Discredited policy proposals never seem to die. They just rear their ugly heads, most often in Congress.

A case in point: With the spotlight focused on the heated presidential campaign and the 2016 Olympic Games, little notice has been given to a policy paper on national security making the rounds in Washington. But the paper, once again, reinforces the fallacy that the government should significantly increase investments in border barriers and security programs to keep the country safe.

“Achieving U.S. Security Through Leadership and Liberty” is the title of the national security section issued by House Republicans in “A Better Way,” a broader policy vision. The number one issue cited in the national security paper is “Protect the Homeland.” It includes this statement: “America must secure the border once and for all by accelerating the deployment of fencing, technology, air assets, and personnel.”

If all this sounds familiar, it should. Look back to the summer of 2013, the last time it appeared that comprehensive immigration reform might actually be debated and passed by Congress. The Senate version of the bill was amended to include a laundry list of security hardware systems that caught the eye of my organization Taxpayers for Common Sense. The list seemed out of place in a policy bill, and, indeed, it was. We did an analysis of the list and identified many of the security systems, their costs and the contractors that build them. We calculated that the hardware systems would add $12 billion to the cost of immigration “reform.” Additionally, the bill’s recommended staffing levels for Customs and Border Patrol would have added $30 billion in long-term costs. (While the current document is a product of House Republicans, it is worth noting that the 2013 proposal was bipartisan.)

As I wrote at the time, this laundry list was actually an old Department of Homeland Security wish list sent to Congress in 2011 with respect to a program that no longer existed – the so-called “SBInet.” That wish list was revived in a Senate amendment to the immigration reform bill, but later died when Congress went home without taking further action.

My major concern with this approach to border security is quite simple: It seems to harken back to the days of earmarking a bill to gather support without concern for whether the earmarked projects were any good. It wasn’t difficult to figure out which contractors would make money if the president signed a bill with specific hardware programs mandated for purchase in the bill language. In most cases, the programs were legacy security systems built by major military contractors. In one particular case, a helicopter listed in the bill language wasn’t even being built in 2013! The cost to restart the production line for that helicopter is hard to calculate but it certainly would not have been cheap. My organization created an infographic to poke a little fun at the idea of this ghost helicopter system, but wasting $12 billion on more border hardware is actually not something to laugh about.

So, it is with some resignation, but little surprise, that I note the more detailed language on what “A Better Way” designates as needed for enhanced border security: “We need more than just fencing. … Due to the diverse terrain across our long borders, every area requires a different mix of assets, from Border Patrol agents and high fencing to aerial surveillance and radar.” Just exactly what the Homeland Security wish list included back in 2011.

Washington is one of those places where bad ideas are recycled, repackaged and rebranded. But rebranding this outdated approach to border security is not a better way.