BajaNomad

A contemporary report and history of what is CBP.

Cisco - 12-26-2014 at 08:34 PM

Found this noted on OT. Very interesting article/report. Contains:

"The United States today spends more money each year on border and immigration enforcement than the combined budgets of the FBI, ATF, DEA, Secret Service and U.S. Marshals—plus the entire NYPD annual budget. Altogether, the country has invested more than $100 billion in border and immigration control since 9/11.

It has paid for quite a force: Customs and Border Protection not only employs some 60,000 total personnel—everything from desert agents on horseback to insect inspectors at airports—but also operates a fleet of some 250 planes, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator drones the military sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, making CBP both the largest law enforcement air force in the world and equivalent roughly to the size of Brazil’s entire combat air force.

The Border Patrol wing of this vast apparatus has experienced particularly dramatic growth: By the time the Bush administration left Washington, the fiercely independent agency—part police force, part occupying army, part frontier cavalry—had gone from being a comparatively tiny, undermanned backwater of the Justice Department to a 21,000-person arm of the largest federal law enforcement agency in the country."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/border-patrol...

The article goes from the inception of the service, it's roots and history to today.

Excellent read.

J.P. - 12-27-2014 at 10:44 AM

They left out the one most obvious fact, IT'S THE MOST INEFFICENT BRANCH OF GOVT.:barf:

[Edited on 12-29-2014 by J.P.]

vandenberg - 12-27-2014 at 11:40 AM

Quote: Originally posted by J.P.  
They left out the one most obvious fact, IT'S THE MOST INEFFICENT BAANCH OF GOVT.:barf:


Anything to do with government is inefficient.:light::(

MitchMan - 12-31-2014 at 01:46 PM

Private businesses are also very, very, very inefficient...that is why there is such a high failure rate...especially among new business ventures AND even among many long standing businesses that we have all seen go out of business.

The belief that business per se is efficient is nonsense, and there is an abundance of proof of that.

Barry A. - 12-31-2014 at 02:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by MitchMan  
Private businesses are also very, very, very inefficient...that is why there is such a high failure rate...especially among new business ventures AND even among many long standing businesses that we have all seen go out of business.

The belief that business per se is efficient is nonsense, and there is an abundance of proof of that.


True, but I submit, a relative statement. Is there credible info that Private business is MORE inefficient than Govt. run entities???? I have always believed not!!! and I think the stats support my belief. As long as a plethora of ineffective and conflicting laws and policies concerning illegal border activities and crossings remain, then we will never gain control of our borders--------THAT is what the argument is all about, IMO, and the incredible waste of resources----chasing one's tails around and around.

Barry

C205Driver - 12-31-2014 at 02:16 PM

Mitch my Man. . .Government does NOT have competition AND they have UNLIMITED backing; not so for the private sector. . .LOTS of private business fail because of a POOR business model, lack of financing & competition & illness, & etc.. . . YMMV. . .I do not by your argument

MitchMan - 12-31-2014 at 03:01 PM

Barry, the intent and mission and objectives for business are different than for government. Business is about self-interest for the owner, maximizing profit. Sometimes that may mean efficiency, but many other times maximizing profit may have nothing to do with efficiency such as gaining controlling market share, out advertising ones competitors, finding a niche, going to a location where there is little to no competition, paying a competitor not to manufacture a generic drug, buying a competitor and putting their product out of production, spending more on promotion, etc., etc., etc. Barry, there are businesses that are inefficient and can still make money.

Certainly there are some businesses that are more efficient that others, but most often the product that businesses sell are uniquely different than the service or product that governments are charged with providing.

You may have 'always' believed that there is no credible info that private business is MORE inefficient than government run entities, but be careful about referring to stats that support your broad belief because you would then have to explain why so many businesses go out of business if your belief is to be supported. Why aren't May Company and Broadway still around? Lehman Brothers? Maybe we should turn over the government to one of the CEO's on Wall Street since they did such a stellar job on the financial structure in 2007/8? What do your 'stats' say about that? And...what about those lost and wasted 'resources'.

Maybe the founders of our nation got it wrong and should have aligned themselves with your lack of confidence in government and created a for profit corporation with a CEO to replace the Confederacy instead of the Constitution and the three branches of our government?

Barry, I think what you have to understand is that you and I are 'works in progress', our families, our communities, our cities, states and this nation's governance are all "Works in Progress". And, yes, even all businesses are works in progress. And that, IMO, is what this argument is all about. If you expect perfection and nothing less of any business or any government, you are in a fantasy alternative universe.

Our founders did their best to write a Constitution that left room for growth and change so that it could adapt to unforeseen challenges in the future. The founders had our best interest at heart. Good luck in believing that business has your best interest at heart instead of their bottom line.

