Why No Cost-Benefit Analysis of Police State Measures?

In the wake of the bombings in London, there will certainly be calls for even more spending on police state measures in transportation, border crossings, etc. However, I know of no cost-benefit studies of existing measures, such as the huge budget for the new Transportation Security Administration, a new federal bureaucracy. Conservatives have for years decried spending on social welfare and services and called for cost-benefit analysis of such spending, as well as on spending for health and safety measures for workers and other citizens (a citizen is no less dead if the cause is related to unsafe working conditions or poisons in the water, air, or soil). Is this hypocrisy? Why are there no calls for similar cost-benefit analysis for every dollar spent on police state measures? Other nations that have decided to solve "security" problems by throwing money at the problem have simply ended up with a seriously wounded economy (even Israel has had serious economic difficulties that are only mitigated by huge subsidies from the United States government). Are we going down the Soviet and South African road, in this regard? Is this the correct strategy? Perhaps even more fundamentally, do these measures, costly as they are, actually move our society away from the ideals of freedom and democracy that most Americans believe are the real basis of this nation's greatness?