GAO Weighs In On “Countering Violent Extremism”

[Belsnickel]

The Government Accountability Office, which is a non-partisan entity whose agenda is set by Congress, has released a report on violent extremism, and it isn't going to make some people happy. From the CATO Institute:

Quote:The ongoing controversy and litigation over the Trump administration’s “Muslim ban” has reignited a debate that has raged since the 9/11 attacks: Who commits more domestic terrorism–violent Salafists or traditional “right wing” extremists? According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, it’s the latter and by a very wide margin.

Here is a link to the GAO report itself. It is a pdf, so just be aware. The CATO article also mentions a study by Georgia State that showed disparity in the incidents reported by the media and those that occurred wi9th a bias towards more reporting on incidents carried out by Muslim extremists, which make up about 27% of the occurrences. It's some good reading. The CATO article more so if you aren't a policy nerd/wonk.

[GMDino]

I'm stunned.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-23-2017, 04:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Government Accountability Office, which is a non-partisan entity whose agenda is set by Congress, has released a report on violent extremism, and it isn't going to make some people happy. From the CATO Institute:


Here is a link to the GAO report itself. It is a pdf, so just be aware. The CATO article also mentions a study by Georgia State that showed disparity in the incidents reported by the media and those that occurred wi9th a bias towards more reporting on incidents carried out by Muslim extremists, which make up about 27% of the occurrences. It's some good reading. The CATO article more so if you aren't a policy nerd/wonk.

Did they take total percentage of populations into account or is it simply using raw numbers? For instance the Muslim population in the US only makes up 0.9% of the population in the U.S. while whitey makes up the vast majority.

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2017, 05:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did they take total percentage of populations into account or is it simply using raw numbers? For instance the Muslim population in the US only makes up 0.9% of the population in the U.S. while whitey makes up the vast majority.

That wasn't a part of the study. But that is a valid concern. I mean, both sides are over-representative of their portion of the population. Non-Hispanic white, conservative, likely male, that doesn't equal up to 73% of the population, either. If we are really going to get into demographics, might as well go whole hog.

But this wasn't looking that deep.

[*wildcats forever*]

(04-23-2017, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That wasn't a part of the study. But that is a valid concern. I mean, both sides are over-representative of their portion of the population. Non-Hispanic white, conservative, likely male, that doesn't equal up to 73% of the population, either. If we are really going to get into demographics, might as well go whole hog.

But this wasn't looking that deep.

Raw numbers or not, is not the point to give pause over how countering violent extremism can be improved? Review what is, and isn't, working? And by "working", I'm specifically looking at the impact on our country along with all innocent citizens of the affected countries. Another Pandora's Box, or just digging further into the same one we opened in Iraq? Or do we even dare look further back into history where we keep committing the same mistakes? 

[*bfine32*]

(04-23-2017, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That wasn't a part of the study. But that is a valid concern. I mean, both sides are over-representative of their portion of the population. Non-Hispanic white, conservative, likely male, that doesn't equal up to 73% of the population, either. If we are really going to get into demographics, might as well go whole hog.

But this wasn't looking that deep.

So what the study shows is that a small sect of 0.9% of the population. For illustration let's be unfair toward the Muslim population and say 10% are radicalized that equals to 0.09% of the population. So the study shows that 0.09% of the population committed 27%  of the domestic terrorist acts over the last few years.

Quote:and it isn't going to make some people happy.

Who will this not make happy? Those opposed to stricter immigration laws?

GMDino Wrote:I'm stunned

About what?

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2017, 05:44 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Raw numbers or not, is not the point to give pause over how countering violent extremism can be improved? Review what is, and isn't, working? And by "working", I'm specifically looking at the impact on our country along with all innocent citizens of the affected countries. Another Pandora's Box, or just digging further into the same one we opened in Iraq? Or do we even dare look further back into history where we keep committing the same mistakes? 

Oh, absolutely. GAO audits are all about the effectiveness of programs/policies and so this is about how we can improve our efforts regarding domestic terrorism.

[*wildcats forever*]

(04-23-2017, 06:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, absolutely. GAO audits are all about the effectiveness of programs/policies and so this is about how we can improve our efforts regarding domestic terrorism.

I do wonder how much weight the GAO carries. Who/or what can stymie the changes it recommends? Is anyone even listening?

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2017, 06:12 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I do wonder how much weight the GAO carries. Who/or what can stymie the changes it recommends? Is anyone even listening?

Well, that is an interesting question. The short answer is: it depends. The GAO's assessments are non-partisan themselves, but the agenda is set by Congress. So of course, the programs looked into will be different depending on the congressional make up. Then, what happens with the findings is also up to Congress, since the GAO is a part of the legislative branch. The GAO has no authority in itself to mandate anything. It is up to Congress to implement policy changes based on the findings.

So, the weight the GAO carries is dependent on whether Congress likes their findings, really. Then, of course, it also depends on the way the executive views the findings, as well. It's a lot of fun, really. Hard to believe this is what I want to do with my life.

