A Department of Homeland Security was the idea of the Democrats that the president resisted for months. So guess who gets credit for it now?

The headlines this week trumpeted another Bush triumph, the creation of a new Homeland Security Department.

Hardly anybody remembers it was a Democratic idea, which President Bush resisted for months. He reversed course only when it appeared headed for passage. If the Democrats had not controlled the Senate, the GOP would have bottled up the bill on Bush�s order, and the biggest reorganization of the federal government in 50 years would not be underway.

Bush thinks of himself as a small-government conservative and initially badmouthed a new cabinet department as FDR big-government bureaucracy. When he saw how popular it was with voters, and with the grieving 9-11 families, he adopted the idea as his own. Democrats welcomed Bush�s support and were puzzled when what appeared to be an easy bipartisan victory for the White House turned into an election-eve standoff over civil-service rules. Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, a triple amputee who served in Vietnam, lost his bid for reelection because he voted with his party on the civil-service question, giving his opponent the opening to accuse him of pandering to unions at the expense of the country�s security.

The debacle Democrats suffered over homeland security is a metaphor for their inability to effectively convey their side of the argument. There�s a reason why civil-service protections exist and that is to separate critical government functions from politics. This was a fight about patronage and whether the new department will be a meritocracy or whether hiring will be based on cronyism. �This is about who went to school with whom, and who went to a Christian college,� says an irate Senate Democratic aide. �This gives them a free hand to stack the department and turn it into an outpost of the Republican Party.� The aide blames the media for running with the easy story line of Democrats uncritically siding with labor while giving the White House a free pass on its political calculation. Democrats are up against a new conservative media and a mainstream media cowed by the success of right-leaning outlets. But if Democrats are going to break the Bush stranglehold on public opinion, they�re going to have to do more than just fulminate about unfair press coverage.

There are plenty of legitimate issues that divide the parties, including one that surfaced this week that goes directly to the media�s self-interest. The administration is using its postelection muscle to further chip away at civil liberties and to extend a blanket of secrecy over government business that has even a tangential link to homeland security. A compromise worked out last summer between Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy, a handful of Republican senators and the White House put limits on the extent to which the administration could exempt the Homeland Security Department from the Freedom of Information Act. This week, with nobody paying attention and the Democrats demoralized, the Republicans and the White House overturned the Leahy compromise and went further than anybody imagined to undercut FOIA and impose criminal penalties on any federal employee who discloses �critical infrastructure� information, even if that information is not classified. The new statute acts as a shield for government and also for companies providing information to the government. The law could be used to block citizens� groups suing Vice President Cheney for access to documents he received from energy companies in putting together the administration�s energy policy. A Leahy aide says the leaks provision is so broad that, �I can�t see how anybody in any federal agency would risk talking to the press because they�ll lose their jobs just like that.�

Republicans and the White House larded the homeland security bill with special-interest provisions to reward their biggest contributors. But other than give interviews about it, Democrats weren�t prepared to take action. Even though they controlled the Senate for the lame-duck session, they weren�t going to give the GOP another chance to call them obstructionist for blocking homeland security, not with Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu in a tight runoff race. So they let a trifecta of special-interest goodies go through unchallenged. One halts lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly that was filed by parents who allege that the vaccine preservative Thimerosal caused their children�s autism. It also protects drug companies from any liability connected with the smallpox vaccine, which is likely to be widely distributed. A second provision allows companies that establish an offshore address as a tax dodge to do business as usual with the new department, exposing the hypocrisy of House Republicans who earlier in the year, when corporate greed was a hot issue, voted to cut off such contracts. The third, a plum provision inserted by House Whip Tom DeLay, would establish a counterterrorism research center at Texas A&M University in DeLay�s home state.

