| The
Bureaucracy That Ate Washington
By Howard Kurtz
Authoritative White House sources say the president has decided to fold the vast Agriculture Department into his new homeland security agency. "What's more important than food to national security?" one adviser asked matter-of-factly. "If we don't eat, the country could be in grave danger." The White House has also concluded that Amtrak should be under the purview of the new security apparatus, since terrorists might attack trains. Another proposal getting the green light from the Bush team would shift the Treasury Department (which guards America's money supply), the Education Department (to protect against enemy propaganda in America's schools), the Health and Human Services Department (in case anyone tries to mess with America's health) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (in case al Qaeda tries to circulate defective toys) into the new bureaucracy. The Commerce Department would also come under the new umbrella (for no particular reason, but to avoid hurting Don Evans's feelings). In fact, these sources say, a plan being prepared for the commander-in-chief would transfer the entire federal government into the Homeland Security Department to make sure that all intelligence is properly analyzed and all memos reach their destination. Bush has not been briefed on the plan, these officials confide, because it is being organized on a need-to-know basis to prevent possible leaks. Only HUD has been left out of the new scheme. Everyone in the administration forgot about it. Tom Ridge will be handed his talking points after the unveiling and told to salute. Congress, needless to say, has not been consulted. But the proposal would save an estimated $125 billion because 2,038 oversight subcommittees could be abolished, to be replaced by one Select Committee on the Whole Shebang. Well, not quite. But the coming battle will make it seem like the reorganization is something along the lines of Armaggeddon. If Bush wanted talk of FBI and CIA foulups off the front pages and talk shows, he succeeded. (His proposal makes the cover of Time, while Newsweek goes with "The United States of EBay.") The Los Angeles Times looks at the stakes involved: "Even with the full weight of the presidency in support, creating a streamlined, fast-moving Cabinet department to fight terrorism is harder than you might suppose. "Never mind Al Qaeda. You're up against the National Turkey Growers of America.President Bush had no sooner finished announcing his plan to establish a Department of Homeland Security than lobbyists for the turkey farmers, along with representatives of the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the National Milk Producers Federation and a dozen other groups, were on the phone Thursday night planning a war council for the next day. "They didn't want to be left behind when the government's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which protects farm animals from diseases and pests, moved to the new department. . . . "Terrorism or no, the creation of a Cabinet department is an enormous and inevitably slow process, not least because of the effect on interested parties, ranging from poultry farmers to the entrenched bureaucracies of the executive branch and the proud barons of Congress." (By the way, ABC may announce within days that George Stephanolpoulos is taking over "This Week," but yesterday it looked like the coup had already been carried out. After George and Cokie said hello (Sam was off), Ms. Roberts disappeared for half an hour while Stephanopoulos interviewed Andy Card about why the administration used to think a Cabinet-level security department was a bad idea and now thinks it's a swell idea, then debriefed ABC's correspondents. Oddly, George was then bumped from the roundtable for two soft-spoken academics. (Ridge tried to tell CBS's Bob Schieffer that the new department wouldn't cost more, but even he gave up when the Face the Nation host scoffed.) USA Today is out with the first poll: "Most Americans approve of President Bush's proposal to create a homeland security department in his Cabinet, but more than a third are skeptical about the reasons behind his plan, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll. The poll, taken after Bush outlined his plan in a televised speech Thursday, provides the first snapshot of public opinion about the sweeping reorganization. It shows 72% support the idea of a department devoted to preventing terrorist attacks and preparing to respond to them. "However, 37% say they believe Bush made the announcement to divert attention from reports that the government failed to heed warnings before Sept. 11. White House chief of staff Andy Card said on Fox News Sunday that it's 'an absurd suggestion' that the plan's timing and details were aimed at deflecting criticism." Ninety-nine percent in Washington believe the absurdity. "High-profile hearings in Congress last week focused on clues missed or not shared by the FBI and CIA. Half of those polled feel no one could have predicted the terrorist attacks. Last month, 58% held that view. But 45% say the government should have anticipated the attacks, up from 38% last month." Newsweek is skeptical of the whole effort: "The plan, and the way it was unveiled, raised questions. Given longstanding support for most of its features, why did Bush launch it now, not months ago? Would the new megadepartment make the country safer, or merely provide Bush with temporary political cover? Will it address the failure of intelligence agencies to share investigative information? And who will run the sprawling enterprise? "In Washington, where politics is about personnel, the last question came first. The initial assumption was that the job would be tailor-made for Tom Ridge, the Marine and former Pennsylvania governor whom Bush had recruited last fall to run the new Office of Homeland Defense. Indeed, the president asked Ridge, also a former congressman, to lobby the Hill on behalf of the plan. "But top White House officials declined to back Ridge for the job. 