Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Politics and Intelligence Reform
For once it seems that Paul and I actually agree on something. I concur with his feelings of frustration regarding the majority of the electorate who think that the President is one step short of King and that Congress is somehow the red-headed stepchild that needs to be locked in a room. Co-equal branches of government means what it says. Congress and the President are EQUAL, dispute what those who propose the unitary executive would like to think.
That being said, there are deeper issues at play with this intelligence reform bill than Paul or Reps. Sensenbrenner and Hunter let on. This is all about politics and has very little to do with actual policy. I don't actually know if creating a National intelligence Director is a good idea or not, nor do I know whether better intelligence could have prevented 9/11 or other similar attacks that may or may not occur. More to the point, I don't really see how anyone could claim to know. In other words, this is all about perception and opinion. On the other hand, there really are some differences in policy here, I just don't think they are the ones that everyone is talking about. Sensenbrenner and Hunter use the phrase "military chain of command," claiming that it "is a life-or-death issue for our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan" and that somehow there are provisions in this bill that place our troops in danger. A good argument, powerful, persuasive, and above all, plays well in the headlines. Of course it also has the advantage of masking the real issue. What is the real issue, you ask? MONEY. More specifically, control of the money. Don't forget where Rep. Hunter is from. He represents southern San Diego, California, home to several military installations (including Mirmar Naval Air Station, famous for Top Gun) and more importantly a lot of Department of Defense (DOD) contractors. Now, these DOD contractors depend on the Pentagon's control over federal money to make money. Should the DOD loose budgetary authority to an NID these contractors loose potential contracts. Lest anyone forget that we are talking about anywhere from $20-100 billion dollars here (no one really knows for sure because the overall intelligence budget is classified), a lot of contracts for sure. Now, don't misunderstand me, there are very good arguments in Rep. Hunter's favor, however, preserving the "military chain of command" isn't one of them. In fact, it may even be fair to say that Rep. Hunter is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, i.e., representing the interests of his constituents. In other words, Rep. Hunter is by withholding support for something that arguably harms his economic base, and weakens his district, simply being a good congressman.
Rep. Sensenbrenner on the other hand, is a little harder to crack. As chairmen of the House Judiciary committee his interest in this bill is more than justified, however, unlike Rep. Hunter it is harder to tie his position to his home district and its economic impact. Rep. Sensenbrenner is interested in immigration, specifically drivers' licenses. This is in fact a major policy difference with the White House that has been playing out for months. What Sensenbrenner wants is in many ways a de facto national ID card, he's just knows that using those words will ensure that he looses, so the phrase becomes "national standards for drivers licenses." Again its harder to fault Rep. Sensenbrenner for sticking to his guns without totally attacking him for the end run around smaller government, privacy, individual rights, state's rights, and other "constitutional" principles that many in his party hold dear (unless defense spending or national security is an issue, then many of them seem to wilt from the smaller government, more state's rights line) (Kudos to former Rep. Bob Burr for his outspokenness against a national ID card). So rather than get into the nuances of national id's and immigration policy, I'll just say that Sensenbrenner's interest aren't all they are being made to be and that it is in my opinion fair to say that he is playing politics at a very high level and appears to be winning.
Long story short, while it is good to praise Congress for their independence, be careful not to attribute the wrong motives to the specific members at issue. While they may be right, they are still political operatives and supporters of the President. This is, in my opinion, a blip on the GOP unity radar screen and should be taken with the appropriate grain (block) of salt.
That being said, there are deeper issues at play with this intelligence reform bill than Paul or Reps. Sensenbrenner and Hunter let on. This is all about politics and has very little to do with actual policy. I don't actually know if creating a National intelligence Director is a good idea or not, nor do I know whether better intelligence could have prevented 9/11 or other similar attacks that may or may not occur. More to the point, I don't really see how anyone could claim to know. In other words, this is all about perception and opinion. On the other hand, there really are some differences in policy here, I just don't think they are the ones that everyone is talking about. Sensenbrenner and Hunter use the phrase "military chain of command," claiming that it "is a life-or-death issue for our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan" and that somehow there are provisions in this bill that place our troops in danger. A good argument, powerful, persuasive, and above all, plays well in the headlines. Of course it also has the advantage of masking the real issue. What is the real issue, you ask? MONEY. More specifically, control of the money. Don't forget where Rep. Hunter is from. He represents southern San Diego, California, home to several military installations (including Mirmar Naval Air Station, famous for Top Gun) and more importantly a lot of Department of Defense (DOD) contractors. Now, these DOD contractors depend on the Pentagon's control over federal money to make money. Should the DOD loose budgetary authority to an NID these contractors loose potential contracts. Lest anyone forget that we are talking about anywhere from $20-100 billion dollars here (no one really knows for sure because the overall intelligence budget is classified), a lot of contracts for sure. Now, don't misunderstand me, there are very good arguments in Rep. Hunter's favor, however, preserving the "military chain of command" isn't one of them. In fact, it may even be fair to say that Rep. Hunter is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, i.e., representing the interests of his constituents. In other words, Rep. Hunter is by withholding support for something that arguably harms his economic base, and weakens his district, simply being a good congressman.
Rep. Sensenbrenner on the other hand, is a little harder to crack. As chairmen of the House Judiciary committee his interest in this bill is more than justified, however, unlike Rep. Hunter it is harder to tie his position to his home district and its economic impact. Rep. Sensenbrenner is interested in immigration, specifically drivers' licenses. This is in fact a major policy difference with the White House that has been playing out for months. What Sensenbrenner wants is in many ways a de facto national ID card, he's just knows that using those words will ensure that he looses, so the phrase becomes "national standards for drivers licenses." Again its harder to fault Rep. Sensenbrenner for sticking to his guns without totally attacking him for the end run around smaller government, privacy, individual rights, state's rights, and other "constitutional" principles that many in his party hold dear (unless defense spending or national security is an issue, then many of them seem to wilt from the smaller government, more state's rights line) (Kudos to former Rep. Bob Burr for his outspokenness against a national ID card). So rather than get into the nuances of national id's and immigration policy, I'll just say that Sensenbrenner's interest aren't all they are being made to be and that it is in my opinion fair to say that he is playing politics at a very high level and appears to be winning.
Long story short, while it is good to praise Congress for their independence, be careful not to attribute the wrong motives to the specific members at issue. While they may be right, they are still political operatives and supporters of the President. This is, in my opinion, a blip on the GOP unity radar screen and should be taken with the appropriate grain (block) of salt.
# posted by mouldfan : 8:10 AM