Barry A. - 12-31-2014 at 03:28 PM

MitchMan---------Since I have made the bulk of my income, and built net-worth for well over 45 years from owning stocks in Worldwide Private companies, it is hard for me to bad-mouth them and say they do NOT have my "best interests" at heart-----------they (most of them) certainly have consistently rewarded me long term big-time. There certainly have been stinkers, but by far most of them have done well by me, and way outperformed & off-set the stinkers. As you say, "nothing is perfect" but I trust Private Industry a lot more than the fickle Government, as Govt. managers and employees have no profit motive to keep them efficient. I worked for the Fed. Government (29 yrs) because the job was fun, not because it was profitable (for me) or efficient, which it wasn't.

C205Driver addressed why some business's go out-of-business in the above post, so I won't address that, and you certainly know what he meant.

I would have liked to "turn over the Govt." to a CEO type person, which is why I voted for Mitt Romney, who in my opinion is the most qualified man in my history of voting.

IMO the Founder's wrote a very specific Constitution, with just enough vagueness to yes, allow for "change and progress" WITHIN their general guidelines which they outlined very clearly and specifically. It's an inspired document, which is why it has been the gold-standard for many other Countries since.

On balance, I obviously take a conservative view of almost everything, because by and large it has worked so well for the past 200 plus years for all of us. (some more than others)

Barry

Barry A. - 12-31-2014 at 03:33 PM

MitchMan---------Since I have made the bulk of my income, and built net-worth for well over 45 years from owning stocks in Worldwide Private companies, it is hard for me to bad-mouth them and say they do NOT have my "best interests" at heart-----------they (most of them) certainly have consistently rewarded me long term big-time. There certainly have been stinkers, but by far most of them have done well by me, and way outperformed & off-set the stinkers. As you say, "nothing is perfect" but I trust Private Industry a lot more than the fickle Government, as Govt. managers and employees have no profit motive to keep them efficient. I worked for the Fed. Government (29 yrs) because the job was fun, not because it was profitable (for me) or efficient, which it wasn't.

C205Driver addressed why some business's go out-of-business in the above post, so I won't address that, and you certainly know what he meant.

I would have liked to "turn over the Govt." to a CEO type person, which is why I voted for Mitt Romney, who in my opinion is the most qualified man in my history of voting.

IMO the Founder's wrote a very specific Constitution, with just enough vagueness to yes, allow for "change and progress" WITHIN their general guidelines which they outlined very clearly and specifically. It's an inspired document, which is why it has been the gold-standard for many other Countries since.

On balance, I obviously take a conservative view of almost everything, because by and large it has worked so well for the past 200 plus years for all of us. (some more than others)

Barry

MitchMan - 12-31-2014 at 03:38 PM

Driver, are you saying that most all businesses are efficient but they have only gone out of business largely for the reasons you stated?

BTW, don't you think that creating a poor business model is an inefficiency? I do. If the business was efficient, it would have exercised that efficiency and created good business model. You know business models are not made in a vacuum. It is "efficient" to do adequate and sufficient due diligence in the process of creating a business model, use researched assumptions and make efficient examinations of the market and the product and the plan for putting out the product together with documented/supported coherent forecasts for both costs and revenues.

It is quite an inefficiency to actually launch a business without adequate financing which goes back to the inefficient business model that either didn't reflect the required financing (as a proper and efficient business model is supposed to do) or the entrepreneur himself was so inefficient that he launched the business before securing adequate financing.

Underestimating competition is an unforgivable inefficiency...reflects, among other things, not doing a workup on the market...lack of obvious due diligence. And, not to do due diligence is a massive inefficiency.

I'll give you the "illness" factor, but, have you ever heard of "Key Man" insurance?

My goal in my first post was to discredit the common and mistaken belief among many that businesses are per se efficient. They are not. The fact that many, many businesses have gone out of business, are going out business now, and many more will go out of business in the future is most often a reflection of some and often many inefficiencies.

There are other reasons, many actually, that businesses go out of business, and may not have been for lack of efficiency alone. And, the point there is that "a business" is not a good model to compare to government. Especially because so many businesses go out of business due to inefficiency and due to other factors as well, mostly always due to bad business decisions by owners/management.

Given the preceding recognition of the fallibility of business, the lack of longevity with its horrible track record of failures, I wouldn't want a for profit corporation running the country...and neither would the founders.

I don't know, maybe you would.

I dare you to prove anything thing I said in my first post was incorrect or false. Then tell me specifically what part of what I said that you 'do not by(sic)".

bajaguy - 12-31-2014 at 03:50 PM

The problem is - I see it - A large majority of elected/appointed government officials at all levels (federal/state/local) have never worked in private business or industry They have never had to hustle for business, deal with customers, provide a quality product, meet payroll or manage a budget........

