“Ineffective” – DHS Spends $360 Million On Border Drones With No Positive Results….

Border walls won’t work, they say.  We don’t need a fence, they say. It only takes electronic surveillance, they say.  We can secure the border with enhanced electronic monitoring, they say.  Well here’s a clear $360,000,000.00 chink in that argument…..

drone 2Oh, and they want to waste $443 million more – (via Judicial Watch) Drones used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “guard” the U.S. border for nearly a decade are ineffective even though the agency has blown hundreds of millions of dollars on the failed program and wants Congress to keep funding it.

It’s yet another example of what government does best; waste money. In this case the frontline DHS agency—U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)—that operates the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAC) is actually requesting more money from Congress to keep the futile drone experiment going. Imagine a private business that for years blew huge sums on a failed enterprise asking investors to pour more cash into the same useless project.

That’s pretty much what DHS is doing and the details are offered in an audit published this month by the agency’s inspector general. The Border Patrol has used drones for around eight years, the audit reveals, at a cost of about $360 million. In fiscal year 2013 alone the agency spent $62.5 million to operate the program, or about $12,255 per hour.

border3It gets better. DHS has lied about the cost of operating the drones, the inspector general writes in its report, by drastically downplaying the real figures. The “calculation of $2,468 per flight hour does not include operating costs, such as the costs of pilots, equipment, and overhead,” the report says. “By not including all operating costs, CBP also cannot accurately assess the program’s cost effectiveness or make informed decisions about program expansion.”

The inspector general goes on to blast the agency for its deceiving accounting practices involving drones. “In addition, unless CBP fully discloses all operating costs, Congress and the public are unaware of all the resources committed to the Unmanned Aircraft System program. As a result, CBP has invested significant funds in a program that has not achieved the expected results, and it cannot demonstrate how much the program has improved border security.” It’s a diplomatic way of saying our Homeland Security officials are embroiled in corrupt acts or, at the very least, misuse of public funds.

When CBP launched its drone program, it anticipated that there would be increased apprehensions of illegal border crossers, a reduction in border surveillance costs and improvement in the agency’s efficiency.

The inspector general found that none of this has materialized. In fact, drone surveillance has been credited with assisting in less than 2% of CBP apprehensions of illegal border crossers. “CBP also planned to use unmanned aircraft to operate a radar sensor over the southwest border to increase awareness and analyze surveillance gaps, but sensor operations have been limited,” the report says. “In addition, the unmanned aircraft do not operate along the entire southwest border as has been reported.” (read more)

border-signs

border-sign 3

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Death By Illegal Alien, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Mexico, Notorious Liars, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to “Ineffective” – DHS Spends $360 Million On Border Drones With No Positive Results….

  1. upaces88 says:

    The Cartels have built sophisticated tunnels complete with lighting and water from Mexico to the U.S.
    Drones are a good idea….and/or, put the Military on the border.
    Prior to that run ads in the major newspapers in Mexico that anyone caught crossing the borders will be shot on sight.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sentient says:

      1) drones only serve to notify humans who may or may not be dispatched to interdict encroachers. Hint: democrat president, no interdiction 2) military on the border can be redeployed after the cameras are gone – as would be done by any democrat or uniparty president. 3) “shoot on sight” or ” land mines” (Cruz) or “moat” (Obama) only serve to deprecate the idea of a physical barrier (fence/wall). 4) tunneling under the border is tremendously expensive. It has been done only by the drug cartels, not merely to enable encroaching by would-be immigrants. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sharon says:

      ….run ads in the major newspapers in Mexico that anyone caught crossing the borders will be shot on sight.

      Well, that certainly is an idea but it would only be effective if anyone caught crossing the borders actually were shot on sight.

      Liked by 3 people

      • dginga says:

        It probably wouldn’t take very many before the word got out in Mexico.

        Liked by 2 people

        • barbi says:

          They’d do what terrorists do—they’d shove a child there and the person who ordered “shoot on sight any movement” would be eaten alive by Americans, who don’t want to be portrayed as kid killers.

          Like

        • Sharon says:

          The point is that any securing of the border is dependent on supervisors on the scene being allowed to enforce the law (whatever it is at the moment – or in the last five years). Whether enforcement consists of immediately returning all illegals or shooting them on sight is not where the problem lies.

          A willingness to do what is necessary to have lawful processes and secure borders is a necessary feature of a sovereign nation. The willingness to enforce laws on behalf of a sovereign nation is where the failure is. We don’t have to kill illegals or those attempting illegal entry. We just need to keep them out.

