Bricker: I’m curious. So far you’ve defended the process by which the Republicans are trying to make the Patriot Act permanent. What I’m curious about is whether you think it should be done. IOW, what do you think of the Patriot Act, and why should people not be worried about it becoming the law of the land effectively forever?
OK.
In 1966, OMB issured a directive called A-76.
The purpose of A-76 was “the Government should not compete with its citizens. The competitive enterprise system, characterized by individual freedom and initiative, is the primary source of national economic strength. In recognition of this principle, it has been and continues to be the general policy of the Government to rely on commercial sources to supply the products and services the Government needs.” In short, competition and a free market.
A-76 has been slowly implemented across government since then. The most noticeable level of A-76 is contracting out government services, assuming private enterprise can do the job more effectively, efficiently and at a lower cost to the taxpayers. The prime example is DoD, which has been contracting out for more than 30 years. It also brought us $400 hammers and $1,000 toilet seats, too. With the Energy Department, it shrunk the actual number of federal employees in the Department but actual costs to the taxpayers has ballooned beyond imagination. Despite these anomalies, A-76 has worked relatively well.
For A-76 to work, government must perform studies to determine whether government should do the job, or whether private enterprise should do it. These studies take anywhere from two to five years, on average, and attempt to address potential conflicts of interest, favoritism, actual cost savings, efficiency, etc. In essence, the studies are supposed to provide fair and objective observations of the best way to go which benefits the American People with respect to their taxes, what they expect from their government and the effectiveness of their government. Again, despite some notable examples, the DoD is a relatively good example of “more [tax dollar] bang for the buck.”
A-76 assumes a more prominent role under Republican administrations than Democratic administrations, as expected. Yet even under Clinton, the federal agency I work for reduced federal workers by almost 50 percent. It was done via attrition, retirement, and retraining and reassignment. It was a relatively smooth transition to economize government, although there were some minor issues.
Until now. The Bush Administration has rewritten A-76 from the ground up. It is attempting to take the spirit of A-76, twist it on its ear and use it for populist political means. Studies which are supposed to take two to five years have been shortened to less than six months. If a study is not ready within a predetermined time frame (Meaning a pre-study was originally done to establish how much work was needed under the final study. Pre-studies have now been cast aside for arbitrary deadlines set by political agendas.) the work is placed under direct conversion. This means the work is automatically contracted out, regardless of any efficiency, cost savings and any fair and objective criteria standards. Federal employees are effectively told they’re out of a job, goodbye, replaced by contract workers working for a company who won the lowest bid. This means a big company can low ball the bid to win the contract, afford the internal losses for a year or two under the contract, then take the automatic renewal route route under the contract with a substantially higher cost to the taxpayers. Contract workers will do what they are told just to keep their jobs, or be fired. (What is not well understood is the contractor often wins the contract based on the previous years’ budget allocation. In order for the contractor to pay its own overhead and make a profit at the same time, the cost savings must come from reducing the overall pay/benefits of the contract workers.)
It’s no longer A-76. It’s called competitive sourcing. Apparently every federal department under the FY2004 proposed budget has competitive sourcing requirements scheduled to begin October 1 of this year. Many studies have been eliminated under the new A-76, meaning no attempt to determine whether contracting out is good for the government and the taxpayer. In other cases, those studies must end on October 1, a determination made on that day, and orders issued.
Bush has already said he want to eliminate up to 825,000 federal jobs, to start. Current estimates range from 400,000 to 800,000 jobs could be eliminated on October 1, with federal workers gone within 60 days. Sure it means contract workers would replace them, often at lower pay, reduced benefits, and the elimination of political protection laws (designed to make sure government decisions are as fair and objective as possible). Yes, political contract workers.
For example, Bush wants to eliminate up to 70 percent of the National Park Service, to be replaced with volunteers and contract workers. (I don’t work for the NPS.) Gone will be the scientists, researchers, even many Park Rangers. How would you like visiting Yellowstone National Park, being told by a volunteer or political contract worker that the pristine geothermal energy being displayed is being wasted, and should be used as an alternative energy source? The volunteer or political contract employee will do as they are told, or be fired, even if what they tell visitors is a lie and not in the best interests of Yellowstone and the country. The dollar now rules.
In another related example, last summer was the worst fire season on record. Congress allocates a fire budget every year, based on previous years’ experience. If more money is spent than budgeted (meaning the fire season was worse than average), the president goes to Congress asking for a supplement. Bush didn’t. He ordered land management agencies to pay for 2002 fires with then current general funds and with 2003 fire season monies. Yes, the FY2003 fire budget is more than the FY2002 fire budget, but much of that FY2003 fire budget money is already gone. Early estimates are showing this summer’s fire season may be just as bad as last year. With already insufficient fire funds this year, agencies will have to cut into already smaller current budgets (meaning jobs will have to go even before competitive sourcing kicks in in October). The folks I’ve talked to about this tell me they are trying to spend as much unobligated funds as possible before June 1. This will prevent Bush from gutting current normal operations budgets to pay for fires, but also increase the likelihood land management agencies will have to eliminate jobs just that much faster. But it also means Bush will have to publicly go hat in hand to Congress and ask for more money for these agencies to fight fires and keep the agencies running, or risk massive government shutdowns and expose Bush with his political wheeler-dealer games early on (meaning Congress could kill Bush’s competitive sourcing just in time, or at least scale it back to a more fair and objective system).
