Name:   Talullahhound - Subject:   Would You Miss 'em? Date:   2/26/2015 2:22:33 PM

I don't know, because I've never looked at the total mission of any of them.  Before I started eliminating them, I want to know exactly what they are regulating.  For example, Energy has a lot to do with controlling nuclear components, and I don't know I want that mission dissolved. 

DHS is just too big and needs to be re-examined.  You know that they took a lot of smaller agencies and folded them into something called "DHS" TSA  and FEMA are just two of their missions.  They also evaluate new equipment for civil defense, and other U.S.  uses in their Science and Technology wing.  They are extremely well funded (the current budget snafu not considered).  They have never gelled as an entity, and if you read the reports, you will find that DHS has the worse morale of any government agency.  I believe this is because their mission is not well focused and they have long suffered from extremely poor leadership.   If it were up to me, I would examine its components and see if those missions can be more effectively exectured in other places. 

Easy to jump on a bandwagon saying this or that should be eliminated, because that's a party line, but before I jumped on that bandwagon, I'd want to be sure I know exactly what I am doing without and more importantly, who is now going to do it.  Bad policy does not mean that the regulation and oversight is not needed; it may just mean tha that the policy needs to be rewritten or re-executed in a different way.  That's just my view.