Bush's border fence scam
A proposed 700-mile fence along America's porous border with Mexico could be the quintessential example of the Republican Party being its own worst enemy.
It's almost inconceivable that an issue with such overwhelming public support could have been mishandled so badly by a party that is so badly in need of a winning issue. The GOP brain trust could have answered five simple questions about the fence in 30 seconds. Instead it took the better part of Wednesday to learn the ugly truth.
Thursday morning, President George W. Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act of 2006. "We have a responsibility to enforce our laws," Mr. Bush said of arresting illegal immigration. "We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility seriously."
How seriously can be answered by how difficult it was to learn:
- If any money was appropriated for the fence
- If so, how much
- The total estimated cost of the fence
- When construction would start
- And when it would be completed.
The office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., sent me an e-mail about a recent column questioning the GOP's commitment to the security fence. Dr. Frist's spokesman encouraged me to call Frist's office the next time I was curious about facts relating to "this important piece of legislation."
When I called and asked the five questions, I was told I would not be given the answers. The spokesman would not say if anyone in Frist's office even knew the answers and suggested I try elsewhere.
An e-mail from Frist's office later said, "I continue to encourage you to contact the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget for information regarding the costs of preparing for, and carrying out, the mandates of the legislation that will be signed into law tomorrow."
A spokesman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget also refused to answer the five simple questions. He suggested I call Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
I suggested he call Mr. Gregg and then call me back. The OMB spokesman said he would attempt to set up a conference call while I was on the line. After being left on hold, I was disconnected. No one called back.
Time to call Homeland Security.
Later Wednesday night, the OMB spokesman sent this: "Sorry I had to jump off. I asked ... DHS to call you and give you detail (sic), as their (sic) the implementing agency for the fence. I understand that you and he talked for 30 mins. Was that helpful• The number for Sen. Gregg's office is: (202) 224-3324. Thx."
The DHS spokesman was genuinely helpful. He explained the importance of the impressive SBInet -- the Secure Border Initiative strategy to control the border using technology and infrastructure that also could incorporate the 700-mile fence.
Then he confirmed my worst suspicions.
No money is appropriated for the fence. DHS does not know the total cost. There is no start date for construction. No one can say when -- or if -- it will be completed.
Believe it or not, Mr. Bush at the signing ceremony mentioned "authorizes" three times in one paragraph about the bill and yet nothing about money -- not one cent -- being appropriated to actually build it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.