Bush is also fast-tracking competitive sourcing by using the DoD as a prime example. What the DoD has taken more than 30 years of refining, economizing and returning oversight back to the taxpayer, Bush wants a similar system fully functional in less than six months. Anyone with half a brain should know this is not possible.
Whole job series are targeted. This means not only the actual workers are out of a job, but the managers and policy makers as well, all replaced by a contractor taking orders from a politician. At work, we saw our IT support structure outsourced to HAL on January 1 and an external helpdesk put in its place. (It was a direct conversion. There were no studies done to determine whether this was an efficient way for the government to do business.) HAL hired people to staff the helpdesk with little to no computer experience. They didn’t even consider the thousands of out of work professional IT employees. The latest report out just today shows only 55 percent of all support requests are closed by the national helpdesk. This is far below the targeted 95-98 percent as required by the contract. We’re not talking rocket science IT help here. I’ve dealt with the helpdesk enough, as well as had to provide second/third level support to know firsthand the helpdesk folks can’t even help someone to format a document properly in Word, don’t know what a URL is with a web browser, and cannot even troubleshoot how to install a new application properly. One should expect this of a new operation, but the quality of the help has actually gone down since it was started. (I spent three years creating, implementing and running a computer helpdesk for a major university and we were never under 95 percent support from day one.)
I support the concept of A-76. In many areas, private enterprise can do a more effective and cost conscious level of work than the government. And we’ve all heard stories about those inept government employees. (Then again, Congress implemented a different government benefit structure back in 1984 so all those “great benefits” just are not there to post-1984 government workers. Congress has also enacted salary pay bands and special salary rates for some job series to make government workers more competitive with private enterprise, while at the same time maintaining and strengthening government employee accountability to the taxpayers.)
On the other hand, under Bush’s competitive sourcing having a contract job means you are beholding to political whims and not the interests of the country and the American People. Fairness and accountability to the taxpayer are replaced with accountability to a private company (and its own self-interests.).
The average federal employee is in their 40s. For those not long enough/old enough with the government to take early retirement, do you really think private enterprise will hire displaced federal workers in their 40s/50s? Age discrimination complaints filed with the federal EEOC are the highest on record. Once unemployment runs out with these folks who cannot find a job in their field, watch McDonalds and Walmart see job applications from these folks skyrocket. Can the current economy handle 400,000 new unemployed out of work in 60 days, replaced by minimum wage (or a bit higher) contract workers with little to know experience to do the job? There is already talk that when federal workers lose their jobs, all they will leave behind are their desks, chairs and computers. They will take with them all their skills, knowledge, contacts and way of doing business. When the political contract worker takes over and asks, “How do I do this and who do I talk with,” the response will be, “RTFM.” There will be no manual.
Most of the information is only available in Congressional hearings, government reports and private government employee support companies. GovExec.com is an excellent source to the meager media reports and Congressional hearings. The media hasn’t really taken the issue to heart except for a few OMB press releases. Terrorism and the war with Iraq also provide great distractions.
Don’t forget Bush comes from a state where business holds all the employment cards. Think Enron and Worldcom as well, but with tax dollars. Unless Congress and the taxpayers wise up by this summer, all will go ahead. Even if Congress takes notice very late in the summer, enough competitive sourcing will be in place that considerable damage will occur before Congress can adequately address the entire issue and return A-76 . You cannot unring a bell.
What a cheap piece of rhetoric. Tell me, Revtim, when the people of Iraq were voting Ba’athist back in the day when elections meant something, do ya suppose the people who despaired at what they were doing were anti-democratic?
Jeebus, drop the cheesy Pubbie debating points and use your noggin.
**It’s a valid question. Why isn’t this making huge, massive news? Why aren’t people outraged?
Why don’t people care? **
Because they’re distracted by the war in Iraq.
I’m not aware of any provisions to the Patriot Act that make me squirm. In general, the Act expands the ability of the government to conduct surveillance, and increases - but does not eliminate - the time requirement by which a subject must be told of the surveillance.
What specific provisions of the Act do you find objectionable? Maybe you can change my mind.
- Rick
Can somebody explain to me why the Patriot Act is a bad thing?
(With a minimum of outragous hyperbolic rhetoric, please).