Speaking of government budgets......most are of the model - Spend it all this year or we won't get as much next year. There is no incentive for government agencies or managers to save money or return money not spent, unlike a private business. After all, it's not "their" money

No thinking outside the box, "we have always done it this way" and any change is like trying to stop the sun from rising

MitchMan - 12-31-2014 at 04:21 PM

Barry, while I am happy for you that your investing has turned out well, that data set is not adequate or sufficient a representation of business taken as a whole. That's just your personal experience and that, on the big picture of things, is just not representative of the whole.

I have no objection to having a CEO type person as President, so long as that person has the proper vision and requisite knowledge and character to have only the best interest of ALL of the citizens of this country at his heart. Mitt Romney was exposed as not having ALL of this country's citizens best interest in his heart. I think that was made quite evident publicly. Also, it is quite evident that Mitt Romney has his self interest as his primary motivation in life as evidenced by his unusual personal financial machinations and related resistance to full disclosure.

BTW, I don't know that the Native American Indians and slaves that were emancipate during the mid 18oo's would necessarily agree with your statement that "by and large it has worked so well for the past 200 plus years for all of us".

Also, Barry, it is not 'your conservative view' that has worked so well for the past 200 years. That's a bit assumptive and overly simplistic, don't you think? There has been a great deal of 'evolution' in our government and it has come from Amendments to the Constitution together with the morphing and adaptation of local, state, and federal governance through much legislation and thousands of court decisions and legal doctrines, agency responsiveness, and creation of many institutions, not to mention changing culture and values. What has survived is this US Constitutionally based democracy for over 200 years and declare that it is "conservatism" that accounts for it borders on hubris and error. Keep in mind that conservatism is based on an aversion to change while the reason that our Constitutional government has survived is due to successful adaption through change...that is the sole purpose of legislation and the branch of government embodied in the Congress.

I know what Driver said, and based on that, I just think he's coming from an erred position on the matter. I don't presume to read minds, I just limit my take based on what he has written.

Barry A. - 12-31-2014 at 04:38 PM

As in the past, MitchMan, I think it best to just "agree to disagree" on these matters. You are a skilled debater, and I don't have the memory, or facts at my disposal to adequately defend my position, nor the interest, and that is obvious.

Still, (risking a cry of cop-out) I believe that you, and others, know roughly where I am coming from, but for reasons only you know, are interested in only the debate from a competitive point of view. I am not equipped or interested in playing that game.

Life (for me and mine) is good, and I planned it that way which is only possible in a free society where ANYBODY can succeed. I am so lucky to be born in the USA.

HAPPY NEW YEAR , tho. :yes:

Barry

MitchMan - 12-31-2014 at 04:42 PM

bajaguy, what you said is incorrect. Most elected and appointed (I take you mean 'hired') officials have worked in the private sector at one time or another, have lived in households where the parents and brothers and sisters and extended family have worked in the private sector. Also, governments have to meet payrolls every pay period, have to meet budgets also, just like the private sector...been going on for centuries. Actually, many businesses don't have budgets, especially the small ones which is most businesses. Also, government has to deal with citizens all the time. Sounds like what you wrote is what I hear almost verbatim on talk radio. You have to watch out for repetition, could take you down a rabbit hole.

BTW, the only person who owns the money in a business is the owner. So, the vast majority of people in business...it's not their money either. And, I guess you have never worked for a big business that has a budget because, the managers also go buy spending their entire budget, because if they don't, their budgeted amount will be reduced next year...everybody knows that. It's not just government that works that way.

No thinking outside the box, mmm. If business thinks outside the box so much, why did the Japanese beat the crap out of the US automobile industry? Why is Sears going away? JC Penny? Why are the Chinese accelerating their research so much more than our businesses? Why is our democracy and Constitutional government so much better than those in the rest of the world?

It sounds like you guys want to Scrap the USA and create one big Corporation to run the country? Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, John Jay, Franklin, Washington, John Adams would all disagree with you. Where is your patriotism? Don't you like your country? Which country do you guys like better?

Barry A. - 12-31-2014 at 04:53 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajaguy  
The problem is - I see it - A large majority of elected/appointed government officials at all levels (federal/state/local) have never worked in private business or industry They have never had to hustle for business, deal with customers, provide a quality product, meet payroll or manage a budget........

Speaking of government budgets......most are of the model - Spend it all this year or we won't get as much next year. There is no incentive for government agencies or managers to save money or return money not spent, unlike a private business. After all, it's not "their" money

No thinking outside the box, "we have always done it this way" and any change is like trying to stop the sun from rising


Boy BajaGuy, you got that right!!!

In my 13 years as a Govt. Supervisor and Program Chief, I ALWAYS turned money back in at the end of the year, and ALWAYS I was derided for doing it, and my Bosses gave my returns to other areas where they had run over-budget on purpose, so as to increase their budget next year. After 13 years of beating my head against the wall, I went back into the field and just did my thing, which was a LOT more fun.

