Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

One agent, who was part of the Bush twins' advance detail, had earlier been beaten up badly after getting mugged when he went out for a night on his own in the city. Details of these incidents emerged on what is a black date for the Secret Service: the anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas 43 years ago. (The Independent)

All of that was disturbing enough. But, there's more.

The acting head of the White House Travel Office was beaten and robbed by at least two men near the International Marketplace in Waikiki early Tuesday.

Greg Pitts suffered head and other injuries in the attack. His nose was broken and he spent the night at The Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu.

Pitts was in Honolulu as part of President Bush's one-day stopover in Honolulu on his way back from a visit to Asia. He and other White House staffers stayed at the Hilton Hawaiian Village while President Bush stayed at Hickam Air Force Base. Due to his injuries Pitts did not immediately return to Washington, D.C., Tuesday.  (Pacific Business News)

The incidents raised alarms among security professionals.

Jack Cloonan, a former FBI investigator, said: "I think it is a big deal, frankly. Anytime the President's daughter has something stolen or somebody gets close to the President's daughter, [it] raises the whole issue of protecting the President and the first family." (Times Online)

ABC News reports:

If they can steal a phone, what's to stop them from placing a bomb, asks one former Secret Service agent?

The recent theft of first daughter Barbara Bush's cell phone and purse in Argentina may seem like fodder for the gossip columns, but it is a deadly serious matter to those whose job it is to provide security to the president and his family.

And, it brings up some vital questions: What happens to her father's phone number? How many confidential numbers and e-mail addresses need to be changed? What's going on inside the Secret Service? And how could this have happened?  (ABC News)

How indeed?  Could the President's woes, and the prospect of investigations by a Democrat-led Congress, be distracting Secret Service employees?  Or are the consequences of President Bush's mismanagement of the federal government finally coming home to roost?

DHS Claims Another Victim

The fate of the Secret Service bears an eerie resemblance to that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In 2003, both were sutured, along with a host of other federal programs, into the Frankenstein's monster we now call the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The impact on FEMA's capabilities is, by now, widely known, and was a contributing factor to the failed response to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.

In fiscal year (FY) 2005, the Secret Service's  budget decreased significantly, from $1.14 billion in FY 2004 to $817 million. Funding increased only slightly in FY 2006, to $819 million.

Meanwhile, the scope of Secret Service responsibilities increased, as a White House website acknowledges.

As threat circumstances have evolved and heightened, the number of the DP program's protectees has been enlarged by statute (18 U.S.C. 3056, as amended) and by Presidential directive over time. (Domestic Protectees Assessment)

On May 23, 2006, the Secret Service issued a news release describing the formation of "nine new Electronic Crimes Task Forces," to be led by the Secret Service, at (new) locations in Baltimore, Birmingham, Buffalo, Louisville, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Pittsburgh and Seattle.  The new responsibilities were authorized by President Bush's pet legislation, the USA PATRIOT Act.

Secret Service responsibilities had already been expanded in 1998 to include the "design, coordination, and implementation of operational security plans for 'National Special Security Events' or NSSEs, via Presidential Decision Directive 62." Examples of NSSEs include the G-8 Summit, Republican National Convention, and Democratic National Convention.  The importance of NSSEs grew following the 2001 terrorist attacks, probably far beyond original expectations.

Details of the Secret Service's responsibilities, budget and efficiency ratings are available to the public on a subdomain of the official White House website.  ExpectMore.gov (how prescient was that?) publicizes  the results of annual reviews of federal programs to determine their effectiveness.  There, hard facts are tempered by political agendas and shameless optimism until the desired results are achieved - typically, a 100% effectiveness rating. "Expect more," indeed.

The 2005 Secret Service assessment, the most recent available, includes the following ratings:

Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 100%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 93%

It's doubtful that a sub-perfect score in accountability worries a White House as secretive as this one; but, it explains a lot about the program results.

One measure of Secret Service effectiveness is the percentage of times "incident-free protection is provided to persons inside the White House Complex and Vice President's Residence." The performance target for VIP protection is 100%, ExpectMore informs us.  Anything less than 100% is "unacceptable."  (Note to Barabra Bush's security team.)

From the 2005 assessment, we learn that Secret Service responsibilities for NSSEs are an unfunded mandate.

The Administration has still not developed a comprehensive funding mechanism for NSSEs. As a result, NSSE security costs have been funded in an ad hoc manner (from a mix of the Counterterrorism Fund [the Department of the Treasury's then the Department of Homeland Security's], base appropriations.

That can't be good. We already know that the Secret Service's overall budget in 2005 was much lower, or so it appears.  (Possibly, a supplemental was authorized, but I have seen no evidence of one.)  Now, that budget has to stretch to cover the costs of recently added mandates. Something's got to give.

Looking again at FEMA, we recall that Michael Brown claimed DHS senior officials plundered preparedness programs to pay for other programs, short of funding. It's not unknown in federal government for an administrator to cover a shortfall in one program by pulling funds from other programs - with their approval, of course.  

ExpectMore's figures, and explanation below, suggest that a similar process may have reduced the amount of funds available to the Secret Service.

Measure: Domestic Protectee Efficiency Index

Explanation: This measure indicates whether the program is using more or less resources in the measured fiscal year, compared to the four year average based period, to accomplish a comparable program outcome.  This measure pertains only to the Domestic Protectees program (excludes CampaignProtection).

Year / Target / Actual

  2004 / 1.0 / 0.97
  2005 / 1.0 / 0.93
  2006 / 1.0
  2007 / 1.0

Thus, in 2005, roughly 7 percent less was spent on the Secret Service protection program, and roughly 3 percent less in 2004. Where did that money go? ExpectMore provides no clues, but offers this excuse.

In FY 2004, the DP index was .97 in comparison to the previous four year averaged period. The .97 index, on a scale where 1.0 represents the same allotment of resources as in the previous period, indicates a .03 reduction in the use of resources. Coupled with the program's sustained ability to accomplish both its annual and long-term goals, the .03 reduction in resource use signifies efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the program: The program achieved a 3% increase in efficiency, without compromising effectiveness.

Undoubtedly, Secret Service and White House officials will revisit that conclusion in the coming weeks.  Hopefully, too, the new Congress will revisit DHS management.

DHS officials ignored the potential consequences of underfunding FEMA's emergency preparedness programs until Hurricane Katrina blew away the PR smokescreen. By then, it was too late to help the hundreds of thousands of Americans who lost their lives or a loved one in the Gulf storms.

This time, however, the victim was a member of the First Family and, although little actual harm resulted, the potential for a more serious outcome surely was not lost on Mr. and Mrs. Bush. In contrast to earlier Presidential responses to government failures, the Independent reports, "There has been no comment from the White House."