Spineless senate won't vote to defund DHS

Late last year, Republicans decided to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) only through February in hopes of using the agency’s funding as a lever to force change on immigration once the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. But the bill will need 60 votes to clear the Senate, meaning at least six Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents would have to vote yes.

That looks to be nearly impossible. A survey of several Democratic senators who have been critical of the executive action found most saying they would not support the effort.

In 2011 the Cato Institute published a report entitled: "Abolish The Department Of Homeland Security".

Below is an excerpt from the report"

"DHS has too many subdivisions in too many disparate fields to operate effectively. Agencies with responsibilities for counterfeiting investigations, border security, disaster preparedness, federal law enforcement training, biological warfare defense, and computer incident response find themselves under the same cabinet official. This arrangement has not enhanced the government’s competence. Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu epidemics.
 National defense is a key governmental responsibility, but focusing too many resources on trying to defend every potential terrorist target is a recipe for wasteful spending. Our limited resources are better spent on investigating and arresting aspiring terrorists. DHS responsibilities for aviation security, domestic surveillance, and port security have made it too easy for politicians to disguise pork barrel spending in red, white, and blue. Politicians want to bring money home to their districts, and as a result, DHS appropriations too often differ from what ought to be DHS priorities.  The Department of Homeland Security should be abolished and its components reorganized into more practical groupings. The agencies tasked with immigration, border security, and customs enforcement belong under the same oversight agency, which could appropriately be called the Border Security Administration. The Transportation Security Administration and Federal Air Marshals Service should be abolished, and the federal government should end support for fusion centers. The remaining DHS organizations should return to their former parent agencies.
 Terrorism remains a serious problem, but policymakers ought to be more candid with the American public. Instead of pandering to fear and overreacting to every potential threat, policymakers should keep the risk of terrorist attacks in perspective and focus public resources on cost-effective measures."
Below are a few typical B.S. responses from senators playing the all to familiar terrorism card:

Sen. Angus King, is opposed, said his spokeswoman, Kathleen Connery Dawe. “Sen. King does not support the House bill to defund the president’s executive action on immigration,” she said. “Withholding funds from the Department of Homeland Security would be particularly dangerous at a time of worldwide terrorist threats.” An aide to Sen. Claire McCaskill said she believes “the only responsible way for Republicans to supersede this executive order is to finally consider, debate and vote on comprehensive immigration reform.”

 “I’m not looking for a political fight. I’m looking to solve a problem,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp said in a statement. An aide said the senator is likely to oppose any Homeland Security spending bill that blocks the executive action.

An aide to Sen. Jon Tester said the senator is opposed to using the Homeland Security budget to roll back the executive order. Mr. Tester said in a statement: “If the House had passed the comprehensive, bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate passed a year and a half ago, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. I wish the president wouldn’t have gone out on his own, but threatening the DHS's budget doesn’t solve the immigration crisis or strengthen our borders.”

In addition, the plan would roll back Mr. Obama’s directive to prioritize deportation of recent border crossers and those with serious criminal records—a policy that gives a measure of security to illegal immigrants who do not meet those criteria. It was also expected to revive the Secure Communities program, which uses local law enforcement to hold illegal immigrants who they encounter. In November, Mr. Obama ratcheted that program back.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/10/bill-to-defund-homeland-security-unlikely-to-pass-senate/

Spineless senate approves terrorism insurance bill after NFL threatened not to have Super Bowl this year:

In one of its first legislative acts of the 114th Congress, the House overwhelming passed a reauthorization of the federal terrorism insurance program on Wednesday. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), first passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, expired at the end of 2014. The Senate passed the bill 93 to 4, and President Barack Obama is expected to sign it into law.

After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, many banks and investors required the purchase of terrorism insurance as a condition for capital to finance construction or renovations of buildings deemed “soft targets” for terrorism. Because of the uncertainty in the aftermath of the attacks, Congress created a terrorism insurance program to cap insurers’ risk exposure. The new program put taxpayers on the hook for losses above $100 million from any attack, requiring an eventual repayment of these damages to the feds.

The last ten years have been a windfall for insurance companies: first with the post-9-11 legislation and then Obamacare. Now however, lobbyists are threatening to cancel the Super Bowl unless Congress renews the TRIA to cover insurers so that they will not have to actually pay out for any costs associated with terrorism. There may be good reasons for the bill coverage but there are also some unanswered questions. Do not expect too many answers however.

TRIA was enacted in 2002 the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The insurance companies secured a promise to cover costs for insurance policies that payments related to terrorism. It was renewed in 2005 and in 2007, but was set to expire on December 31st. With the 9-11 attacks over a decade old, some have argued for a return to market control and an end of the subsidy. However, the lobbyists have an ace in the hole. They have the Super Bowl. It does not matter that a few years ago, FIFA was able to work out a special financial arrangement with insurers to hold the World Cup.

With both the insurance industry and the NFL joined, this could be over before it starts. The NFL has proven the champion at acquiring special deals from both the government and private companies.

The “non-for-profit” NFL is aiming at a goal of $25 billion in annual revenues. The NFL has organized with 80 business groups nationwide to form the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism (CIAT) to urge Congress to fund reauthorization of the TRIA legislation. With only the public’s tax money on the other side, there is not likely to be much of a debate. However, the bill will obligate the public to a wide array of businesses for any costs associated with terrorism. The bill obligates us to cover a portion of insured losses above $27.5 billion, up to $100 billion.

Insurers are saying that unless Congress renews the legislation, they have a right to cancel terrorism insurance policies after Jan. 1 . . . including the one covering the Super Bowl.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/11/senate-approves-terrorism-insurance-bill/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-vote-benefit-super-bowl/story?id=27614517
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-09/the-terrorism-risk-insurance-act-is-vital-to-the-super-bowl
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/12/15/lobbyists-no-money-no-super-bowl/