Government: We’re Failing To Protect You So Give Us More Money & Power

If you worked in the private sector you wouldn’t use the fact that you are unable to deliver a service as a reason why people should pay you more for the service. But for politicians the worst possible scenario is to actually solve a problem. If you solve the problem then how can you justify an bigger budget?

Thus, the headline from “Feinstein, Rogers: United States ‘not safer today.’” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) are leaders of their respective and ironically-named intelligence committees.

CNN’s Candy Crowley kicked off her sit-down interview, asking, “Are we safer now than we were a year ago, two years ago?”

“I don’t think so,” Feinstein replied. “I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that. The fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs. Trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnetometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups than ever. And there is huge malevolence out there.”

“So, senator, I have to say, that is not the answer I expected. I expected to hear, ‘Oh, safer,” Crowley said.

And Rogers said he agreed with Feinstein’s assessment.

“I absolutely agree that we’re not safer today for the same very reasons,” he said. “So the pressure on our intelligence services to get it right to prevent an attack are enormous. And it’s getting more difficult.”

The “numbers are way up”? What numbers?

If Feinstein is referring to the torture and killing of Christians in Syria by people whom we encourage, arm, and support, then she might be right. Or if Rogers was referring to the way Al Qaeda is reigning in Libya, then I would understand his claims. But I don’t think that’s what they want Americans to consider.

So why did Crowley expect them to say we are “much safer.”

First, perhaps she assumed that after spending billions and trillions we don’t have to invade countries and set up illegal domestic spying systems, that Feinstein and Rogers might want to assure us that it was money well spent.

Second, perhaps she’s bothered to do some research. For example:


As for “huge malevolence,” what else is our drone policy designed to produce “out there”?

Feinstein and Rogers are well aware that the conservatives in the Republican Party are about to force another showdown over the NSA. They are doing all they can to make us fear others so that we turn to our government to save us.