Question of the Week answers from Second Congressional District residents will be posted here on a weekly basis.  Check back often to see what your neighbors think about pressing national issues.

(Click here for Question of the Week Archives)

The economy is starting to grow. Less tax burden creates more investment income for the small business owner who in turn can hire more employees. The more people working, the more tax revenue grows. Our government should continue to say Less taxes = More Revenue.

If small business is allowed to continue its rebuilding process, they will continue to reduce unemployment, increase the taxes they pay and the taxes their employees pay. It was small business that built this country to where the big business could exist, anyone who can think will understand that Ford started in a garage along with Gateway computers in a barn. If a small business puts the right product on the market at the right time they become a big business that pays big taxes, at least a lot more then me.

People starting to buy rather than hide at home in fear.

Partisan Under-estimation of the nations economic recovery.

This question is really disingenuous. By asking it, you seem to be claiming some sort of improvement has happened. "I thought the place was really going to burn down, but look! That little piece is still standing!"

I don't consider it a turnaround, really, until the words budget and deficit are no longer included in the same sentence!

Just because the federal government can't estimate how much it will spend does not mean a turnaround. The Federal deficit continues to grow indicating people in Washington have any intention to reduce government or curtail the constant oppression of our liberty! It is sad to see the US continues to move away from freedom, not towards it!

Improving economy, due to President Bush.

Because the economy has improved more than what was forecast. This is a result of Bush's tax cuts.

The improvement in the economy. Helped by tax reductions and more higher paying jobs. Where I work most new jobs are high paying engineering jobs.

I attribute this to political strategy by originally reporting a higher number and then reporting a lower number...

I think the turnaround is due to the tax cuts by the President and Congress, a broad but slow recovery in the economy, low interest rates, and the resumption of travel at pre-9/11 levels in the last year or so.

It may have been overestimated so it would come in lower than expected. I think the amount of deficit is obscene.

Turnaround?! It is still a record breaking deficit. How do I explain the "turnaround?" Sound like a spin to me.

The number one answer would be President Bush's tax package. The number two answer would be that the war on two fronts is under financial control would be my other assumption.

I believe the recovering and improved economy is in part at least due to the lowering of Income Tax rates on those who pay taxes which in turn helped the small business owner who is still subject to personal income taxes!

I can only speculate. If you mean the CBO estimated the figures incorrectly, then I say fire the accountants for their lack of ability. If you mean there has been a turnaround and the CBO has come up with a new estimate, it is a sign of recovery and the economy in general is bouncing back. Thanks for the new legislation regarding lawsuits.

I believe that the economic stimulus provided by the Bush tax cuts have spurred business growth and therefore increased taxable revenue and thus has reduced the deficit.

I think it is ridiculous to consider a 56 billion dollar shortfall as a "turnaround."  A Congress and a party of conservation should be ashamed that there is a deficit at all...

There are many important issues: #1: The government should step up to the plate on promises for educational funding which they have failed to fulfill, that is: special education and NCLB. Issue # 2 would have to be health insurance for the many uninsured and under insured.

I think the most important issue is to make the tax cuts permanent. I think this can be done by cutting down on wasteful spending. There is plenty of that going on in Washington. Also, all these groups of people out there that feel entitled to the government giving to them all the time should realize they are taking the money from hard working people and giving it to those who always want, want, want without ever working for it. It is amazing to me how selfish society has become. It is equally amazing how those of us who are sick of paying such high taxes on money WE EARN are looked at as being the selfish ones and not the ones who always have their hands out. I also think that congress should be less full of itself and quit having hearings on everything. There are clearly people in the house and the senate that love to hear themselves talk. I say start doing the people's business and get rid of personal agendas.

I feel that the issue of the Iraqi war veterans and support for them while returning to the states and civilian life. Services in place to address PTSD, emotional and mental health, drug and alcohol abuse issues, VA care and support services.

Please do not let the Brady Bill expire. There is no need to let the ban on assault style weapons run out. Over and over again, people prove how easy it is to buy weapons...There is no need for them to be so easily available...

Global warming and all its effects- see National Geographic Magazine this month.

