Since 2001, Americans have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on domestic security while accepting unprecedented official surveillance of their everyday activities. We pay a high price for safety. So far, it has worked. The predictions that more successful attacks would follow 9/11 proved wrong.

More than a decade after those dark days, the time has come for a tough assessment of homeland security spending. After more than a decade of generous spending, its successes can be celebrated but evidence of flaws and waste cannot be ignored.

Some of the failures are multi-million-dollar debacles that earn national attention. New York City authorities arrested a stranded jet-skier this week when his bumbling attempt to find help revealed a stunning security failure at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

A $100 million perimeter protection system had proven incapable of spotting a lost man who climbed its fence while wearing a yellow life vest. He was not hiding; he wanted to be found. Elite security teams equipped with high-tech cameras and motion detectors did not spot him swimming to the airport, entering restricted areas and crossing runways en route to the huge Delta terminal. This unfortunate man faces criminal trespass charges. He deserves quick acquittal and an official apology; a full investigation should follow. Most failures are tougher to prove. While secrecy must shroud some true successes, it is regularly misused to hide waste and mismanagement. Too many politicians are hesitant to question Homeland Security’s spending, perhaps because it funds more and more local jobs. A few are brave enough to speak up. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, for one, deserves praise for holding Homeland Security accountable for an utterly ineffective half-billion dollar program that has failed to ensure safety at chemical production facilities.

Less stunning but equally frustrating examples of waste can be found in dozens of local communities. Take Portsmouth’s downtown federal building, for example. It is not a busy building. At the entrance, a visitor faces a routine security screening at a first-floor station manned by three guards. Upstairs, the quiet Social Security office is protected by two more guards. No one can seriously argue that five trained officers are needed to ensure safety there. Such wasteful over-staffing is common.

Homeland Security spending is essential. Real protection is expensive. But the time has come to demand that the federal government spend our billions only on well-managed programs that combat true terrorist threats and provide effective border protection.