Playing Homeland Politics

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday. September 27, 2002

[TroutStalker]

President Bush didn't get it quite right the other day when he said that by failing to pass a Homeland Security bill the Democrats were "not interested in the security of the American people." That was unfair. He should have said they're willing to put union interests above the security of the American people.

[Alberta's Child]

Congress understood the need for such flexibility a year ago, when it created the Transportation Security Agency.

It was very nice of Congress to do that, but it should be pointed out that "security" was a secondary motive for the creation of the Transportation Security Agency. This agency was created primarily to shield various parts of the airline industry (airlines, airport operators, etc.) from civil litigation anytime a security breach results in a catastrophe.

Not only does the law that implemented the TSA exempt airport screeners from federal labor law, but the TSA itself cannot be sued when an airline disaster occurs as a result of incompetence on the part of agency personnel.

[randita]

The result of Daschle's outburst (which he alerted news outlets of so it would be covered) is that the REAL reason why Democrats oppose Bush's version of the Homeland Security Agency is getting out. Before now, all we've had is the Democrat's spin on it--which has been, as usual, fraudulent.

Now the general public, which as a rule is not very pro-labor, is learning the real truth. When the polls show that the public supports Bush's version of the HSA, Democrats will have to come on board. Once it's a given that Bush's plan will pass, Democrats in tight races will be given a pass to vote either for or against it--whichever is the most politically expedient for them.