My conclusion: it's baked into the Government model, and cannot be ripped out since the participants have no incentive to do so other than their own integrity which appears to be sadly lacking much of the time. I am not, and was not then, bitter----reality "is what it is", but I don't have to participate in that. I spent the last 10 years of my Fed. career solo in the field where I could be much more effective (though poorer), and get things done. THAT was fun for me.

Barry

MitchMan - 12-31-2014 at 04:57 PM

BArry, you are a gem. I mean that sincerely.

All my life I have been surrounded by right wingers. I like it. It makes the world more interesting for me. All my bosses, my two business partners, and my high school chums who were formative to me were all conservative. Most everyone I associate with is conservative. We all are friends to the end.

What I have realized is that most all people come from a good center, the same center in fact. The people that I call friends are honest, intelligent, hard working, knowledgeable, have integrity, and must have compassion if they are going to be my friend. The problem is that we differ on the facts.

Barry, you call yourself a conservative, but, you have the heart of a liberal...sorry. And, IMO, you are mistaken on the facts and how the facts work together. Accordingly, you fail to see enough of the big picture accurately.

I come from a formal business background and my colleagues do too. I disagree with most all of them because they fail to integrate economic theory into their understanding of finance, accounting, and business in general. It is, in fact, all integrated and consistent within. It s like the immutable laws of physics and it is all on paper. The facts are all there but few people put it all together. Most people see the trees but not the forest and that is the problem.

tripledigitken - 12-31-2014 at 05:05 PM

Mitchman,

You obviously don't realise just how condescending and pompus you sound?

Have a Happy New Year.



Barry A. - 12-31-2014 at 05:39 PM

Ref. MitchMan-------That's ok with me, Ken. I have always liked people who appear to (or actually do) know what they are talking about, and show it, but I don't have to agree with them on all things, and I don't.

I am a disciple of the Supply-Side theory of Economics, and MitchMan appears to be a Keynesian-----and the two will NEVER agree on most Economic ideas. I follow the ideas of Milton Friedman, John Taylor, Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow, Jack Welch, Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan (after he got rid of David Stockman), Marti Feldstein, to name a few reputable Economists that at least admit that there is something to Supply-Side economics. That alone makes me one of "the enemy" and a fool to boot. :lol:

My son just gave me a book for Christmas on R. Reagan's first 100 days as President-------guaranteed to be fascinating (to me).

------and the beat goes on-----------! :biggrin:

Besides, MITCHMAN DID say some pretty nice things about me (my interpretation, possibly not yours)--------that alone increases his credibility, eh?? :o

Barry

MitchMan - 12-31-2014 at 07:09 PM

Ken, I guess if your only take on this is limited to a comment on style instead of your own contribution with something of substance on the issue, have another glass of champagne and toast to having missed the point altogether.

Supply side economics has crashed and burned and according to most all nationally and internationally recognized economists was largely due to blame for the Crash of 2007/8. Barry, except for Friedman, those that you listed are not well recognized on a national or international basis for their economic acumen, actually, quite the opposite.

But, read what they have to say and then do a little more research and look at the salient stats from 1980 forward regarding GDP, real wages by income strata, national debt as % of GDP, household debt, trend of networth per taxpayer and income per taxpayer, % of tax paid since 1980, trend of marginal tax rate, and then correlate the performance of supply side economics to those trends and you will get the real picture. If you don't do that little bit more of research, you will forever be in the dark and out of touch with reality. I am suggesting more info, not giving you an opinion...you be the judge of the facts. That's the informed responsible thing to do, is it not?

BTW, if you get that book from your kids about Reagan, you probably have more books that Reagan did. He was reputed to have owned more horses than books.

I hope that I haven't bruised your sensitivities, Ken. I don't want to hurt your feelings. It is New Years, so, the best to one and all.

Nomads rock! Especially the ones with good critical thinking skills. Come on, you know who you are.

WhackAMolE - 1-2-2015 at 02:25 PM

Quote: Originally posted by J.P.  
They left out the one most obvious fact, IT'S THE MOST INEFFICENT BRANCH OF GOVT.:barf:

[Edited on 12-29-2014 by J.P.]


I believe this is due to the fact that the government is actually opposed to their mission. They're supposed to keep cheap labor out of the country. While the rest of the country loves the hell out of the cheap labor. It's a losing proposition from the start. And I hardly need to mention Americans' voracious appetite for drugs. So the border patrol is doomed to fail from the start, because nobody wants them to succeed. Of course we have to pay lip service to enforcing the borders and keeping the kids safe from drugs. So the border patrol exists to put up a front that anyone cares about those agendas; and to placate those who claim they do.