Trump Cut Funding to Fight Domestic Terrorism

Plus, when the social safety net pays for itself

Trump Cut Funding to Fight Domestic Terrorism: Reports

The mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton that left at least 31 dead have raised questions among lawmakers and former officials about the Trump administration’s efforts to thwart domestic terrorism, and the resources the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are allocating toward that mission.

"We need to invest more — no question," Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said Tuesday on "CBS This Morning."

President Trump on Monday said his administration has asked the FBI to identify all additional resources it needs to “investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism” and vowed to provide the bureau with “whatever they need.”

But resources dedicated to fighting domestic terrorism have reportedly been cut under the Trump administration:

  • The Los Angeles Times reports that, despite evidence of a rise in domestic terrorism incidents involving white supremacists, “the Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with identifying threats and preventing domestic terrorism, has sought to redirect resources away from countering anti-government, far-right and white supremacist groups.”

     
  • The Times and NBC News report that a former DHS official testified before Congress in June that the department had made significant cuts since 2017 to the office handling domestic terrorism, reducing a staff of 16 full-time employees and 25 contractors with a total budget of about $21 million to fewer than 10 full-time employees and an operating budget of $2.6 million. “You have some very dedicated government employees still at the office dealing with terrorism prevention and just trying to keep the lights on,” an Obama administration counterterrorism official told the Times.

     
  • The Trump administration reportedly decided not to renew the Obama administration’s Countering Violent Extremism Grant Program and canceled a $400,000 grant for the only grantee that specifically fought white supremacism. Under Trump, 85% of the DHS “Countering Violent Extremism” grants have explicitly targeted Muslims and other minority groups, according to a 2018 analysis by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. That report also found that the Trump administration had nearly tripled the amount of funding flowing directly to law enforcement agencies under those programs, from about $764,000 to $2,340,000.

McAleenan, the Homeland Security chief, told CBS that he has asked Congress for additional funding to bolster the department’s fight against domestic terrorism and said he would like to triple the staff available to address such threats.

Read more at the Los Angeles Times, NBC News or Business Insider. Or see this Rand Corp. study released earlier this year on U.S. terrorism prevention.

When the Social Safety Net Is a Smart Investment

Social welfare programs in the U.S. are sometimes seen as expenses that lawmakers should attempt to minimize, but a new paper from two economists at Harvard University shows that some programs produce more money for the government over time than they cost initially.

The paper’s authors, Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser, analyzed 133 U.S. policy changes over the last 50 years, including the creation of Medicare and the introduction of food stamps, and found a pattern: Programs that benefit low-income children produce financial gains in the long run because they lift incomes and decrease dependence on public assistance.

“The results show there’s a potential to get really high returns when you’re focusing on kids,” said Hendren.

A Leading Example: Medicaid Expansion

The authors found that the expansion of Medicaid between 1979 and 1992 to cover more pregnant women and children paid off over time. The Wall Street Journal’s Soo Oh and Janet Adamy summed up the economists’ analysis of the change in policy:

  • Medicaid expansion cost states $3,473 per mother on average.
  • Additionally, taxes paid fell because some mothers dropped out of the workforce, with losses estimated at $564 per mother who stopped working.
  • But as the children grew older, they experienced lower rates of hospitalization and ill health, saving the government $530 per child.
  • More children went to college, initially costing the government $371 per child more in financial aid.
  • But better health and education boosted the children’s eventual earnings by more than 11% on average.
  • The government’s costs of medical care and education were paid back by the time the recipients were in their 30s, and there was a surplus of $7,014 per child in the long run.

Laura Wherry, a health-policy researcher at UCLA, told The Wall Street Journal, “I think [the study] clearly shows that government programs that are targeted to low-income children are a smart investment.” Along the same lines, the authors write in their conclusion, “From a taxpayer perspective, these expenditures on children are investments, rather than just transfers.”

Not All Welfare Programs Have a Financial Payoff

While some government programs clearly pay for themselves, others are closer to breakeven and some offer no positive financial returns — though they still may be the right thing to do from a social and moral perspective. In general, spending on adults tends to have a lower payoff, the authors found, although programs that have spill-over effects that help children, such as funding for families to move to less impoverished neighborhoods, can be worthwhile.

Unemployment and disability insurance are among the programs that were found to offer no financial return for the government. The simple reason is that a significant percentage of adults who claim these benefits drop out of the workforce, eliminating the potential to pay the government back through taxes.

Other programs that lack a financial payoff for the government include job training and college aid for adults. These programs may fail to enhance human capital, the authors said, and therefore do not generate the returns associated with higher wages and sustained employment.

Read the economists’ paper here, with insightful writeups at The Wall Street Journal (paywall) and Vox.

Opioid Distributors Propose $10 Billion Settlement

Three major prescription-drug distributors — McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen —have offered $10 billion to settle claims they helped to fuel the U.S. opioid epidemic, Bloomberg reports, calling it “the first sign of progress in resolving state lawsuits against the drug distributors” alleged to have helped fuel the national opioid crisis. The states reportedly countered with a demand for $45 billion to cover costs of the public-health crisis. Any settlement would be paid out over decades.

-->

Never miss our emails again! If you're getting this newsletter at your Gmail account, please add us to your contacts list. Just click the email menu (the three dots at the top of the email) and choose Add to Contacts on the pop-up pane.



Send your tips and feedback to yrosenberg@thefiscaltimes.com. Or connect with us on Twitter: @yuvalrosenberg, @mdrainey and @TheFiscalTimes. And please tell your friends they can sign up here to get their own copy of this newsletter.

-->

News

Views and Analysis