administration gave birth to numerous new executive departments, offices, and programs of its own—and the results are in. A stroll through the graveyard of best intentions…

Department of Homeland Security
Promise: To develop a more effective domestic response to terrorism and natural disasters by bringing 22 federal agencies and more than 200,000 employees under the management of a single Cabinet-level agency.
Performance: DHS has yet to make even “moderate” progress toward improving emergency preparedness and eliminating the kinds of bureaucratic and technological ineptitude that contributed to the 9/11 attacks, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Promise: First proposed by the 9/11 Commission, it was created to place the sprawling, and frequently squabbling, intelligence community under a single authority.
Performance: Added yet another layer of bureaucracy. Like the CIA before it, ODNI is held responsible for overseeing America’s intelligence community (civilian and military), though lacks control over some 80 percent of the nation’s intelligence budget, which remains the purview of the Pentagon.

Military Transformation
Promise: Based on a belief in the transformative power of technology, the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs emphasized using fewer troops, reliance on sophisticated weapons systems, and air strikes.
Performance: Iraq.

No Child Left Behind
Promise: Aimed to improve K-12 education by imposing a series of national achievement standards in math and reading, measured primarily through standardized testing.
Performance: Teachers were tacitly encouraged to “teach to the test,” often at the expense of untested subjects like social studies, foreign languages, the arts, and physical education. Some schools have gamed the system, either by lowering standards or by turning away students who may skew test results.

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Promise: A hallmark of “compassionate conservatism,” which funneled billions of dollars in federal funding to faith-based and community organizations on the belief that such groups are better positioned to cater to local needs.
Performance: By focusing almost exclusively on Christian charities, the office violated the separation of church and state, quickly becoming the target of legal challenges. Its first director, John DiIulio, resigned in disgust, characterizing the Bush administration as “the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis” and alleging that aides were more interested in promoting a partisan agenda than advancing good policy.

Community-Based Abstinence Education
Promise: Pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into local groups that worked to reduce teen pregnancies by preaching abstinence—sometimes literally, through means of Bible readings and exhortations to accept Jesus.
Performance: Last year, instances of teen pregnancy increased for the first time in 15 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

FutureGen
Promise: Established a public-private partnership to build a near-zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant to be located in Mattoon, Illinois—a pilot facility that, if successful, would form the basis for the expansion of clean coal plants.
Performance: In January 2008, the Energy Department withdrew funding, citing cost overruns. Illinois politicians complained that the program was killed after their state edged out Texas as the test site.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate