GovernmentExecutive.com

Yeesh. The Nigerian scam apparently wasn't enough for the con artists who troll the Internet and roam the nation's phone systems. Now they're telling people they're from the "Government Grant Association" or the "Federal Government Grant Information Center," and if you only fork over $250, you'll get an $8,000 grant from Uncle Sam. Please tell me that no one who works for the government has actually gotten suckered by this.

Yeesh. The Nigerian scam apparently wasn't enough for the con artists who troll the Internet and roam the nation's phone systems. Now they're telling people they're from the "Government Grant Association" or the "Federal Government Grant Information Center," and if you only fork over $250, you'll get an $8,000 grant from Uncle Sam. Please tell me that no one who works for the government has actually gotten suckered by this.

TSA has apparently decided that molesting female passengers isn't such a great idea. The agency's not giving in to critics who say it should quit conducting assume-the-position pat-down searches of some travelers, but TSA officials have issued a new edict: No touching between the breasts.

TSA has apparently decided that molesting female passengers isn't such a great idea. The agency's not giving in to critics who say it should quit conducting assume-the-position pat-down searches of some travelers, but TSA officials have issued a new edict: No touching between the breasts.

Latest sign of trouble for Donald Rumsfeld: Newt Gingrich has come to his defense.

Latest sign of trouble for Donald Rumsfeld: Newt Gingrich has come to his defense.

I get the sneaking feeling this is a leading indicator: The LA Times reports that Contrack International Inc. has become the first holder of a major Iraq reconstruction contract to bail out of the country, citing out-of-control security costs. The Pentagon was quick to treat the company like a bad boyfriend. "It's not a terrible loss," said Amy Burns, spokeswoman for DoD's Iraq Project and Contracting Office. "It actually may be good that we're both moving on."

I get the sneaking feeling this is a leading indicator: The LA Times reports that Contrack International Inc. has become the first holder of a major Iraq reconstruction contract to bail out of the country, citing out-of-control security costs. The Pentagon was quick to treat the company like a bad boyfriend. "It's not a terrible loss," said Amy Burns, spokeswoman for DoD's Iraq Project and Contracting Office. "It actually may be good that we're both moving on."

Here's an angle to watch in today's stories about the ACLU release of FBI e-mails describing interrogation techniques used on detainees at Guantanamo Bay: Military personnel apparently posed as FBI agents (who were evidently the "good cops" in the scenario) in an effort to wring more information out of prisoners. A Pentagon spokesman tells the AP that impersonating other federal agents is, ahem, not on the approved list of military interrogation techniques.

Here's an angle to watch in today's stories about the ACLU release of FBI e-mails describing interrogation techniques used on detainees at Guantanamo Bay: Military personnel apparently posed as FBI agents (who were evidently the "good cops" in the scenario) in an effort to wring more information out of prisoners. A Pentagon spokesman tells the AP that impersonating other federal agents is, ahem, not on the approved list of military interrogation techniques.

The twofold White House response to the "dump Rumsfeld" boomlet is starting to emerge. Part one (from the president himself): Rummy's really not such a bad guy. Part two (from the Defense secretary himself): This isn't about Iraq, it's about my efforts to transform the military.

The twofold White House response to the "dump Rumsfeld" boomlet is starting to emerge. Part one (from the president himself): Rummy's really not such a bad guy. Part two (from the Defense secretary himself): This isn't about Iraq, it's about my efforts to transform the military.

Do you remember in the movie The Princess Bride, when the bad guy Vizzini keeps saying it's "inconceivable" that the hero Wesley repeatedly escapes from every trap laid for him? Vizzini's erstwhile colleague Inigo Montoya finally tells him, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card may be developing a Vizzini problem. On ABC's This Week on Sunday, Card declared that the FDA, whose own scientists are questioning the agency's capacity to approve and regulate drugs, is doing a "spectacular job." On the subject of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, under fire from members of his own party on Capitol Hill, what single word did Card find to describe his performance? You guessed it: "Spectacular." Update: Maybe Card knows the meaning of the word better than I think he does. An anomymous Fedlog fan writes, "If we consider the definition to be, 'Making a spectacle of one's self,' it works for both of those situations."

