[billbears]

Right....we wouldn't want him to have hire/fire/transfer authority in the department overseeing national security

That's not what I'm saying. The departments that will fall under this new department already exist, rightly or wrongly. Do you not find it a little disconcerting that a Republican POTUS, who ran on smaller government as one issue, is creating another level of bureaucracy and at the same time circumventing any powers the Legislative Branch of the government might hold over said existing departments? Expansion of the government's power and centralization of said power. That's real conservative

[anniegetyourgun]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the DEM objections to the President's propopsal. And let's face it, their only problem is the de-unionization of government personnel. To do so would be a direct hit in their funding mechanism - union dues. I suspect many like you are unaware that at this moment if the President wanted to move thousands of INS and border patrol personnel to a threat area within 24 hours, he is prohibited from doing so by collective bargaining agreements. The bottom line is that Americans haven't a clue as to how tied in knots the legislative branch has made this government. There are reasonable checks and balances, and then there is the fine mess we've made over the last 40 years.

But alas, I'm sure many said the same thing that you say, back when Truman required the miltary heads to reconfigure for streamlining and informational purposes. Furthermore, there is no circumventing the legislative branch involved.

I recommend you check out THIS document. And for further questions, seek out Sally Canfield, Director of Policy and Plans, Office of Homeland Security. The change is needed, overdue, and commonsense.