[GMDino]

(04-23-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who will this not make happy? Those opposed to stricter immigration laws?

(04-23-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So what the study shows is that a small sect of 0.9% of the population. For illustration let's be unfair toward the Muslim population and say 10% are radicalized that equals to 0.09% of the population. So the study shows that 0.09% of the population committed 27%  of the domestic terrorist acts over the last few years.

I'm stunned.

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So what the study shows is that a small sect of 0.9% of the population. For illustration let's be unfair toward the Muslim population and say 10% are radicalized that equals to 0.09% of the population. So the study shows that 0.09% of the population committed 27%  of the domestic terrorist acts over the last few years.

It would be interesting to delve into the percentages on either side. You keep on focusing on one side in trying to say that they disproportionately represent their population, but we really don't know what percentage of the population are far-right extremists, either.

(04-23-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who will this not make happy? Those opposed to stricter immigration laws?

It just won't make some people very happy. Immigration laws have nothing to do with this, really. Domestic terrorism, remember?

[*wildcats forever*]

(04-23-2017, 06:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, that is an interesting question. The short answer is: it depends. The GAO's assessments are non-partisan themselves, but the agenda is set by Congress. So of course, the programs looked into will be different depending on the congressional make up. Then, what happens with the findings is also up to Congress, since the GAO is a part of the legislative branch. The GAO has no authority in itself to mandate anything. It is up to Congress to implement policy changes based on the findings.

So, the weight the GAO carries is dependent on whether Congress likes their findings, really. Then, of course, it also depends on the way the executive views the findings, as well. It's a lot of fun, really. Hard to believe this is what I want to do with my life.

Thanks - this was pretty much how I understood it, though something led me to believe the GAO had some sort of power over how money was spent, at least in some regard. Maybe if an impropriety was discovered, then a halt in that spending could be implemented. Sorry that I can't recall how I got that impression. 

If only we had a wise old Grandparent that could effect an intervention on Congress when needed 

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2017, 06:48 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Thanks - this was pretty much how I understood it, though something led me to believe the GAO had some sort of power over how money was spent, at least in some regard. Maybe if an impropriety was discovered, then a halt in that spending could be implemented. Sorry that I can't recall how I got that impression. 

If only we had a wise old Grandparent that could effect an intervention on Congress when needed 

The GAO can have that authority if it is granted such by statute. For example, if a law is passed that focuses GAO attention on a program, Congress could, in theory, extend authority to the GAO. But overall, the GAO investigates, reports, and advises, but they don't have any authority to act.

[*wildcats forever*]

(04-23-2017, 06:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The GAO can have that authority if it is granted such by statute. For example, if a law is passed that focuses GAO attention on a program, Congress could, in theory, extend authority to the GAO. But overall, the GAO investigates, reports, and advises, but they don't have any authority to act.

I found this helpful in understanding some specifics (like peer review): https://www.gao.gov/about/index.html

[*bfine32*]

(04-23-2017, 06:36 PM)GMDino Wrote:


I'm stunned.

Gots to say I'm still not sure what you are stunned about in the article,

It's OK. I'm sure you were just stunned about Domestic Violence.

[*bfine32*]

(04-23-2017, 06:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It just won't make some people very happy. Immigration laws have nothing to do with this, really. Domestic terrorism, remember?

I'll take you at your word. After all, it's the only currency we have here.

[GMDino]

(04-23-2017, 07:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Gots to say I'm still not sure what you are stunned about in the article,

It's OK. I'm sure you were just stunned about Domestic Violence.

[Benton]

(04-23-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So what the study shows is that a small sect of 0.9% of the population. For illustration let's be unfair toward the Muslim population and say 10% are radicalized that equals to 0.09% of the population. So the study shows that 0.09% of the population committed 27%  of the domestic terrorist acts over the last few years.


Who will this not make happy? Those opposed to stricter immigration laws?


About what?

Last time I changed spark plugs I left the seven faulty ones that were the same brand because the one ac delco one was really aggravating me. God I hate ac delco. I replaced it. Car still won't start, but at least I don't have any ac delco junk.

[Dill]

(04-23-2017, 04:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Government Accountability Office, which is a non-partisan entity whose agenda is set by Congress, has released a report on violent extremism, and it isn't going to make some people happy. From the CATO Institute:


Here is a link to the GAO report itself. It is a pdf, so just be aware. The CATO article also mentions a study by Georgia State that showed disparity in the incidents reported by the media and those that occurred wi9th a bias towards more reporting on incidents carried out by Muslim extremists, which make up about 27% of the occurrences. It's some good reading. The CATO article more so if you aren't a policy nerd/wonk.

I propose a ban on right wing extremists.

[*wildcats forever*]

(04-23-2017, 09:44 PM)Dill Wrote: I propose a ban on right wing extremists.

You are incorrigible.