List of proposed changes

nj.com ^ | 6/6/02

[Diddle E. Squat]

Yes, that is a very valid concern. One way to address it would be to push for a Fed Reserve type of appointment, long-term that bridges election cycles. That would prevent another Clinton type from coming in and demanding a resignation.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

It will also affect National Institutes of Health researchers working on vaccines for various deadly agents and epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who respond to public health emergencies such at last fall's anthrax attack.

The changes here will be much more complicated than most of the others. In the other cases, existing agencies or sub-agencies are being moved in-toto into the new department. In these cases, we will be dividing up people who work sometimes in adjoining offices, and always in the same buildings, as people who will stay with the NIH and the CDC. Probably they will move people around within complexes, putting all of those going to the new department in one or more buildings, then moving those buildings into the new department.

[brewcrew]

I stand corrected. Gaius Petronius (~27-66 A.D.). I will change all future references. Thanks.

[Reagan Man]

My concerns are about what happens when a tyrant like Mrs. Clinton gains control of such an agency.

Hopefully that will never happen. But your point is well taken.

[Arleigh]

Many huge nations were brought to their knees by the bureaucrats moreso than an overzealous power at the top.

Such as...?

Nazi Germany. Communist Russia. Communist China. I challenge you to match the body count and human misery in those three countries with any nations "brought to their knees" by an overly big bureaucracy.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

So, you think living in a police state is a GOOD thing?

Your hyperbole notwithstanding, living is a better thing than dying.

[El Sordo]

Gleischaltung

[PatrickHenry]

Damn this is scarier than the structure of the KGB and the NKVD.

These things always start out well-intentioned, like the FBI during prohibition. But that kind of concentrated power will inevitably attract the power-hungry. I think this super-agency should have a sunset provision built into it, so that it will self-destruct after 5 years unless extended for an additional term of 5 years by a 2/3 vote of Congress, and so on. It should be up for automatic elimination every 5 years unless an overwhelming majority of Congress wants to keep it. And even then I'm worried.

[Diddle E. Squat]

What could POSSIBLY make you think this move has ANYTHING to do with cutting the size of the Federal Government?

Because I've watched Bush operate(both as President and as Governor), I've heard his goals, I've analyzed his actions, and I've detected some of his patterns. I also approach it logically and with an open mind, instead of perpetual bitching and moaning. Have you ever had anything positive to say here on the forum?

Some of us understand HOW to get results, instead of simply armchair quarterbacking. Scream all you want, I haven't seen many realistic proposals from you, just constant bellyaching. Ever heard of the term 'marginalized'?

[Arleigh]

"...living is better than dying."

To paraphrase Benjamin Frankling, he would give up liberty for security deserves neither.

With an attitude like yours, wouldn't you be much happier in Canada? Or Euroland?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Israel has been trying to protect itself from these beasts for nearly 40 years with ZERO success.

If what you said was true, there would not be an Israeli alive. No defense is 100% successful, that does not mean you should not have one. This has no effect on the fact that we also need to have a good offense, which is the job of the Defense Department, and is not part of this reorganization.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Your sunset idea is an interesting one. Definitely would be more reassuring to have some controls on this proposal.

[bluefish]

Your mind must be stuck on a single cynical track, because your "translation" doesn't convey what I said, and is not even remotely related. My suggestion was that massive cuts could very well be planned (I will have to admit that the cynical side of me says they aren't), but announcing them is kind of like wearing highly reflective glasses while playing poker (the Dems being the opposing player). All I said was that it would be silly to give the opponenent (if that is what they truly are) ammunition with which to take the pot. This was counter to the suggestion that politics can be played as if everybody thinks like you or can be reasoned with, which they cannot. The Dems understand this and use it to their advantage, which is why the Republicans always get trounced. I'm witholding judgement, rather than instantly engaging in a bitch session before I even know what is going down. What I do know is that the pot being stirred already had a huge stench to it, so I don't mind mucking around with the ingredients. All the complainers here apparently like the Federal Govt. and all its agencies and bureaucrats just the way it is. Perhaps their REAL fear is that they will lose the opportunity to whine on a daily basis.

[bluefish]

Actually, I thought this was the more germane portion of the quote:

a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress...

That is merely one of those cute phrases that is just cute enough to sound like there is wisdom to it. But is there? What is the alternative? Leave the stinking mess just as it is? Your statement, or other cynical alternatives, can be issued for just about anything proposed or acted upon, without ever having to actually explain why it is reasonable or why there is any truth to it. I've explained some of my reasoning for witholding judgement, but all I see in that response is a meaningless statement that expresses cynicism, but provides no basis for the cyncism.

[kristinn]

Thanks. I caught the error too late.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

To paraphrase Benjamin Frankling, he would give up liberty for security deserves neither.

This would be interesting, if Franklin had ever said it. It would demonstrate that Franklin was an idiot, since it would mean that if we gave up a tiny amount of liberty for total safety we would deserve neither. What he did say was that he who would give up ESSENTIAL liberty for a LITTLE TEMPORARY safety deserves neither. Since we are not giving up any liberty which we have not already given up, and the safety we are talking about is neither little or temporary, your quote is simply not on point, even if you had quoted him correctly.

The silly way you a running around screaming nonsense will prevent sensible people from associating themselves with your viewpoint.

[agrandis]

"It should be stressed the proposed reorganization will affect only agencies that are responsible for assuring homeland security in the broadest sense of the word and integrating and rationalizing their responsibilities."

You write like a bureaucrat. At least, that sentence was very "bureaucratic." Are you?

Not knockin' ya - just curious.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

'you a ' = 'you are'

[bluefish]

Perhaps "brought to their knees" was a bad choice of words, but I can assure you that in each of your examples, the bureacrats were responsible for much of the miser visited upon each of those nations's subjects. However, I was not really referencing these extreme examples of totalitarian states, which have evil all their own. Rather, I was talking more about vibrant economies and great nations like many found in Europe that have suffocated under the stench of pure Socialism, which can't survive without a massive bureacracy to support it.