THE BAIT-AND-SWITCH ADMINISTRATION
Sat Feb 9, 9:02 PM ET
By Richard Reeves

NEW YORK -- One way to understand this Bush administration is to see it as an extension of the first Reagan term. It has three overriding goals: to reduce taxes on the investing classes, to cut government spending on the lesser classes, and to build up the military.


So far, in the context of a national crisis, it has done a good job of meeting its goals -- and then some. When it has been confronted with the most obvious desires and demands of the people, it has reacted rapidly -- or retreated strategically. The reactions and retreats are known on the streets of this city as a con game called "bait-and-switch."

The most obvious bait-and-switch operation, at least viewed from here, is the $20 billion promised to New York City to deal with the physical and psychological destruction of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center. A few days after the event, President Bush offered his "personal" promise that the city would get $20 billion. Then the switching began.

In November, it was reported by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman that the actual amount the administration was budgeting for New York disaster relief was $11 billion. That exposure, and the howls of New York legislators, led to another announcement that the amount really was $20 billion -- but that amount would include the $5 billion in direct relief to victims and survivors of victims of the trade center bombing.

More howls, and Bush stepped forward again and said it would really be $20 billion, not $15 billion. Wanna bet? The feds' hands can be quicker than New York's grimy eyes. (Krugman has passed along the idea that the real gripe of the Bushmen is that they just don't like New York or New Yorkers. Well, they wouldn't be the first Republicans to feel that way once they realize there are no white picket fences along this part of the Hudson River.)

The newest bait-and-switch was uncovered this time by the Government Accountability Project, a private group dedicated to encouraging and protecting whistleblowers in government and corporations. GAP, not the store, is beginning to realize and publicize the fact that the so-called new federal security force at airports is not quite what it seems -- if you took the bait of the White House announcements that the government would hire 40,000 new federal employees to take responsibility for future security in the air.

The first thing GAP noticed was that the new airport security rules and regulations omitted the usual provision that protected the jobs of government employees who told their superiors of waste, fraud and various chicanery among the people checking us and our luggage before we leave the ground with the hope we will safely return. I'm making up this example, of course, but if a baggage handler noticed one of her colleagues taking a $100 bill from a passenger who did not want his bag X-rayed and then reported that to the boss, the observant one could be told to shut her mouth and get back to work -- or worse, be fired on the spot as a malcontent.

The new regulations, as explained by Undersecretary of Transportation John Magaw, a former Secret Service agent, and as passed by Congress, eliminated whistle-blowing protection because it could shut down the whole security process if such suspicions had to be checked. I guess if it's good enough for Enron, it's good enough for the government.

Actually, there was another bait-and-switch in this one. The legislation passed by Congress did say: "Screening personnel must ... be given whistle-blower protections so that screeners may report security conditions without fear of reprisal." But then the new law stated that the undersecretary could set terms and conditions of employment. Which meant Magaw could decide, as he did, not to include whistle-blower protection as a condition of employment.

That's the way it works in this administration. It does one thing when you're watching, another when you're not. In fact, going back to the Reagan connection, if we don't watch closely, the administration may decide that the perfect air safety system would be to fly first-class passengers one by one in F-16s and send the rest of us in buses. More defense contracts, more defense spending. What could be better?