Tort Reform.

Reducing taxes.

Budget deficit spending must be brought under control. Many programs will need to be painfully cut, but must be to ensure that we do not bankrupt our future... I understand that we have many new funding needs, however, some of the old ones need to be cut or eliminated...

1. Pass Federal Marriage Amendment. One Man/One Woman, no exceptions.

The AWB MUST be allowed to SUNSET. It has done nothing to change criminal behavior. We need CRIMINAL CONTROL, not GUN CONTROL.

I am most concerned with the legislation that would allow me to Travel with my hand Gun. I have a permit to carry here in Minnesota.

The high cost of healthcare in general but legal and administrative costs in particular. Regulation and unrestrained legal costs, not the medical profession, is a major part of the problem of high healthcare costs.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is the most important. Please help uphold the moral foundation of the country and vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Pass the Federal Marriage amendment to protect marriage, and pass strong pro-life legislation.

What are we going to do about taking the politics out of completing our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq so the world can become a safer place to live? I can understand about doing as much as possible to not destroy a culture's sacred buildings, and maybe even not killing some leader, if it can solidify the situation, but if we had stopped Hitler when he first started, we may not have had WW II. People like Arafat and this Shiite Cleric will never change, they are like Hitler, and Saddam and will take a mile for every inch you give them. My suggestion would be to remove them from the scene permanently and find someone who can be dealt with.

1. Approval of Category 8 Veterans Health Services.

2. Health Care for Seniors.

The current Medicare supplements are very expensive. It looks like Medicare isn't doing its job.

What is being done to curb insurance (health and other mandatory insurances) costs. It seems as if every time there is a major calamity in another region, the insurance companies raise rates across the board not just in the affected area. I believe this to be unfair and bordering on socialist/communistic beliefs.

It seems that it goes without commenting on that Congress needs to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission without interference of politics.

Why are we in a record deficit?

The budget deficit.

Reduce the deficit. I don't want our children to pay for our lack of fiscal responsibility. I find the size of the deficit appalling. Tax cuts are great if you can keep spending in line. If you cannot, you have no business cutting taxes

Please support any new legislation to continue the assault weapons ban.

There are two issues: support for the war in Iraq -- funding and meeting the needs of the soldiers...The second one is to meet the health insurance needs of small businesses -- there are too many young families without insurance either because the company can't afford it or the family can't afford the portion of the premiums they would have to pay...

I think the MOST important thing for the US to do is to establish, and publish in both Iraq and the US, a specific timetable for what we plan to do before we leave Iraq, and a specific timetable for doing these things, and then get out. Staying there is beginning to remind me a lot of Vietnam. You and I are old enough to remember the division that occurred in this country during the Vietnam War. A specific timetable for goals to accomplish, each by certain dates, published in both countries would say to those who oppose us being there, help us to do these things, and we will be more than happy to leave! Then when people do stuff to screw up that process, you can point to the specific incident, and state that it will cause a delay of 'x' amount of time in the process of leaving, and put the blame on the idiots who are doing these things. It would sure go a long ways towards making us look a lot better in the eyes of the world and especially our own country.

Make the tax cuts permanent!

Energy. Our independence from foreign countries on energy means tapping into reserves in Alaska and the lower 48. We need to stop having special interest groups like the Sierra Club from keeping this country from moving forward. I believe this country has the technology to drill safely and keep environmental groups from stopping it. Hard to fight terrorists with oil holding back our capabilities to fight it.

Determine how to return the U.S. Government to a self-sufficient (non-deficit) organization. Government should show a positive example of how to live within it's means instead of getting deeper and deeper in debt. This will eventually result in a future, higher tax on the working citizenry.

A close second issue is how to regain the jobs in the U.S. that are now being accomplished by workers in other nations.

How to reduce government spending by 5% to 10% a year by not reducing the goals of critical programs, but by killing unimportant ones, and making the critical government agency processes more efficient? This is what well-run businesses have had to do for the last two years, which is why their productivity and profits have risen so dramatically and why job creation has remained stagnant despite this corporate growth.