Do you remember in the movie The Princess Bride, when the bad guy Vizzini keeps saying it's "inconceivable" that the hero Wesley repeatedly escapes from every trap laid for him? Vizzini's erstwhile colleague Inigo Montoya finally tells him, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card may be developing a Vizzini problem. On ABC's This Week on Sunday, Card declared that the FDA, whose own scientists are questioning the agency's capacity to approve and regulate drugs, is doing a "spectacular job." On the subject of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, under fire from members of his own party on Capitol Hill, what single word did Card find to describe his performance? You guessed it: "Spectacular." Update: Maybe Card knows the meaning of the word better than I think he does. An anomymous Fedlog fan writes, "If we consider the definition to be, 'Making a spectacle of one's self,' it works for both of those situations."

I'm not a fan of The Apprentice. But the folks at the Lucas Group apparently are. The Atlanta-based executive search firm, which specializes in helping military personnel make the transition to the private sector, put out a press release today noting that Kelly Perdew, last night's winner of the latest edition of the show, had a leg up on the competition because of his military background. (Perdew is a West Point graduate and former Army intelligence officer.) I wouldn't know if military service was decisive for Perdew, since the only part of the show I've seen all year was about two minutes of last night's three-hour finale. But in that two minutes, I did see Perdew's former commanding officer tell Donald Trump he "would be remiss" not to hire Perdew. How many people get away with talking to the Donald like that? (Thanks to GovExec's George Cahlink for this one.)

I'm not a fan of The Apprentice. But the folks at the Lucas Group apparently are. The Atlanta-based executive search firm, which specializes in helping military personnel make the transition to the private sector, put out a press release today noting that Kelly Perdew, last night's winner of the latest edition of the show, had a leg up on the competition because of his military background. (Perdew is a West Point graduate and former Army intelligence officer.) I wouldn't know if military service was decisive for Perdew, since the only part of the show I've seen all year was about two minutes of last night's three-hour finale. But in that two minutes, I did see Perdew's former commanding officer tell Donald Trump he "would be remiss" not to hire Perdew. How many people get away with talking to the Donald like that? (Thanks to GovExec's George Cahlink for this one.)

Nothing surprising in the news that President Bush wants to freeze domestic spending next year--especially since the term "domestic" no longer includes "homeland." Interesting, though that the AP notes that even NASA is slated for only a 1 percent increase or so, "pending appeals to the White House by outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe." Oh, that should work really well: "Excuse me, Mr. President, I've got a cab waiting outside. But if you could just add a few more bucks to what used to be my budget, that'd be great. Thanks."

Nothing surprising in the news that President Bush wants to freeze domestic spending next year--especially since the term "domestic" no longer includes "homeland." Interesting, though that the AP notes that even NASA is slated for only a 1 percent increase or so, "pending appeals to the White House by outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe." Oh, that should work really well: "Excuse me, Mr. President, I've got a cab waiting outside. But if you could just add a few more bucks to what used to be my budget, that'd be great. Thanks."

Now that President Bush has signed the intelligence overhaul bill, the process of trying to figure out exactly what it means and how it will work can start. One of the first items on the agenda, as the Post noted yesterday: Filling a whole bunch of new political appointee slots.

Now that President Bush has signed the intelligence overhaul bill, the process of trying to figure out exactly what it means and how it will work can start. One of the first items on the agenda, as the Post noted yesterday: Filling a whole bunch of new political appointee slots.

An internal FDA survey that has just come to light provides more fodder for critics who say the agency lacks the capacity to adequately manage the drug approval and monitoring process. Two-thirds of FDA scientists, the survey found, said they were not at all confident or only somewhat confident that the agency properly checks up on the safety of prescription drugs once they're on the market. And more than a third expressed some doubts about the agency's process for initially approving drugs.

An internal FDA survey that has just come to light provides more fodder for critics who say the agency lacks the capacity to adequately manage the drug approval and monitoring process. Two-thirds of FDA scientists, the survey found, said they were not at all confident or only somewhat confident that the agency properly checks up on the safety of prescription drugs once they're on the market. And more than a third expressed some doubts about the agency's process for initially approving drugs.

Nice to know that if you try to sneak a bomb onto a plane in your luggage at Newark International Airport, a screening machine will probably catch it. Not so nice to know that the bag might make it onto the plane anyway.

Nice to know that if you try to sneak a bomb onto a plane in your luggage at Newark International Airport, a screening machine will probably catch it. Not so nice to know that the bag might make it onto the plane anyway.

The NY Times gets to the heart of the Kerik fiasco today, reporting that the reason FBI agents didn't uncover any of his questionable activities was because they hadn't even started their background investigation when President Bush announced his appointment to the Homeland Security post. Why not? Because the Bush White House never starts such investigations until after nominees are unveiled. And they're not the first to use this dubiously streamlined approach. So did President Clinton--and look how well it worked out for him.

The NY Times gets to the heart of the Kerik fiasco today, reporting that the reason FBI agents didn't uncover any of his questionable activities was because they hadn't even started their background investigation when President Bush announced his appointment to the Homeland Security post. Why not? Because the Bush White House never starts such investigations until after nominees are unveiled. And they're not the first to use this dubiously streamlined approach. So did President Clinton--and look how well it worked out for him.

Thanks to GovExec alumnus Jason Peckenpaugh for this tidbit: The Marion (Ohio) Star reports that the Army has called up a 70-year-old doctor (and long-since-retired colonel) for service in Afghanistan.

Thanks to GovExec alumnus Jason Peckenpaugh for this tidbit: The Marion (Ohio) Star reports that the Army has called up a 70-year-old doctor (and long-since-retired colonel) for service in Afghanistan.

It was one thing when Florida ballots proved to be too complicated for some people, but now members of the Electoral College apparently can't figure out exactly what they're doing. The Star Tribune reports that one of Minnesota's 10 electors wrote in "John Ewards" on his or her presidential ballot Monday. That double mistake (presumably the elector meant John Edwards) could cost John Kerry one of the 252 electoral votes he earned (not that it makes much difference). "It was perhaps a senior moment," said elector Michael Meuers, who at age 60 was the second-youngest member of the Minnesota Electoral College delegation. Meuers swore he wasn't the one who messed up, but then noted that "both the candidates were named John, and the ballots looked pretty much alike."

It was one thing when Florida ballots proved to be too complicated for some people, but now members of the Electoral College apparently can't figure out exactly what they're doing. The Star Tribune reports that one of Minnesota's 10 electors wrote in "John Ewards" on his or her presidential ballot Monday. That double mistake (presumably the elector meant John Edwards) could cost John Kerry one of the 252 electoral votes he earned (not that it makes much difference). "It was perhaps a senior moment," said elector Michael Meuers, who at age 60 was the second-youngest member of the Minnesota Electoral College delegation. Meuers swore he wasn't the one who messed up, but then noted that "both the candidates were named John, and the ballots looked pretty much alike."

The Kerik Affair shows no signs of letting up, despite his hasty withdrawal from the nomination process. Now Newsday reports that he had a third wife he never told anybody about--and that his first two marriages may have overlapped! The ol' vetting process is just not what it used to be, is it? Or maybe it's just like it used to be.

The Kerik Affair shows no signs of letting up, despite his hasty withdrawal from the nomination process. Now Newsday reports that he had a third wife he never told anybody about--and that his first two marriages may have overlapped! The ol' vetting process is just not what it used to be, is it? Or maybe it's just like it used to be.

Wow, some folks aren't letting the door hit Sean O'Keefe on the way out of NASA before ripping him. Check out the following comments and characterizations just from one AP story: "abandoning a sinking ship;" "bean counter;" "co-opted by the system." C'mon, people, at least give the guy a chance to officially announce he's leaving before laying into him.

Wow, some folks aren't letting the door hit Sean O'Keefe on the way out of NASA before ripping him. Check out the following comments and characterizations just from one AP story: "abandoning a sinking ship;" "bean counter;" "co-opted by the system." C'mon, people, at least give the guy a chance to officially announce he's leaving before laying into him.

I know, I'm guilty of reading too much into headlines. But this one struck me as funny: "McCain's Steroids Push Puts Him in '08 Mix." I think John McCain can take all the performance-enhancing drugs he wants, and it's not going to help him in the next presidential race.

I know, I'm guilty of reading too much into headlines. But this one struck me as funny: "McCain's Steroids Push Puts Him in '08 Mix." I think John McCain can take all the performance-enhancing drugs he wants, and it's not going to help him in the next presidential race.

