This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Tuesday, August 17, 2010.

I'm Caleb Brown.

In the Gulf Oil Spill, the Coast Guard and other agencies have taken hits for failing to foresee the disaster's impact, having their attention shifted

toward national security after 2001.

That kind of diversion is a problem all over the place.

Failing to foresee a highly improbable disaster isn't always impossible,

but funding that kind of prevention will require a tax bill

almost no one wants to pay.

Peter Van Doren, editor of Regulation magazine, offers his thoughts.

Well, it turns out, according to the Washington Post, the budget for,.e. about port security, worrying about ships,

worrying about surveillance, all of those things got added to the Coast Guard's agenda.

Even though the Coast Guard isn't particularly, you know, it's not necessarily badly suited, but it's not necessarily badly suited but it's not particularly well suited to do

those kinds of things so as I said a congressman says if there's a problem and it

involves water let's give it to the Coast Guard.

And that strikes me as probably the decision rule that they adopted.

And the Coast Guard, looking to get more budget, which is what agencies tend to do said sure we'll take on things

that are terrorism related that are related to the water we don't want you know some other entity like the Air Force or the Army or the whatever

Having to do that because we're second-class citizens anyway in the hierarchy of the quasi-military things, Coast Guard's

kind of on the bottom. So let's accept this responsibility for terrorism prevention and we'll get more money.

And if it's your job somewhere within the Coast Guard to divvy up the funds for this or that

particular task.

Obviously the events on September 11, 2001

...