Improving our economy and creating more high paying jobs here. Preventing the people from India from taking all our high tech jobs.

Defense of marriage - keep it between one man and one woman.

Obviously, one of the most important things to address. I think one of the easiest ways to cut costs, is to eliminate discounts to insurance companies. When I look at the claim report I get from my insurance company, they get discounts as much as forty percent. If the doctor needs to make one hundred dollars, he must make his standard rate forty percent higher to get what he needs.  The non-insured patient must pay the higher rate, or the insurance company will take a discount off a lower rate.

Get rid of the Clinton gun ban and 527s

Undo the faulty...Medicare mess.

The care of the elderly ranging from medication costs, to people like my mother who has to move to assisted living but is finding hard to pay for, to people like my father in law who is a WW2 vet. living in a nursing home, which is very expensive for the amount of attention each person is given, people like this need to be cared for better then they are. It is a disgrace how the elderly are treated in this country.

I think the Congress should direct its attention at the economy of this country. If their are any incentives to send jobs overseas, the Congress should plug those holes and end the export of American jobs. Our economy needs help fast!

As thinking humans and our direct representatives I don't see how the thoughts of our Congressmen can stray from the number one issue in America which is the war. There should be a unanimous vote to support our President and then present him with the funding necessary to knock the socks off of the terrorists now and in the future. I am a WWII navy vet and it was our intent to win the war, above all else

Control of our borders and illegal immigration.

Homeland security. Particularly address the issue that there are people in our country engaging in suspicious activity (taking pictures of buildings, probing airlines, etc.) It would be good to have a conversation about what should be done about these people. We are still way too politically correct to be safe, our borders are still way too porous, our visa process still gives way too little scrutiny to visa applicants

Preservation of family and marriage.

What can you do to resolve the constant escalating cost of health care?

It's time to shorten deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got guys from 1/216th ADA, E Btry who left for prep around 12/03 and actually deployed into Iraq in April/May 04. and still have another 6 to 8 months minimum to go before returning. They haven't even gotten 2 wks home for R&R yet. Our friend, SGT [Steve], was hit with an I.E.D. back in July - got a 'bandaid and a purple heart' and was right back to work without a single complaint. SGT [Steve] has two kids living with his ex-wife and he hasn't seen them since November 2003. Can you work on getting these guys some R&R at the minimum? That would be a good start in my book for Congress to work on.

Implement the FairTax - National Sales Tax - and remove the income tax.

Definition of marriage.

Everything related to improving the economy: War on Terror, fix a Healthcare system that is out of control, tort reform, educating out-of-work adults, welfare to work programs. Add to this list as needed.

Sort these issues into two groups...those you can get done this session and those you realistically cannot. Spend your time 2:1 on the first group.

Halting runaway activities by the Judiciary Branch. This is an issue we must address as the courts are usurping their authority without effective challenge by the Legislative and Executive Branches!!!!

I would like for the defense of traditional marriage (one man/one woman) to be priority.

The War and the economy.

Affordable health insurance.

Tax reform!

The one man, one woman marriage amendment must be passed!

We must protect America's morals and values which are based on the Word of God. We must stand up for God to continue to receive His blessings as "one nation under God"!

"And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because you have obeyed My voice." Gen. 22:18.

Funding national defense, and cutting the size of domestic government programs.

Campaign ethics and finance reforms.

Yes, I think the years have softened some of the hatred, not only from the outside but within as well.

Not too many years ago American blacks who were medalists refused to respect our National Anthem and our flag by raising their clenched fist to "black power". This year, two black American medalists wrapped themselves in our flag with pride! Let us hope this continues and is respected by those in other countries.

My 9 year old granddaughter and I enjoyed many of the Olympic Game events. I was filled with pride when Afghanistan and Iraq came our during the opening ceremony. I am so relieved that nothing happened to mess up the events. Greece did a fine job as host. We Americans gave an excellent showing in the gold metal awards. All in all it was a good showing and the US teams should make us all very proud.