I think Slate's Mickey Kaus (one of my blogging heroes) is on to something when he writes that the "nanny problems" that Homeland Security nominee Bernard Kerik offered up as a reason for his withdrawal may be the new equivalent of resigning to "spend more time with my family"--a way to exit the scene at relatively low political cost that obscures other issues behind a decision.

I think Slate's Mickey Kaus (one of my blogging heroes) is on to something when he writes that the "nanny problems" that Homeland Security nominee Bernard Kerik offered up as a reason for his withdrawal may be the new equivalent of resigning to "spend more time with my family"--a way to exit the scene at relatively low political cost that obscures other issues behind a decision.

The story of the Soldier Who Stood Up to Rumsfeld is certainly getting more interesting. First the Post reports that a reporter for the Chattanooga Times Free Press put the soldier up to asking the question about scrounging for armor in Iraq. And USA Today uncovers two companies who say they'd be happy to increase production of armor for vehicles if the Pentagon's interested. The Defense Department, meanwhile, spins the whole armor situation as a "good news story" for the troops.

The story of the Soldier Who Stood Up to Rumsfeld is certainly getting more interesting. First the Post reports that a reporter for the Chattanooga Times Free Press put the soldier up to asking the question about scrounging for armor in Iraq. And USA Today uncovers two companies who say they'd be happy to increase production of armor for vehicles if the Pentagon's interested. The Defense Department, meanwhile, spins the whole armor situation as a "good news story" for the troops.

AP reports that "for the first foreign trip of his second term, President Bush will travel to Europe in February." Guess Canada's not "foreign." Update: Thanks to the 100 or so people who reminded me that it's still the first Bush term until January. Sorry for falling asleep at the switch there.

AP reports that "for the first foreign trip of his second term, President Bush will travel to Europe in February." Guess Canada's not "foreign." Update: Thanks to the 100 or so people who reminded me that it's still the first Bush term until January. Sorry for falling asleep at the switch there.

The Wall Street Journal's big takeout on Darleen Druyun today says that the burgeoning scandal surrounding her admission that she steered contracts to Boeing has had two immediate effects: "Investigators are scouring dozens of contracts, trying to determine how many of Ms. Druyun's deals were tainted. They're also trying to figure out how to stop civil servants from building fiefdoms as Ms. Druyun did over a decade." The first point makes sense, but the second ought to raise some eyebrows on a couple of counts: 1) Career civil servants building procurement "fiefdoms" is hardly a widespread problem in government; 2) It's clear where this crackdown is originating--Bush administration Pentagon appointees who resented the power base that Druyun had developed--up to and including the Defense secretary, whose sole comment on the scandal to this point is to decry the lack of "adult supervision" over Druyun. But it's hard to see how giving more control over procurement to political appointees--who have been far more prone than career government officials to abuse the system in the past--is going to make things better.

The Wall Street Journal's big takeout on Darleen Druyun today says that the burgeoning scandal surrounding her admission that she steered contracts to Boeing has had two immediate effects: "Investigators are scouring dozens of contracts, trying to determine how many of Ms. Druyun's deals were tainted. They're also trying to figure out how to stop civil servants from building fiefdoms as Ms. Druyun did over a decade." The first point makes sense, but the second ought to raise some eyebrows on a couple of counts: 1) Career civil servants building procurement "fiefdoms" is hardly a widespread problem in government; 2) It's clear where this crackdown is originating--Bush administration Pentagon appointees who resented the power base that Druyun had developed--up to and including the Defense secretary, whose sole comment on the scandal to this point is to decry the lack of "adult supervision" over Druyun. But it's hard to see how giving more control over procurement to political appointees--who have been far more prone than career government officials to abuse the system in the past--is going to make things better.

Remaining Cabinet members, remain calm: Your jobs are safe. (Except for you, Anthony Principi. Sorry.) The White House insisted after the election the president wouldn't call for mass resignations. Really? Then why the need to call in those few cabinet officers who are left to let them know they can stay? Well, this will at least put to rest the endless speculation about who's going where and when. By the way, on that front, check out Bob Novak's column from this morning. It's pretty clear that he wrote a whole John Snow's-gotta-go piece on the Treasury Secretary Who Had Been Given Up for Dead, and then got undercut by the White House announcement yesterday that the president had apparently not been able to find anybody to agree to take Snow's job. Note the telltale top and bottom references to the late-breaking events, while discussion of "Snow's successor" takes up the body of the column.

