http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/09/25/ny-times-editorial-on-chemical-security/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:18:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/09/25/ny-times-editorial-on-chemical-security/#comment-16423 William R. Cumming Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:37:48 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/09/25/ny-times-editorial-on-chemical-security/#comment-16423 This controversy has turned into an epic battle but reflects the fact that first principles were never developed or the subject of analysis in the homeland security arena. In this case, left to raw political power to determine the outcome just as raw political power determined that the airlines would largely be subsidized by the taxpayer not the users for the security needs of air travelers. No good analysis exists of the SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) of the industries that have won subsidies from the taxpayer since 9/11 for security. As a result, if the pot of taxpayer money for security is finite then how can there be any rationale allocation based on criticality to the American economy. I am not an economist but the game in Washington is to get your subsidy from Uncle Sam and then protect it and hide it from effective oversight. Note how few Congressional hearings have been held on either airline security or chemical plant security. Again tradeoffs are being made! How much does an aircraft carrier cost and how many new ones are on the ways? How much does a Raptor cost and how many will be produced? The chemical industry operates in a remarkably hidden fashion with few of their new "finds" subject to even listing on the Toxic Registry much less studied for impacts. I live in a rural area but wonder how much of the subsidy to the agricultural sector is almost a direct pass-through to the chemical industry. Basic statistics and analysis are prohibited politically by both parties so it is no wonder that cogent arguments about security get lost in the milieu of politics. This dispute over security vis a vis public expenditure versus private expenditure deserves very careful documentation. Exactly how many of the Directors and Chief Executives and COOs of the chemical industry live within the contamination range of a plant subject to not industrial mishap but intentional attack? How much money has been spent to avoid federal security standards for chemical plants? How much effort is going into making sure that new plants or new investment reflects security issues? Perhaps again the US will get lucky and the terrorist strike will be elsewhere. This controversy has turned into an epic battle but reflects the fact that first principles were never developed or the subject of analysis in the homeland security arena. In this case, left to raw political power to determine the outcome just as raw political power determined that the airlines would largely be subsidized by the taxpayer not the users for the security needs of air travelers. No good analysis exists of the SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) of the industries that have won subsidies from the taxpayer since 9/11 for security. As a result, if the pot of taxpayer money for security is finite then how can there be any rationale allocation based on criticality to the American economy. I am not an economist but the game in Washington is to get your subsidy from Uncle Sam and then protect it and hide it from effective oversight. Note how few Congressional hearings have been held on either airline security or chemical plant security. Again tradeoffs are being made! How much does an aircraft carrier cost and how many new ones are on the ways? How much does a Raptor cost and how many will be produced? The chemical industry operates in a remarkably hidden fashion with few of their new “finds” subject to even listing on the Toxic Registry much less studied for impacts. I live in a rural area but wonder how much of the subsidy to the agricultural sector is almost a direct pass-through to the chemical industry. Basic statistics and analysis are prohibited politically by both parties so it is no wonder that cogent arguments about security get lost in the milieu of politics. This dispute over security vis a vis public expenditure versus private expenditure deserves very careful documentation. Exactly how many of the Directors and Chief Executives and COOs of the chemical industry live within the contamination range of a plant subject to not industrial mishap but intentional attack? How much money has been spent to avoid federal security standards for chemical plants? How much effort is going into making sure that new plants or new investment reflects security issues? Perhaps again the US will get lucky and the terrorist strike will be elsewhere.

]]>