          Remaining a free people requires that we are able to govern ourselves both as a group and as individuals. Overkill such as is suggested would be yet another evidence of inability or unwillingness to do that.

          Like

  2. Millwright says:

    Surveillance, like all other forms of “intel’ requires “interpretation’ to be an effective tool. In so many ways our ‘intel agencies’ (at least as publicized) seem like the English prior to creating Bletchley Park . Border surveillance drones yield data, but only analysis/interpretation can make sense of the data. But the third leg of the surveillance/acquisition, analysis triad is action. So far we have lots of the first two, but damn little of the essential third.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. peppie says:

    The new Air Force One! What a joke!

    Like

  4. upaces88 says:

    Arm the damn drones!
    After all, they are invading a country.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Did you ask the Blue brothers? Being the owners of General Atomics (manufacturer of the MQ-9 Reaper pictured here), I imagine they noticed some positive results from the government spending.

    http://www.alternet.org/investigations/billionaire-brothers-behind-americas-predator-drones-and-their-very-strange-past

    “A 2006 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that General Atomics was among the biggest sponsors of congressional trips, outspending other defense contractors by 50 times or more–and that’s not counting the roughly $2.5 million a year it spends on lobbying.”

    Liked by 4 people

  6. justfactsplz says:

    This is just another example of another government agency that is too big and spends too much money without producing results. Less government. Make America Great Again. Secure our borders NOW!

    Liked by 6 people

  7. Obama likes drones, and he’s easy to impress with tech BS – especially if it has a positive Cloward-Piven coefficient. Jeh likes his job, and as a diversity lawyer, he’s an experienced BS deliverer.

    Pretty sure I didn’t leave anything out.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Nation says:

    Are they actually using the drones or is this money going to someone’s slush fund?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sentient says:

      Think about it. What does “use the drones” even mean? At best, notification is sent to border patrol who attempt to interdict, only to find the encroachers already gone and melting into the night. At worst, drone data is sent to border patrol and ignored. Drones are a perfect solution if you really don’t want to stop the encroaching.

      Liked by 5 people

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      This is the story with everything they spend money on.
      Where is the 500 million Solyndra money?
      Where is all of the money paid to Planned Parenthood by Medicaid?

      All of these projects are just politicians engineering election campaign war chests into government spending. You are paying taxes to get people re-elected.

      A congressman’s main goal is to get re-elected.
      You give them control over all tax revenue.

      You have no idea where the money goes because transparency is not engineered into our government spending.

      Add all that up.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. GrimmTale says:

    The ONLY effective deterrent on the border is a fence/wall, stocked with armed personnel at strategic points aided with surveillance. When you do not have that crucial first piece (a complete fence/wall), there’s no surveillance in the world that will be effective.
    DHS knows this, as does USBP. However, instead – DHS allows USBP to attempt to perform its mission, knowing it will fail. USBP Sector’s now have 10-20 times the leadership staff than it did only 5-short years ago, all in place to analyze data, strategic placement, blah blah blah – all of it nonsense. It’s a huge price-tag for an ineffective army against a war which DHS does NOT want to win. We all know – if DHS did want to win this illegal immigration war, it easily could.

    Liked by 3 people

    • upaces88 says:

      Obama wants a grateful and new voting base. I don’t think he intends to step down.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sentient says:

      Agreed. “Drones” are a farce. “Enhance border security”, “secure the border”, “troops on the border” are all -unto themselves – weasel words and euphemisms for leaving the border wide open. Any of those measures can be undone at a moment’s notice. In contrast, there is no way that “fence” can equal “not fence”. The most progressive president would not have the cajones to undo/dismantle an already-built fence.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. moogey says:

    Saudi Arabia is building a 600 mile wall and a 1000 mile wall.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/233628-saudi-arabia-anti-isis-wall/

    America, however, has been informed that we build a wall, the aliens will just buy 14 foot ladders. It’s all in the mind set.

    Like

  11. TwoLaine says:

    Meanwhile, I Will Build A Fence Trump secures another upward notch in Twitter Followers. AM total is now 3.34M.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. dizzymissl says:

    Maybe they could arm the drones with indelible ink and drop it on the aliens

    Like

  13. TwoLaine says:

    Book: South by Southwest by David J Urban

    Read page 38 beginning with the paragraph “The land was in the middle of the Devil’s Highway”, and continue through the bottom of page 40.

    http://tinyurl.com/o85k7kd

    Note: This book was copyrighted in 2006. The Mark Twain quote I wrote about yesterday is the beginning of Chapter 1.