Remaining Cabinet members, remain calm: Your jobs are safe. (Except for you, Anthony Principi. Sorry.) The White House insisted after the election the president wouldn't call for mass resignations. Really? Then why the need to call in those few cabinet officers who are left to let them know they can stay? Well, this will at least put to rest the endless speculation about who's going where and when. By the way, on that front, check out Bob Novak's column from this morning. It's pretty clear that he wrote a whole John Snow's-gotta-go piece on the Treasury Secretary Who Had Been Given Up for Dead, and then got undercut by the White House announcement yesterday that the president had apparently not been able to find anybody to agree to take Snow's job. Note the telltale top and bottom references to the late-breaking events, while discussion of "Snow's successor" takes up the body of the column.

Well, congratulations, House of Representatives: You've finally made the compromises necessary to pass an intelligence overhaul bill that already had plenty of support to pass before a couple of well-placed legislators demanded the compromises. But why quibble? At the end of the day, we've got a spanking new layer in the intelligence chain of command in the form of a director of national intelligence. And he or she controls the budgets of 15 spy agencies--except that the director can only shift around $150 million (and not more than 5 percent of any agency's budget) in any given year. Still, the DNI can transfer personnel around to address developing needs--well, not more than 100 personnel, it turns out. OK, but at least the director can order the spies to take on new tasks as contingencies arise--umm, as long as such moves don't impinge on the military chain of command in some way. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., crows to the L.A. Times today about how he got the bill watered down to the point where it's not at all clear exactly what authority the DNI actually has. Let's let former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith have the last word (in the New York Times) on what the House has wrought: "Lawyers across the intelligence community will be arguing about what these provisions mean for many months to come."

Well, congratulations, House of Representatives: You've finally made the compromises necessary to pass an intelligence overhaul bill that already had plenty of support to pass before a couple of well-placed legislators demanded the compromises. But why quibble? At the end of the day, we've got a spanking new layer in the intelligence chain of command in the form of a director of national intelligence. And he or she controls the budgets of 15 spy agencies--except that the director can only shift around $150 million (and not more than 5 percent of any agency's budget) in any given year. Still, the DNI can transfer personnel around to address developing needs--well, not more than 100 personnel, it turns out. OK, but at least the director can order the spies to take on new tasks as contingencies arise--umm, as long as such moves don't impinge on the military chain of command in some way. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., crows to the L.A. Times today about how he got the bill watered down to the point where it's not at all clear exactly what authority the DNI actually has. Let's let former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith have the last word (in the New York Times) on what the House has wrought: "Lawyers across the intelligence community will be arguing about what these provisions mean for many months to come."

They say an army travels on its stomach. And now the nascent Afghan army is taking responsibility for its own stomachs. The U.S. Army News Service
reports that Afghan military leaders are cajoling recruits at the Kabul Military Training Center to volunteer to become cooks. "As the Afghan National Army continues to develop and becomes more self-sufficient," says the news service's report, "the less it must depend on contractors to provide essential services." That's good news. Because an army should never have to rely on contractors for essential services.

They say an army travels on its stomach. And now the nascent Afghan army is taking responsibility for its own stomachs. The U.S. Army News Service
reports that Afghan military leaders are cajoling recruits at the Kabul Military Training Center to volunteer to become cooks. "As the Afghan National Army continues to develop and becomes more self-sufficient," says the news service's report, "the less it must depend on contractors to provide essential services." That's good news. Because an army should never have to rely on contractors for essential services.

As I've hinted earlier, I don't think the dominant story line on the second-term Bush Cabinet--i.e., he's ousting the free thinkers and replacing them with toadies--holds a lot of water. With the possible exception of Colin Powell, the folks who have moved on have hardly been mavericks or loose cannons (OK, maybe Tommy Thompson). But it is true that those who are staying (at least for now) certainly aren't a group that will hog the spotlight from the boss: HUD's Alphonso Jackson, Interior's Gail Norton, Labor's Elaine Chao, Transportation's Norman Mineta, Treasury's hanging-by-a-thread John Snow and VA's Anthony Principi. I doubt that the vast majority of Americans would recognize any of these people on sight. The exception to the rule, of course, is Donald Rumsfeld, but he doesn't really count, because you can't switch defense secretaries in the middle of a war.