The DeLay boondoggle was too much even for Republicans, who have their own public universities to consider. Senate Republicans promised their Democratic colleagues they would �fix� the controversial provisions early next year, but Democrats don�t think that�s likely. �Forget it, it�s never going to happen,� says a Senate aide. �They�ll say, �Don�t worry, we�ll fix it, and then they�ll attach a flag-burning amendment or anti-abortion language. They�ll never let it go clean; they�ll put in a poison pill. And when we oppose it, they�ll say Democrats blocked it. I�ve watched this a zillion times. The Republicans are very good at this.� Former First Lady Hillary Clinton once said famously that her husband was the victim of a �vast right-wing conspiracy.� First Lady Hillary Clinton once said famously that her husband was the victim of a �vast right-wing conspiracy.� She was ridiculed at the time, even by Democrats. They aren�t laughing anymore.

� 2002 Newsweek, Inc.

~~~

Whose Hands Are Dirty? By BOB HERBERT

Thimerosal is a preservative that contains mercury and was used for many years as an additive in some routinely administered children's vaccines.

Fears developed a few years ago that the additive might have been causing dangerously elevated levels of mercury in infants, resulting in neurological impairment and, in some cases, autism.

Studies thus far have neither shown nor ruled out a link between the vaccines and neurological damage in children. But in the summer of 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service urged vaccine manufacturers to stop using thimerosal as quickly as possible.

Thus, thimerosal, which was developed by Eli Lilly & Company in the 1920's and was in widespread use by the 1990's, is no longer added to vaccines commonly given to children. But a serious controversy continues. Lawsuits have been filed by parents across the country who are convinced that their children suffered severe neurological damage from the mercury in the vaccines. Talking to them can be heartbreaking.

Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner and the wife of a physician in suburban Atlanta, spoke to me last week about her 8-year-old son, Will. "I have a little boy who was completely normal at birth � walking, talking, smiling, meeting all of his developmental landmarks," she said. "Then, shortly after he turned 1 year old, he lost his ability to speak, to make eye contact. He started regressing and ultimately was diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder, which falls into a spectrum of autism disorders."

Ms. Redwood contends that three infant vaccines administered to her son when he was 2 months old exposed him to levels of mercury that far exceeded all safety guidelines.

At this point we must interrupt our narrative and turn our attention to the federal government's effort to fight terrorism in the United States.

Last week the Senate approved legislation to establish a Department of Homeland Security and it will soon be signed into law by the president. Buried in this massive bill, snuck into it in the dark of night by persons unknown (actually, it's fair to say by Republican persons unknown), was a provision that � incredibly � will protect Eli Lilly and a few other big pharmaceutical outfits from lawsuits by parents who believe their children were harmed by thimerosal.

Now this has nothing to do with homeland security. Nothing. This is not a provision that will in any way protect us from the ferocious evil of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So why is it there? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the major drug companies have become a gigantic collective cash machine for politicians, and that the vast majority of that cash goes to Republicans.

Or maybe it's related to the fact that Mitch Daniels, the White House budget director, is a former Eli Lilly big shot. Or the very convenient fact that just last June President Bush appointed Eli Lilly's chairman, president and C.E.O., Sidney Taurel, to a coveted seat on the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council.
There's a real bad smell here. Eli Lilly will benefit greatly as both class-action and individual lawsuits are derailed. But there are no fingerprints in sight. No one will own up to a legislative deed that is both cynical and shameful.

An official spokesman for Eli Lilly, Edward Sagebiel, insists the company knew nothing about it, nothing at all.

While the vote for the Homeland Security Department was overwhelming, even some Republicans were upset by the provision to benefit Lilly and the other drug companies.

Senator John McCain of Arizona characterized the provision as "among the most inappropriate" in the homeland security legislation. He said: "This language will primarily benefit large brand-name pharmaceutical companies which produce additives to children's vaccines � with substantial benefit to one company in particular. It has no bearing whatsoever on domestic security."

The politicians with their hands out and the fat cats with plenty of green to spread around have carried the day. Nothing is too serious to exploit, not even the defense of the homeland during a time of terror.

Lyn Redwood put together an advocacy group, called Safe Minds, for parents struggling with the thimerosal issue. They're at a slight disadvantage, wielding a popgun against the nuclear-powered influence of an Eli Lilly.

Copyright The New York Times Company

~~~

last / next



~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised: All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words



***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point. I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.