For some time there's been talk in Washington of creating a new cabinet-level position (a.k.a. "Secretary") for homeland security. The current Director of Homeland Security has no real authority, so is little more than an advisor. There's been conflict for months between the White House and Congress over whether this should truly be a cabinet-level position, which would (among other things) mean he'd be required to testify publicly before congress, or remain simply an advisory position, which would mean he wouldn't. To be blunt, that part's been as boring as it is trivial: grandstanding by members of Congress who want more opportunities to bloviate publicly, vs. stubbornness by a White House that wants to avoid yet another hassle from that pesky democratic process. Typical Legislative vs. Executive stuff that only interests intense partisans, but elicits gigantic yawns from everyone else. If you've managed to make it all the way through this paragraph describing the issue, it's a tribute to your ability to stay awake through discussions that would make a lecture by Ben Stein seem lively and stimulating.

Quite apart from the above-mentioned tedium, I've thought for months that creating a Secretary (and Department) of Homeland Security is a perfectly awful idea. Despite whatever you've been told by certain pundits, we already have an agency for ferreting out domestic terrorism and subversion: it's called the FBI, and it's part of the Department of Justice. It did a great job of counterintelligence during World War II against Nazi and Japanese spies, and it did an equally splendid job against KGB and Communist International spies during the first couple of decades of the Cold War.

Unfortunately, the FBI (along with the CIA) has been...

...castrated during the last few decades. While I'm happy to say that the FBI still infiltrates groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups, it hasn't been allowed to do much beyond them. The CIA and the FBI have even been largely forbidden to even talk to each other, so information picked up by one couldn't easily be shared by others.

In short, because of some real (and some imagined) abuses, our anti-terrorist forces were long ago stripped of powers that would have, just for example, made investigating radical Muslim or Arab groups easy. Now that we've had our noses rubbed in the fact that we need to counter domestic subversion and terrorism, it seems obvious that we should simply revise the rules and loosen the PC restrictions and unnecessary bureaucracy our people have been working under.

At the same time, we already have 14 (count 'em: fourteen) cabinet Secretaries and departments, not counting a slew of "independent" agencies, commissions, committees, and so on. The list (just the list!) of things the President oversees is mind-boggling; have a look at this Library of Congress Executive Department reference page to see what the President is directly responsible for, quite apart from anything run by Congress, or your state government, or your county government, or your local city/village/township government. I suspect that if even the most reactionary Reagan-basher (like oh, say, Michael Moore) looked at that list, he'd be hard-pressed not to concede that maybe The Gipper had a point with all that "big government" rhetoric. (On the other hand, you might also be able to justify creating a "Secretary of Miscellaneous B.S." just to be in charge of that long list of "Independent" agencies and commissions the President has to oversee.)

So think about this: Every one of those Departments has a Secretary who is a member of the President's Cabinet. That's not counting the President himself, or the Vice President, or the heads of "independent" departments like the EPA, CIA, FBSLM, FCC, FEMA, OSHA or NASA. By the way, you can probably land a spot as Government Geek on Comedy Central's "Beat the Geeks" game show if you can tell me what the MSPB, NCUA, NIGC or ACDA are. If you can name who the Director of even half of those agencies is, or tell me who Anthony J. Principi is, I probably wouldn't want to party with you, ever.

There has been an unfortunate trend by Presidents and other politicians to, when they want to look forceful in response to a crisis, propose creating a new government Department and a new Secretary to be in charge of it. In the 1970s, President Carter created the Department of Education to answer cries for improving our nation's schools. Since that time, there has been no substantial improvement in the state of our public schools. In fact, countless observers have noted that test scores have only gotten worse since the Department of Education was created, and I defy anyone to name me any substantial improvement anywhere in American education that can be attributed to the fact that we have a Secretary of Education (bonus geek points if you can even name the guy). Carter also created the Department of Energy, but I defy anyone to tell me what Bill Richardson or Spence Abraham have done to make energy more available or affordable. (Richardson and Abraham are the last two men to serve as Secretary of Energy, and I am slightly embarassed to say I knew that.) The Department of Commerce seems to exist to do nothing but take Fortune 500 CEOs on expensive junkets to "promote international trade relations" and make noises about improving the economy. And what on Earth is the Department of Silly Walks doing with our tax dollars?

My first point is this: when politicians at the Federal level want to look like they are by God doing something (insert table-pounding noises here), they propose creating a whole new executive Department for it. It's as if there's no problem we can't fix by creating a Secretary In Charge Of It and issuing him a staff and a few billion dollars a year to play with. As long as he's by God doing something, everything will be okay! I sometimes think that if someone proposed that we create a Secretary of Preventing Schoolyard Bullying, or a Secretary of Getting People to Drive Faster in the Passing Lane, or a Secretary of Getting Susan Sarandon To Shut Up, a good chunk of America would nod in righteous agreement and be glad to hear that our governing officals are by God doing something at last.

My second point is this: When there's a national crisis, the President is usually expected to hold what's called a "Full Cabinet Meeting." Such a meeting would include 14 cabinet secretaries, a Vice President, and a President. Presumably, if it's a matter of national security, the head of the FBI, the CIA, and the National Security Advisor are all there too. That's not counting any aides or the heads of other "independent" agencies that may be involved. Okay, are you picturing this? That's got to average at least 20 people, if you include the Director of the Commission on Matching Unmatched Socks Found In The Dryer (CMUSFD). So I have one simple question: when is the last time you went to a meeting with that many people where anything meaningful got done?

If you'd asked me a week ago I'd have said that we need a Secretary of Homeland Defense like we need to strap 100 pound weights on the backs of everyone involved in counterterrorism.

I've got to admit it, though: Bush and his team have surprised me. Again. The proposal he has laid out seems to make perfect sense. It's obviously similar to proposals members of Congress have been mulling over, but is far more detailed, and has obviously been something he's been working on, but keeping close to the vest, for some time.

Over the last 200 years, all sorts of law-enforcement and security-related government departments have been scattered all over the place. Why, for example, is the Coast Guard part of the Department of Transportation, but the Customs Service part of the Department of the Treasury? Why, for that matter, does the Border Patrol report ultimately to the Secretary of Getting Husbands Not to Fart Under The Covers At Bedtime So Wives Won't Keep Being So Disgusted With Their Men?

Okay, except for that last part, I'm serious. For a while now, it's seemed to me like homeland defense is what the Secretary of Defense is supposed to do. But you can make the case that the so-called "Department of Defense" is mis-named anyway; its old name was "Department of War," and that seems more descriptive. We really don't want the Department of War in charge of surveillance of domestic groups, do we? Likewise, shouldn't the Department of Justice be more concerned with prosecuting criminals than looking for subversives?

As odd as it sounds, Bush's latest proposal to add yet another Secretary to the cabinet seems like it might help cut back on bureaucracy. How? Because he proposes making just about every law-enforcement group that might have some link to national security report directly to one department and one chief. It's just about perfect. I am impressed. For the last nine months, the administration has been doing a pretty good job on the international level at combating terrrorism, but on a domestic level, it's seemed a little vague and diffuse. This new proposal makes a lot of sense, and what's even better about it is that both Democrats and Republicans like it. Once again, Bush demonstrates that his reputation for finding ways to get things done with both Democrats and Republicans is not just talk. I suspect that his latest proposal, as vast and sweeping as it may be, will have little trouble getting through Congress and passing into law.

Well done, Mr. President. Well done.