As I've hinted earlier, I don't think the dominant story line on the second-term Bush Cabinet--i.e., he's ousting the free thinkers and replacing them with toadies--holds a lot of water. With the possible exception of Colin Powell, the folks who have moved on have hardly been mavericks or loose cannons (OK, maybe Tommy Thompson). But it is true that those who are staying (at least for now) certainly aren't a group that will hog the spotlight from the boss: HUD's Alphonso Jackson, Interior's Gail Norton, Labor's Elaine Chao, Transportation's Norman Mineta, Treasury's hanging-by-a-thread John Snow and VA's Anthony Principi. I doubt that the vast majority of Americans would recognize any of these people on sight. The exception to the rule, of course, is Donald Rumsfeld, but he doesn't really count, because you can't switch defense secretaries in the middle of a war.

Ever since David McGlinchey of our staff has been writing about federal employees and diploma mills, he's been inundated with questions from civil servants about whether this or that institution is fraudulent or not. Here's a little tip: if the school will give a degree to your cat, then it's probably not a legitimate institution of higher learning.

Ever since David McGlinchey of our staff has been writing about federal employees and diploma mills, he's been inundated with questions from civil servants about whether this or that institution is fraudulent or not. Here's a little tip: if the school will give a degree to your cat, then it's probably not a legitimate institution of higher learning.

The debate over the use of private debt collection agencies to go after tax deadbeats tends to center on whether it's appropriate to give bill collectors access to tax records. But the Post's story this weekend on the subject notes (albeit several paragraphs in) that this obscures a simple fact: "People on both sides of the issue say they believe IRS workers can collect unpaid taxes more cheaply and effectively than contract collectors." Ponder that for a second. In so many issues concerning public policy implementation, it's extraordinarily difficult to determine which mixture of government employees and contractors can best get the job done. In this case everybody agrees it's a no-brainer: Hire more feds. But politically, that solution can't even be on the table any more.

The debate over the use of private debt collection agencies to go after tax deadbeats tends to center on whether it's appropriate to give bill collectors access to tax records. But the Post's story this weekend on the subject notes (albeit several paragraphs in) that this obscures a simple fact: "People on both sides of the issue say they believe IRS workers can collect unpaid taxes more cheaply and effectively than contract collectors." Ponder that for a second. In so many issues concerning public policy implementation, it's extraordinarily difficult to determine which mixture of government employees and contractors can best get the job done. In this case everybody agrees it's a no-brainer: Hire more feds. But politically, that solution can't even be on the table any more.

Did you catch the chilling part in the Post piece on the appointment of former NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik to replace Tom Ridge at Homeland Security? "A high-ranking business executive who is familiar with Kerik's tenure as police commissioner and as head trainer of Iraqi police recruits expressed shock at his selection, and said Kerik is not an accomplished manager. 'Management just simply isn't his strong suit,' the executive said." Of course, management ability is rarely much of a factor in appointments, and in Washington, inexperience and unfamiliarity with a department's operations is, as always, viewed as a plus. "The last thing you need in that job is a bureaucrat," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told the New York Times. "You need someone who's going to go into the bureaucracy and shake it up."

Did you catch the chilling part in the Post piece on the appointment of former NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik to replace Tom Ridge at Homeland Security? "A high-ranking business executive who is familiar with Kerik's tenure as police commissioner and as head trainer of Iraqi police recruits expressed shock at his selection, and said Kerik is not an accomplished manager. 'Management just simply isn't his strong suit,' the executive said." Of course, management ability is rarely much of a factor in appointments, and in Washington, inexperience and unfamiliarity with a department's operations is, as always, viewed as a plus. "The last thing you need in that job is a bureaucrat," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told the New York Times. "You need someone who's going to go into the bureaucracy and shake it up."

Nice work by Tommy Thompson Friday, jumping ship and saying, "for the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do." Oh, and he added that a flu pandemic was right around the corner, too. Nothing like going out by forcing your boss to field questions about whether the next trip to Burger King signals certain doom. If there was any lingering uncertainty about whether it was the right time for Thompson to move on, he seems to have alleviated it nicely.

