The LA Times has a report on how some of the $75 billion spent on 'Homeland Security' is spent.
Its not $1200 toilet seats, but:
In the Los Angeles suburb of Glendale, where police fear militants might be eyeing DreamWorks Animation or the Disney creative campus, a $205,000 Homeland Security grant bought a 9-ton BearCat armored vehicle, complete with turret. More than 300 BearCats — many acquired with federal money — are now deployed by police across the country; the arrests of methamphetamine dealers and bank robbers these days often look much like a tactical assault on insurgents in Baghdad.That makes $60 million in Bearcats alone. How many does the country really need? Do police actually need any?
As always with these stories, the shear scale of the waste makes it impossible to know how much is waste. Is there $1 billion that can be cut without any loss? Almost certainly, in fact a 2% waste rate would be exceptionally good in government (or commerce). Is there $10 billion that could be cut? More?
This is the world I work in and from the trenches, the generals' choice of priorities is bizarre. There is plenty of stuff that could make the country safer, that is cheap or no cost. But that stuff is kind of difficult to explain to the brass. Arming the police with lightweight tanks, building fences and instituting strip searches in airports is something they can understand.
My friend Bruce Schneier calls this 'Security Theater'. It is often an apt description.