'That's way too hypothetical a question,' chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. told NEWSWEEK. Instead, top aides cited reasons why Ridge might not seek it. If Congress doesn't give the department broad powers, Card said, 'I don't think Tom Ridge would want to do it.' Another senior aide noted that he 'has small children' as if hoping that family values would take him out of the running. Other possibilities: FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, a coldblooded administrator who ran the trains in Bush's 2000 campaign, and (Bush could only dare hope) former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Ridge himself warily remained mum." National Review's John Miller questions the issue's appeal: "How we organize our own homeland defense must be the campaign-finance-reform issue of the war on terrorism: Something that makes all of Washington go atwitter, but prompts a big yawn from the rest of the country. This reshuffling may be vitally important, but [it] doesn't beat out the Stanley Cup finals as a conversation priority. "The Bush administration obviously thought this announcement was abnormally important. Yet [it] is far from clear that the creation of a new federal department the first since Ronald Reagan approved the Department of Veterans Affairs will make us any safer. "The reorganization does address a serious problem. More than a hundred federal agencies have a role to play in homeland security, from the Department of Defense to the Centers for Disease Control. Tom Ridge, as director of homeland security in the White House, currently doesn't have the ability to order any of them to do anything. . . . "The hope for budget neutrality may be an illusion. One of the ongoing problems with homeland security is the skyrocketing cost. . . . Last November, when Congress quickly passed an airline-security bill, the measure was supposed to add about 30,000 new workers to the federal payroll. By February, however, the Transportation Security Agency was saying 30,000 wasn't enough it needed 42,000. Then the figure leaped to 68,000. A month ago, it grew again, to 73,000 bigger than the departments of energy, labor, state, HUD, and education combined." Of course, if we added those departments. . . . Josh Marshall deconstructs how we got here: "Would this be happening without the political heat being generated because of the embarrassing intelligence failure revelations? Of course not. "And how willingly did the administration leap forward to get these investigations underway? Enough said on that count. "The point is clear. Do politicians try to reap political gain through aggressive investigations? Of course, they do. Get used to it. "But they also help the nation. In Smithian fashion, impure motives nonetheless create a public good. Especially when a recalcitrant administration puts secrecy . . . above all else. "One other quick point in passing: Tom Ridge really, really, really shouldn't get this job. It's important. And even worth fighting over. He's damaged goods and has no relevant experience for the task. No special perks for being the president's friend." The Philadelphia Inquirer looks at a case of internal dissent: "An Air Force colonel who accused President Bush of allowing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to happen has set off a lively debate in military cyberspace over the limited rights that service people have to free speech. "Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler was relieved of his duties as vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., for his letter, published May 26 in the Monterey County Herald. "Butler wrote that Bush knew the attacks would happen but 'did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism' to save his presidency. . . . "Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids the use of 'contemptuous words' against the president, vice president, members of Congress, and other officials. The prohibition applies only to commissioned officers. The maximum punishment is confinement for one year, dismissal from the service, and the loss of all pay and benefits. Military justice experts say curtailing free speech is essential to maintaining civilian control of the military and maintaining discipline within the ranks. "The California letter has triggered a lively and sometimes nasty debate on Internet military bulletin boards, where people can sound off anonymously. While a few people have applauded Butler for taking a public stand, others have accused him of treason." The former veep gets little play for his continued comeback, but the Chicago Tribune takes note: "Al Gore used a new, tenacious line of attack against the White House on Saturday, sharply questioning the values of the Bush administration as he raises his political profile and begins testing his message for a possible challenge against President Bush in 2004. "'It concerns me greatly that a lot of our most precious values are being overturned, ignored and trashed,' Gore told Wisconsin Democrats at their state party convention. 