Nice work by Tommy Thompson Friday, jumping ship and saying, "for the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do." Oh, and he added that a flu pandemic was right around the corner, too. Nothing like going out by forcing your boss to field questions about whether the next trip to Burger King signals certain doom. If there was any lingering uncertainty about whether it was the right time for Thompson to move on, he seems to have alleviated it nicely.

I'm back from unseasonably and unreasonably chilly Palo Alto, Calif., where I learned some things about Web publishing that I hope will ultimately improve your overall experience of GovExec.com. (If they don't, I'll have some explaining to do to my bosses about why I spent the company's money traveling 3,000 miles to a seminar.)

Anyway, this morning's fascinating news (if you consider stuff like Tom Ridge's replacement and steroids in baseball to be not all that fascinating) is the Post piece in which a mid-level House aide finally takes the fall for inserting the controversial provision into the omnibus spending bill giving appropriations committee staffers access to IRS offices--and tax records. This is intriguing on a whole bunch of levels:

• Members of Congress are so disconnected from the process of overseeing agencies that staffers apparently don't even think to include them--and are actually surprised when people suggest that inserting provisions like this without telling your boss is not a particularly good idea.
• Pity poor Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla. When he was initially fingered as the bad guy, he was left with two really ugly choices: a. Say he didn't know anything about it, and appear to be out of touch; or b. Take responsibility, and look like he was dying to snoop through Uncle Joe's 1040. Istook's sticking with (a) at this point, and valiantly trying to argue that he's the guy who was really wronged.
• While allowing appropriations committee staffers access to tax records is apparently a threat to the privacy of the average American worthy of great moral outrage, snooping by Ways and Means Committee aides is evidently not a problem.
• This all started because the IRS wouldn't allow routine oversight visits by appropriations committee staffers to field sites, because they couldn't guarantee that some aide wouldn't just happen to see Donald Trump's return. That seems like an overly strict interpretation of the law--and gives the appearance, at least, of providing an all-too-convenient excuse to simply avoid oversight.



• In reality, though, that scenario actually seems unlikely, because when Hill staffers demanded a solution, the IRS helpfully drafted the "come on over and take a peek" language itself! While several people on the Hill should have realized that the provisions would cause a problem, it would have been very helpful had the agency not offered them up in the first place.

I'm back from unseasonably and unreasonably chilly Palo Alto, Calif., where I learned some things about Web publishing that I hope will ultimately improve your overall experience of GovExec.com. (If they don't, I'll have some explaining to do to my bosses about why I spent the company's money traveling 3,000 miles to a seminar.)

Anyway, this morning's fascinating news (if you consider stuff like Tom Ridge's replacement and steroids in baseball to be not all that fascinating) is the Post piece in which a mid-level House aide finally takes the fall for inserting the controversial provision into the omnibus spending bill giving appropriations committee staffers access to IRS offices--and tax records. This is intriguing on a whole bunch of levels:

• Members of Congress are so disconnected from the process of overseeing agencies that staffers apparently don't even think to include them--and are actually surprised when people suggest that inserting provisions like this without telling your boss is not a particularly good idea.
• Pity poor Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla. When he was initially fingered as the bad guy, he was left with two really ugly choices: a. Say he didn't know anything about it, and appear to be out of touch; or b. Take responsibility, and look like he was dying to snoop through Uncle Joe's 1040. Istook's sticking with (a) at this point, and valiantly trying to argue that he's the guy who was really wronged.
• While allowing appropriations committee staffers access to tax records is apparently a threat to the privacy of the average American worthy of great moral outrage, snooping by Ways and Means Committee aides is evidently not a problem.
• This all started because the IRS wouldn't allow routine oversight visits by appropriations committee staffers to field sites, because they couldn't guarantee that some aide wouldn't just happen to see Donald Trump's return. That seems like an overly strict interpretation of the law--and gives the appearance, at least, of providing an all-too-convenient excuse to simply avoid oversight.



• In reality, though, that scenario actually seems unlikely, because when Hill staffers demanded a solution, the IRS helpfully drafted the "come on over and take a peek" language itself! While several people on the Hill should have realized that the provisions would cause a problem, it would have been very helpful had the agency not offered them up in the first place.