I am generally conservative, with a libertarian streak. Why should I be afraid of this bill?
The most I have heard about this is the increased wiretapping laws. They seem to make sense to me. You now get a warrant for a person, not a phone line so it’s easier to keep up with people who have different phones in different states and whatnot.
Let’s see if you guys can do it. Convince me. I am supportive of the current administration because I share their politics. However, like I said I do sometimes lean libertarian. I honestly do have an open mind on this issue.
I would like to point out that no one in this thread has given any specific reason why this legislation is overreaching. There isn’t any content at all. Just whining about how bad it is.
Nice simul-post Bricker. Now they can convince both of us! 
Sure - and when they do, I hope they take care to distinguish NEW abilities offered by the Patriot Act. In other words, no fair complaining about a provision that requires the FISA court to hear secret evidence – that court existed well before the Patriot Act.
I’m curious to hear what the complaints are.
I’ll have to do some more research if you desire specific cites and comparisons. But for starters, as I recall it the PA flew thru Congr. as somewhat of a “rush job” after 9/11. Various standard procedures for proposed legislation, including inter-agency review, the normal committee and hearing processes, certain voting intricacies I do not fully understand, were suspended for this bill. Congr should certainly ensure scrupulous procedure, before making this ostensibly temporary measure permanent.
A very basic and - I think - legitimate concern is that altho PA potentially significantly affects civil liberties of every private citizen, I was unaware of any showing that previous civil liberties interfered with law enforcement’s ability to track or prosecute terrorists. Nor was I aware of any showing that additional powers were needed - that police and intelligence agencies lacked sufficient “spying” resources and authority to permit them to effectively investigate and prosecute terrorism. Would 9/11 have been prevented had the PA previously been in place?
What I dislike most is that the government may request judicial authorization of conduct surveillance on US citizens if they claim the spying could lead to information that is “relevant” to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. By my admittedly limited understanding, this is a HUGE lessening of what was previously required to obtain such search warrants.
I also understood that in such circumstances courts have limited leeway for denying requests made under the PA, and the government had decreased reporting responsibilities concerning their actions. I don’t see why these “short-cuts” are necessary, or a “good thing.”
PA permits nationwide roving wiretaps, a powerful and potentially intrusive tool, allowing the FBI and CIA to go from phone to phone, computer to computer without getting reauthorization for each new phone or computer, or demonstrating that each is even being used by a particular suspect or the target of the initial order.
I’m pretty ignorant about such things, but I understand that the PA increases how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others involved in online communications.
New definitions of “terrorism” potentially subject more people to surveillance and prosecution. For example, I believe the new definition of “domestic terrorism” may involve some legitimate protest, especially if violence occurs.
Although it is not the stated intent, the PA seems to include many provisions that will be able to be directed at nonviolent, domestic computer crime. For example, I am not sure that increased penalties and such for computer fraud and misuse have a necessary connection to terrorism. Same with DNA compilation authorized under the PA.
Is that enough to get a discussion going?
I guess it somewhat boils down to what kind of a society you desire.
There has always been the school of thought: Why object to the search if you have nothing to hide?
Strikes me as further irony that such is championed by the party ostensibly favoring less government intrusion into private life.
OK. But that’s not an objection to the provisions - if Congress determined, after the normal committee and hearing processes, that the provisions should be made permanant, this would satisfy the above objection.
EVERY civil liberty interferes with law enforcement’s ability to track criminals, including terrorists. My right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure interferes with the government’s ability to make sure I’m not building a radioactive anthrax bomb in my basement.
The question to address is what SPECIFIC civil liberties were curtailed by the Act.
Nor is that the question. The Act is not designed to reverse time and undo the events of 9/11. It is, rather, an effort to reassess the tools available to law enforcement and decide what, if any, additional powers are needed and consistent with constitutional principles.
Not really, no. A warrant has always been available to conduct surveillance that may include a person not directly a target of the investigation. The only showing was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, and that fruits of that crime would be uncovered by the surveillance.
About the only thing that’s true in the above is the “decreased reporting” requirement. Under previous rules, when the government served a search warrant, they had to tell you, immediately, that they had searched. Under the PA, the government may, upon showing of good cause to a neutral, detached magistrate, delay notifying you. They may not erase the requirement of EVER notifying you, but they may delay it.
Why is this a “good thing”?
Because if a target of a search is, in fact, a terrorist, the immediate notification may signal to his buddies that the game is up, that they have been or are about to be compromised, and may permit the unidentified members of the conspiracy to escape or to set into action their nefarious scheme.
Yes, except for the part about not having to demonstrate that each subsequent device is being used by a particular suspect or the target of the initial order. They must ultimately show that, or risk losing their evidence - the same choice that they face pre-PA for illegal wiretaps.
Why is this a “good thing?”