'A lot of those who most need people in our representative democracy to stand up for them against the powerful interests do not have anybody looking after them now. They have a lot of politics. They have another set of photo ops every day, while the real business is done behind closed doors.' "In his third major political address of the year, the former vice president adjusted the tone of his critique of the administration and devoted a significant part of his speech to one theme: values. From the handling of the Enron Corp. investigation to domestic issues such as the economy and the environment, Gore urged voters to scrutinize Bush's principles and those of the people who surround him. . . . "Gore seemed to speak more freely Saturday in Madison than in his addresses this year in Nashville and Orlando. He referred to the country's two leaders as 'that Bush-Cheney crowd' and accused the administration of trying to gain politically from the war on terrorism." Sounds like someone's running for something. InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds is incredulous about one 9/11 fiasco: "Mohammed Atta sought a government loan to buy a spray-equipped airplane and get started in the 'crop dusting business' according to this [ABC News] report: "'[The loan officer] said she rejected Atta for a loan because he was not a U.S. citizen. Before he left, Atta tried to buy a panoramic photograph of Washington, D.C., that hung on her office wall. He pointed specifically to the White House and Pentagon and called the photo "one of the prettiest" he had ever seen of the capital. . . . "'"His look on his face became very bitter at that point," [the loan officer] said. "I believe he said, 'How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it' like the cities in his country had been destroyed?"' "She also remembers Atta mentioning al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, saying bin Laden 'would someday be known as the world's greatest leader.' "The good news is, these guys (who were presumably among Al Qaeda's finest) weren't exactly slick about maintaining their cover. The next guys will have to be a lot slicker. I hope. "This also makes me wonder about Al Qaeda's resources. A government loan? Either Al Qaeda didn't have the money, or they weren't allocating a whole lot to this mission. Both seem like interesting bits of information. Or perhaps they simply thought it poetic to let American taxpayers subsidize an attack." The guy may as well have been wearing a sandwich board: "TERRORIST AT WORK DON'T DISTURB." It's lights, camera, action these days at the Defense Department, says the New York Times: "The military deployment involved two B-2 bombers, two F-16 fighter jets and the National Airborne Operations Center, the highly secure communications aircraft, in a modified 747 jet, reserved for the president and his top staff in case of nuclear attack. . . . There was an aircraft carrier, too: the John Stennis, a 97,000-ton, nuclear-powered floating city with more than 80 aircraft and a crew of 5,000. "The massive mobilization by the Pentagon was part of a joint assault with a staunch historic ally, Hollywood. It might have been called Operation Product Placement, but most people know it as 'The Sum of All Fears,' the new movie adaptation of the 1991 Tom Clancy book about nuclear terrorism. "The military establishment has been cooperating with Hollywood for nearly a century, with a noticeable break in the Vietnam years. But in recent times, with movie budgets swelling into the hundreds of millions of dollars, the Defense Department's contribution and thus the American taxpayer's has grown ever bigger and more elaborate. "It seems to have reached a new high with 'The Sum of All Fears,' for which Paramount Pictures deployed two Hollywood stars, Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman, supported by the celluloid equivalent of a small nation's armed forces. . . . "Total charge to Paramount Pictures for use of the equipment and personnel? Less than $1 million. Value to Paramount? Priceless." A priceless value for the Pentagon's image-making machine as well. On OpinionJournal.com, James Taranto tells a prominent member of the media to chill: "If John Ashcroft inspires even half the fear among al Qaeda that he apparently has in Andy Rooney, we may win this war on terrorism yet. "In an interview on CNN's 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, the CBS humorist turned into a pundit and worried that the U.S. Attorney General has put the 'fear of God' into reporters, creating a repressive climate where 'you're a bad American if you ask a question.' And though he didn't worry about President Bush, Mr. Rooney said Mr. Ashcroft's rules are 'how dictatorships get started.' "To adapt a famous Dan Rather line, what's the frequency, Andy? "Dictatorships? Reporters afraid to speak ill of the Attorney General? John Ashcroft has to be the easiest target in politics; no self-respecting columnist with James Carville on his speed dial hasn't bashed him. Not to single out Mr. Rooney, but his otherworldly statements are perfect examples of how the civil-liberties left prefers to mouth hysteria rather than argue on the merits." Fan Letter "My favorite thing about our current president is that he brings his own pillow everywhere. "My second favorite thing about him: His favorite restaurant in Austin, Jeffrey's, happens to be my favorite restaurant in Austin. "And that just about wraps it up for me and W." -- Author Nora Ephron, writing in Slate. 2002 The Washington Post Company |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
