Bush, Lott Wrangle Over New Homeland Security Agency, Lame-Duck Session

AP ^ | Nov 8, 2002 | AP Staff

[Dog]

I wasn't around Howlin.....I threw my back out and was at the doctor's office getting a cortisone shot....sorry

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for following up! IMHO, the press would like the term "religious right" to be a turn-off like the term "liberal."

[mysonsfuture]

Don't fall for this liberal media crap friends. Its an attempt to make up some kind of republican rift in the midst of a dem blowout. 1-Bush is in charge. 2-Lott has seen Dashole stab him in the back one too many times-no more bi-partisian crap. So shut uo liberal media and get the #ell out of the way.

[Consort]

You think this massive Homeland Security Agency is conservative?

A new "massive Homeland Security Agency" can be much small then the sum of the current existing separate agencies, if it is done correctly. I think this is what Bush is trying to accomplish and that's why the Dems are fighting it.

[Consort]

small = smaller

[pabianice]

Labor unions fear that if this Homeland Security Agency gets created, it will start a domino effect that will erode career protections for federal civil servants through our government. Considering how arrogant, corrupt and lazy most tax-subsidized civil servants I know are, all I can say is...."Go W. Go!"

A friend who is a 25-year employee of the Dept. of Transportation has given me status reports since he started there. Crappy permanent employees cannot be fired -- they are simply transferred to another branch to screw things up there. And after a person has been in a job long enough, they cannot have their pay reduced, even if they are demoted ten levels for incompetence. There are GS-7s earning $ 135,000 a year at DOT. A Teamster's wet dream. Just what we don't need in Homeland Security.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Just what we don't need in Homeland Security.<<<

Or ELSEWHERE in our tax-leeching govt. Great post!

[FormerLurker]

The new massive bureacracy agency is horrible idea that will do nothing good .

I totally and absolutely agree. There is no justification whatsoever for another federal agency.

Secure our borders, and deport illegals and terrorists.

That is absolutely correct. It is curious that politicians are clamouring for expanded powers when they don't enforce existing immigration laws, which themselves are HIGHLY lax.

For instance, a GAO investigation uncovered rampant immigration fraud, yet NOTHING has been done to correct the problem. Here's a link to the article..

Immigration fraud 'out of control' - General Accounting Office slams INS for rampant problems

Until we start utilizing our current resources correctly, there is no reason to think that a new federal agency will operate any differently..

[FormerLurker]

A new "massive Homeland Security Agency" can be much small then the sum of the current existing separate agencies, if it is done correctly.

And which agencies is Bush planning on shutting down? I highly doubt there are any plans for that...

[Darlin']

Hey, checking in. What is the question ? :)

[Darlin']

Oh, Is it about that, I don't take my cues statement ?

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>To further that effort, we at FR could document examples of gross employee incompetence where the perp was no only NOT reprimanded or fired but promoted and given a bonus. One such example was the recent malfeasance at the American Embassy in Saudi that allowed the hijackers in with faulty applications.<<<

Ha! Would you believe that there was a year-end bonus paid to tax-squandering folks involved with that scandal! For details, just search for the word " friends " at http://www.spaceprojects.com/bureaucrats

Brace yourself...that page will infuriate you.

[Darlin']

I think it was Elizabeth Bumiller, NYT, who asked whether he would govern from the center or take instruction from the Religious Right.(insert a weary *sigh* here.)

Before she could finish the president said, Yeah, yeah. Then he rolled his eyes and said, (from memory) I don't take cues from anybody, I do what I think is right.

He isn't about to change the political philosophy that took him to the White House.

[Consort]

And which agencies is Bush planning on shutting down? I highly doubt there are any plans for that...

The dozens of agencies that will be merged will no longer need all the administrative, high paying, positions that now exist in those agencies. These positions will be the first to go (or be attritioned). Then other other redundant positions will follow. This same model can be applied to other related groups of agencies.

[Howlin]

Here's your answer from Darlin'!

[Eva]

Thanks!

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all oh so very much!

[Grampa Dave]

A little word smithing incase children are present!:)

[uncommonsense]

"You think this massive Homeland Security Agency is conservative?"

Think this one through. If you have - say ten agencies and combine them as-is into one - what do you get? A more massive bureaucracy? No, you get the same overall size that you had before. What do you get if you have a Republican president, combine agencies, and insist on non-unionized labor agreement? You get a conservative solution to a piece-meal, inefficient, ineffective bureaucracy. I think a massive consolidation of multiple organizations and eliminating the redundancies is conservative. That's why GWB is insisting on the non-union (i.e entitlement) situation.