    P.S. I was researching the Preventable Murder of Kimberly Charlene Hope at the hands of Illegal Aliens when I stumbled across her referenced in this book.

    Like

  14. manickernel says:

    Use the money to hire illegals to build the wall. Everyones happy.

    Like

    • realitycheck says:

      The H#LL with paying them, they are ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL because of sneaking across.
      After they have been arrested and thrown into jail they work on the wall.
      They can go back to their home country AFTER working on the wall for a period of time. If they come back , that time doubles.

      (shakin it boss)

      Liked by 2 people

    • booger71 says:

      No, I want a fence built correctly, not the shabby way the illegals build stuff in my neck of the woods.

      I actually drew up plans for a border fence that I sent to my Congressman. I am a retired federal prison officer and know something about maximum security fencing, and have seen firsthand what damage climbing one can inflict on the body. You put out bids to 5 or 6 fence contractors and give each a section to build (stipulate that each worker must be an American citizen) , in turn they build two 20 foot tall chain link fences, 20 feet apart with the posts concreted 6 feet into the ground. You fill the area between the fences up to the top with razor wire (that stuff will cut you to shreds), and you weld finger wire on the inside of the fencing. Finger wire is a small wire mesh that even a child cannot get their fingers through. Every half mile a fence alarm is placed on the U.S side calibrated to go off when 50 pounds of pressure or more is applied. You also build a gravel road on the U.S side the entire length. Along with this, camera drones could be used to aid the border patrol in catching people trying to breech the fence. My calculations at the time I proposed this, was under 5 billion in cost and could be done in less than 18 months with 5 or 6 contractors involved. While the fence is being constructed and to protect the contractors, the president could deploy the National Guard with order to shoot to kill if fired upon or if they find illegals trying to destroy the fence during the construction . I think it would be money well spent. Now granted there would be groups filing lawsuits like crazy, but Barry has already proven that a president can successfully ignore court orders without consequences.

      Liked by 3 people

  15. One word: cronyism

    Like

  16. czarowniczy says:

    OK, let’s go back to prehistoric times (the Reagan years) when we had (here i go again) teams of SF and Army Active Duty, Reserve and National Guard working the border on various projects that promised to solve the illegal/smuggling problems. We moved to road building, sensor emplacement, aerial sensors and a host of other smaller projects all designed to solve the illegal/smuggling problems. Problem is that none of them were funded/manned to any level that would even come remotely close to being successful – they were largely eyewash. Starting to see a pattern here?
    The border between the US and Mexico is about 1900 miles long with over 12200 of those miles being between Mexico and Texas (hereafter referred to as Mexico North). Much of it’s rugged terrain with valleys and washes, the Rio Grande wriggles and undulates across the landscape making the real length of the border far longer – and how many drones do they have in the air? We have a lot ,ore drone coverage in Afghanistan and we still can’t find all of the Taliban operating there – hi-valu targets, we’re trying to do what here?
    It’s eyewash, designed to spend a few bucks here and there and give the public some fuel for their denial. The public in general is somewhat worried about the illegals coming in and the possible cultural climate they’ll create here (yeah, crime is in that mix) but feel powerless to prevent the illegals flooding in, leaving them primarily with denial as a defense. So the government blathers on about this that or the other techno BS item(s) that will solve the problem and their denial’s salved. It’s worked for some 30 years, why change it?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yup, same theory is being used right now today in the current admins White House ( commander zero ) where? In Iraq, against Isis, as you say, pure eyewash. It’s still expensive to fire missles/drop bombs (someone profits) but has no real effect on this enemy. Now, since we pulled out ( commander zero again ) Iran is eagerly & brazenly in theater, doing what they do & now with a Iran nuke deal? Geez.. I sense a meltdown in the years ahead..

      Like

    • Arkindole says:

      In a parallel universe somewhere. Deterrence.

      Liked by 1 person

    • manickernel says:

      Of course welcoming them with open arms and just giving up, along with allowing the kids in (chaperoned by older teens) then flying in the parents as is happening now, is kinda silly. At least find some way to kick them out and keep them out, remove the incentive for coming here. No benefits, no jobs, and mandatory long prison terms for illegals involved in drug trade or violent crime.

