ShareThis Page

Rooting out government leakers

| Saturday, July 13, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The name is Monday. Agent Monday. I have an important job to do.

Back in 2011 President Obama issued an executive order to root out security violators within the federal government — people like Edward Snowden, our most recent leaker of government secrets.

The president ordered federal employees to report suspicious activities among their co-workers — any unusual behaviors, strange attitudes, financial troubles or unprecedented travel common to people who sell or leak secrets, the lousy rats.

I am the lead agent in charge of investigating such people. My phone has been ringing off the hook.

My first call took me to the Department of Health and Human Services. The people there have been interpreting Obama's massive 2,700 page health care law to write new regulations. It has ballooned to 20,000 pages of mandates and penalties that weigh 300 pounds and stand 7 feet tall.

“One of our employees read through every page and he's been acting odd ever since,” a bureaucrat told me. “He worried that the new rules will bankrupt the country.”

“He leak this information to anyone?”

“No,” said the bureaucrat. “When he tried to sneak the stack of regulations out the door, it fell on him, causing his unfortunate demise.”

“Serves him right,” I said, smiling.

Just as I settled the ObamaCare case, my phone rang. An employee was acting out of line at the IRS.

“She has been coming in early and staying late,” said the IRS bureaucrat. “We've never seen anything like it.”

“Has she been targeting, harassing and auditing conservatives?” I said.


“Does she spend money lavishly on expensive conferences and silly training videos?”

“No,” said the bureaucrat. “That's the problem. She refuses to do so. What a killjoy.”

“Sounds like someone who is planning to sing.”

“Unless someone makes it look like she was embezzling funds and her reputation is ruined?”

“I like how you think,” I said.

Just then my phone rang again. We had a potential rat at the Environmental Protection Agency.

“We've tried to keep it quiet,” said the EPA bureaucrat, “but we're using every means possible to re-interpret existing laws to create new regulations.”

“Let me get this right,” I said. “Since the president can't pass the restrictive environmental laws he wants, his EPA is just making up new rules?”

“That's right,” said the bureaucrat. “We issued a slew of new regulations to curb U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, which we believe contribute to global warming. Coal plants are shutting down left and right.”

“So what's the problem?”

“We have an employee who is criticizing our lack of openness,” said the bureaucrat. “He says in a constitutional republic, new laws cannot be arbitrarily created in the executive branch — which is essentially what we are doing. He says we are being unconstitutional.”

“Good God,” I said. “You have been infiltrated by a conservative. He'll surely contact the press and sing.”

“We expect not,” said the bureaucrat. “Since he was a conservative, it wasn't too hard for a government psychiatrist to diagnose him as mentally unfit. We put him on forced disability.”

“Nicely played,” I said.

Some argue that government leakers are not the real problem our country is facing. The real problem is that our government has gotten too big, powerful and intrusive.

They argue that the recent scandals are not isolated incidents — that the scandals are what big government looks like.

Maybe so, but that is not my concern.

As I said, I am Agent Monday and I have an important job to do.

Tom Purcell, a freelance writer, lives in Library. Visit him on the web at E-mail him at:

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.