Department Plan Equals Fuzzy Math

Five months of debate, one congressional inquiry, two ousted Democratic senators, 535 congressmen who hate the taste of lame duck and voila -- the Department of Homeland Security is born.

Originally the brainchild of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the notion of a consolidated national security department has ebbed and flowed, not with public opinion but with the successes and failures of Washington's power players.

This summer the Homeland Security Bill was all but dead. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and the boys were ready to hit the mat for the removal of the bill's anti-labor provisions.

But a series of new developments have positioned the Republican legion, and they're ecstatic.

As possibly the most highly publicized legislation since Bush's tax cut, the bill effectively removed Max Cleland, D-Ga., and Jean Carnahan, D-Mo. -- some of the bill's harshest critics -- from the Senate.

Labeled as the most significant government reorganization in a half-century, the bill, which passed the House on Wednesday, will most likely pass the Senate now that soon-to-be-former Majority Leader Daschle said he will vote to deny a filibuster.

Months ago, when Democrats seemed to have a say in politics, they objected to the unbridled power the Homeland Security Bill would offer the president. Democratic legislators specifically took issue with parts of the bill affecting thousands of union workers.

A few revisions were made in the House, but ultimately the president can waive union rights for any of the 170,000 employees as long as he notifies the union. The buck stops there.

The bill also will transfer several major agencies to the new department, including the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Secret Service.

It fractures the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, assigning its law enforcement responsibilities to the Justice Department while leaving the Treasury Department in charge of funding. Homeland Security also arms our pilots, if they so choose.

And the bill reeks of military-industrial cronyism -- allowing companies with government defense contracts to manufacture overseas to avoid taxes -- all in the name of national security.

But the national security argument is wearing thin. A century ago, with the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which mandated the dissolution of businesses that act "in restraint of trade," everyone and their mother shouted, "in restraint of trade." Few knew what it meant.

Even fewer understand that catch phrases can't stand alone, even in the name of national security.

Democrats made some pretty good points to that effect, but their strategy failed well before the election setbacks on Nov. 5.

They should have noted that agencies this large are always mired in endless bureaucratic blood-red tape.

They should have brought to light the fact that the motivating factor for the new department, the improvement of national intelligence, is not an issue that can be rectified by adding another component. The FBI and CIA held all the information about the Sept. 11 attacks in their hands -- analysis was where they failed. Another rival would not have helped.

Why has no one realized that the new department will be reactionary by nature? It is a creation for defense, and as the new war on terrorism has proved, the best defense is a fiery offense.

Object to the fine print of the bill or scoff at its personnel stipulations, but marvel at the beauty of a president who knows how to get exactly what he wants with a minimum of contention. This guy might be more slick than "Slick Willy" himself.

The best and only necessary logic to dispel the Homeland Security Bill is that even our legislators don't understand the full implications of what they're doing.

Just a reminder though -- they are still doing it.

Nathan Perez can be reached at nperez@email.unc.edu.