Big Changes Seen in Choice for Homeland Security

In an article in the New York Times, Eric Lichtblau and Richard W. Stevenson report the reactions to President George W. Bush’s nomination of Bernard B. Kerik for the new secretary of homeland security. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security last year from twenty-two separate agencies. If approved by the Senate and the House, Kerik would replace Tom Ridge as head bureaucrat. Ridge is characterized as possessing a “staid, deliberate demeanor” while Kerik is expected to shake things up with his reputation as “a dedicated, innovative reformer who insists on getting results.” These descriptions emphasize the importance of the head of the bureaucracy as essentially the bureaucracy itself. It is expected that the agency under one head will necessarily represent that head, and with a subsequent change in leadership there will be reforms throughout the entire agency. According to Weingast and Moran’s congressional dominance approach, the principal exerts its power over the agency through confirmations. The bureaucracy must not be an independent entity if other bureaucracies exist that may serve as substitutes. Christopher Cox, a representative who leads the House Homeland Security Committee, explained that the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security was as “’the fusion center’ for intelligence operations” but that these operations had been hindered by competition with other intelligence-gathering agencies. Thus, since it shares functions with the CIA, NSA, and FBI, the department must pay attention to the preferences of the principal, reinforcing the principal’s ability to rule the bureaucracy through confirmation, oversight and appropriations. Kerik’s nomination is also supported for the belief that he will be able to fight for the right amount of appropriations for the department. Senator Charles E. Schumer said, “The last thing you need in that job is a bureaucrat… you need someone who’s going to go into the bureaucracy and shake it up and go to the administration and make sure homeland security gets the resources it needs. Tom Ridge is a very fine gentleman, and may have been the more obvious type of choice, but Bernie Kerik may have a better chance of succeeding at what is admittedly a very difficult job.” Thus, the congressional power of appropriations had directly caused a change in the bureaucracy, not merely from the bottom, but starting at the top. Fund-raising has been given top priority. This satisfies the assumption that a bureaucrat is not a self-sacrificer working for the common good, but a utility maximizer who wishes to maximize his bureaucracy’s utility through increased appropriations and thus his own as well.