      Like

  17. We need a wall plus a moat with alligators and piranhas. It’s that simple. BTW great blog, keep up the great work you do. Just found you and I just put you in my links.
    http://unconqueredresistance.blogspot.com/

    Like

  18. JeremyR says:

    I don’t have a problem with making drones patrol the border. We have 535 of them and their staff sitting around Washington whose time would be better served protecting our southern flank.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Billie says:

    You can build and deploy all the drones you want, but if you don’t deport border crossers, what is the purpose. Similarly, why do we continue to maintain border patrol checkpoints 100s of miles from the border if we don’t deport people?

    Like

  20. mcfyre2012 says:

    They are quite effective…at arming-up O’Blah-blah’s Homeland Guard as he defunds the military. Progressivism at work.

    Like

  21. Allen says:

    Drones are the PlayStation’s and XBoxes of DHS.
    Just think of the employment opportunities of thousands of jobless Americans to defend our borders. All the taxpayer dollars spent so far have been spent on symptoms created by Obama and his administration.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. oldiadguy says:

    Build a fence or build a wall. These works for me.

    Great Wall of China

    http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.ANzn5Igk6/XvIGjFlAxIlQ&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

    Hadrian’s Wall

    http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.B5ztlC3KLQuZYkGCJEN1hw&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

    Great states build great things. Failing states just talk about doing great things.

    Take Care

    Liked by 1 person

  23. VegasGuy says:

    Typical Washington mode of operation…….

    If it doesn’t work DON”T fix it…..Just keep funding it. Their warped logic is that if enough tax $$$ is put into a “pet” project, then eventually if can’t be ended.

    If ended, then when those “funds” will be put to “somebody elses” project. Can’t have that, can we?

    Never a thought to ending a progam & NOT reappropriating the funds. Why do that. The funds are already imbedded in the deficit, right? Can’t let appropriated funding go to waste.

    Programs that have zero results, like this, actually NEED expansion & additional funding. It’s the American way….. Paraphrasing a Will Rogers quote….”I never saw a dollar I didn’t spend (or waste)” …..LOL

    LOL….Trump will “fix” this logic, me thinks. He will show them a balance sheet that they can’t reconcile and then sit back and watch them scramble. Business sense verses Political BS….

    Should be quite interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharon says:

      The funds are already imbedded in the deficit, right?

      Exactly. And from that position they provide the foundation for endless increases.

      …a Washington concept called the current services budget. Stick with us here; this is important.

      In the 1974 Budget Act, Congress slipped this concept into the budgeting process. What it means is this: spending in the next fiscal year that supports all the programs — the current services — in the current fiscal year is automatic: it is the baseline.

      Think about that for a second. The “no change in spending” condition in Washingtonese means that if, for instance, there are more claimants to a service such as Social Security or Medicare, that is “no change.” It also means that all the expenditures to maintain current services represent “no change.” That is, the promotions, pay increases, adjustments for inflation to maintain current services represent “no change.”

      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/06/obamas_spending_and_the_dog_that_didnt_bark.html

      Like

      • VegasGuy says:

        Yep…That pesky “Washington concept called the current services budget”…

        That’s why it really doesn’t matter if or when a program ends. The initial funds appropriated will just get “recycled” to something else. Most of the time with a budget increase.

        It’s like the Infinite Universe of spending…..No one knows just how vast it is or if there is a boundry.

        Guess we will need to see if the FEd printing press runs out of ink or paper first….We already know they have run out of intelligence…..

        Like

  24. TwoLaine says:

    This sweet little boy is Alex Tsuji. Alex was 2 1/2 when he was murdered by an Illegal Alien. His Mother tells their story.

    http://worshippingchristian.org/blog/?p=2821

    Like

  25. yakmaster2 says:

    TRUMP NEEDS TO FAMALIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THIS IG’S REPORT BEFORE THE DEBATE. Someone email this article to him with a recommendation that he read it.
    (I’d call him, but I’ve misplaced his number.)

    Like

  26. TwoLaine says:

    Up another one! 3.35M Trumpeter Twitter Followers.

    Like

  27. TwoLaine says:

    Donald Trump FULL Speech in Iowa Campaign Rally – July 25, 2015

    Like

  28. Sentenza says:

    As someone with a ground eye view of DHS, I can safely say that the agency thrives on looking like you are Doing Something without actually doing anything substantive. DHS is security theater.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s