Because the original rules for wiretaps did not contemplate a world in which a pre-paid cellphone could be bought and activated in 20 minutes. The requirement to pre-authorize each phonenumber, given today’s technology, means that suspects can outwit any surveillance by switching phones. The PA merely takes into account the reality of cellphones and voice over IP. In other words, it brings the government back to even, after it lost ground because of technological advances.
Does it? by how much? In what way?
Are you sure you’re thinking specifically about the Patriot Act here?
So? The question is not, “Will this permit the fight against terrorism to proceed better?”
The question is, “Is this scope of government activity necessary to fight crime and consistent with constitutional protections?”
- Rick
The most chilling part of it that I heard of was the ability of the gov’t to place people in custody indefinitely, without access to a lawyer.
I admit though that I have not personally verified this is in the Patriot Act, and cases such a Jose Padilla and Mike Hawash might have other legal “justifications” for their seemingly unconstitutional aspects.
Material witness warrants have always existed, pre-PA.
The FISC’s ability to issue material witness warrants existed pre-PA.
Thanks for your point-by-point response to my post.
I readily admit that I am not an expert in this area. Also, that I tend to be biased against searches absent convincing showings of cause. And against expansion of police boowers absent a showing of clear need, as well as tailoring to achieve specific benefits while imposing minimal costs.
I will consider your observations as I encounter this topic in the future. But I am unqualified to presently effectively advocate against permanent PA in this thread.
In case I was not clear, was this:
your explanation of why you think a permanent PA is a necessary and/or good thing?
Thanks Bricker. I agree; on further examination of the Patriot Act, which can be found at:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/hr3162.php
I find nothing that allows unlimited detention.
I admit that my primary objection to the PA has been incorrect. I was so outraged over the detention issue, that I never even bothered to learn what the PA does to change gov’t surveillance powers. I’ll have to learn about it more before I can make a personal judgement on those issues.
WTF is a police boower?
Do you think that idiot may have meant “police powers”?
This is a start - http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html
Yeah, Duckster. I drew heavily from that page in my previous answer. Probably should have cited it. Mea culpa.
Similar concerns are expressed here:
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/report.asp?ObjID=nQdbIRkDgG&Content=153
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.02A.JVB.Patriot.htm
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
And the PA itself:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Of course, it’s probably pretty easy to predict what end of the political spectrum these sources hail from.
I was surprised to find in my brief search how consistently the cites that turned up on the first couple of pages were critical of the PA. I’m sure there is plenty of support for the PA out there. I was just surprised it didn’t turn up as readily on my brief googling.
I think it’s time we stopped calling by the misleading term “Republican” and call them by what they really are Fascists.
Thankfully, the Fascists aren’t really a majority of the republicans in this country. Unhappily, they seem to occupy most of the positions of power in the republican party, and command the support and respect of most of the rank and file republican voters despite the fact that the work against the interest of their own voters more often than not.
The only fix for this is for the real republicans to throw the fascists out of their party. Starting with Ashcroft. (Which means, starting with the man who hired him - Bush). And continuing with all of the senators and congressmen who form the current republican leadership. DeLay being the worst of the Lot IMO.
Well, there is the matter of the FBI (or other law enforcement official)(under the protective umbrella of the Patriot Act:rolleyes: )being allowed to go into a library, be it a school or public one, and demand to know what books a patron has checked out. The FBI doesn’t have to say why they want the info, in fact all they have to do is make the demand, no warrant, no nothing.
So much for the right to privacy.:rolleyes:
Problem is that while mosts libraries have a computerized checkout system, they don’t keep a record of evey book that a customer has checked out, just what they currently have out.*
Why is it the governments business if I’m checking out a book on how to make a bomb? Not that any library I know carries such a book, but what if they did? And so what if I did check out a book on how to make a bomb. Just because I check it out doesn’t mean I’m going to read it.
It’s a tiny and very dangerous step from this kind of AssHattery to banning certain books from libraries.
*Yes, I know that the records would be on the harddrive, but getting them would entail removing the computers and screwing up the system.
Don’t you mean to say, “…so much for accuracy?” What you describe above is not authorized by the Patriot Act, is it?
So why would you choose to mislead the readers of this thread? What sinister motives do you have? Why must you post lies about this legislation? Is it some conspiracy? Or merely an error on your part? I suppose simple mistake is possible, except that the Act’s language was linked to above, so you have to have either read it and then ignored it, or chosen not to read it. But then – why would you make a claim without checking to see if it was true?
Frankly, I’m baffled.
Payton’s Servant why don’t you start with a cite on what you are talking about. What part of the patriot act makes this change? Or, what other legislation makes this change? Then we might be able to debate it if we know the details of what you are talking about.
Also, what reasonable person expects privacy at a public library. I would see the outrage if they wanted to come into your home and demand what books you are reading, but the library is by definition a public place. There isn’t much expectation of privacy at a public place.