Yes. Although I watched only small segments of the Olympics, I got a great feeling from the commentary and the interaction I saw between athletes that this event did promote peace and understanding and all the athletes seemed to be supported, no matter which country they were from. The Greek Olympic Committee did a great job, and the athletes themselves were superb -- whether they went home with a medal or not, they are all champions.

Yes, for the most part, however I was very disappointed in some of the crowd's reactions to some events that American athletes participated in which they were booed. The obvious political motivations of these people were NOT representative of the goal that the Olympics is striving for.

Yes, I think the Athens games have been successful in meeting the Olympic vision. Not only because of the 2 women from Afghanistan, but also to see the joy of the Iraq men's soccer team when they win. I think it has also been shown by the crowds - especially at men's gymnastics. The crowd was able to influence the judges to change their score for the Russian gymnast to a higher score. I feel there is still a ways to go for the Olympic vision to be complete, because some countries still do not permit women to compete. At least we are making progress, and that is a step in the right direction.

Yes, excepting the ding-a-lings who asked for the American PH to return his gold medal.

I feel the Olympics have achieved their goals, but the bickering over the judging sure puts a dark cloud over a tremendous event. I feel instant replay could save a lot of frustration and heartbreak for all participants.

I think so, especially with the controversy over the American and Korean gymnasts. The committee asked the American to give up the medal, but I really think they should issue duplicate medals, since it was the fault of the judges, but the women have more than made up for the mens poor performances, in softball, soccer and volleyball, and basketball.

YES ! ! I think that if leaders from the rest of the world, both religious and political would heed the sports-man-ship of the participants of the Olympics we could actually have a world without war. Have a Great Day. Charles Carroll

I have enjoyed watching the success of the athletes from these torn countries, such as the Iraqi mens soccer team & females competing for the first time in historic venues. They are all deserving of their freedom to participate with the world, regardless of sex, race or country.

It isn't that the position is needed, it's more that the duplication of efforts needs to be addressed. It's ridiculous that the intelligence community has so many intelligence agencies doing similar things. it's already as coordinated as it can get under the current division of responsibilities.

Just what we need, another layer of bureaucracy between the decision makers and the information.

I vote Republican, to reduce the Federal government, in size and spending.

My question is, "Why are there so many intelligence agencies?" I'm not highly educated in this matter, but twenty some agencies is a bit much, wouldn't you agree?

Adding a "Czar" to the mix doesn't fix the root cause of the problem, but creates another layer of government and more spending. This "Czar" won't be held accountable for screw ups, anymore than the current heads of departments, agencies, elected officials ect ect ect.

I agree with this recommendation. However, to make it successful, the Director of the CIA and the Director of the FBI must fully understand that all major decisions made in their agency must be approved by this "Intelligence Czar." My concern is that the people in place would not DILIGENTLY work to change the current culture in each agency so that information would be freely shared.

I support the 9-11 commissions findings.

Sir, the idea of a single Czar for something as important as intelligence concerns me. I believe some competition is useful and a refinement of missions may be needed. However, if the "Czar" is a coordinator and is the key person to get information to the president, that may be ok; the power of having the president's ear should force cooperation by the various agencies. On the other hand, competition should not interfere with agency mission and loyalty to our country. I also think Congress needs to take oversight very seriously, and it needs to consider how it conducts that effort to ensure there is better coordination among the various agencies. Hope this makes sense. Thanks for the communication.

I do agree and would like to see a plan for one simple streamlined intelligence agency, including the CIA, the NSA and parts of the Pentagon and FBI.

Sir, the idea of a single Czar for something as important as intelligence concerns me. I believe some competition is useful and a refinement of missions may be needed. However, if the "Czar" is a coordinator and is the key person to get information to the president, that may be ok; the power of having the president's ear should force cooperation by the various agencies. On the other hand, competition should not interfere with agency mission and loyalty to our country. I also think Congress needs to take oversight very seriously, and it needs to consider how it conducts that effort to ensure there is better coordination among the various agencies. Hope this makes sense. Thanks for the communication.

By establishing a communications network between agencies so that information can be transferred with little or no time involvement. Oversight responsibility of one agency to the next to assure security risk factors are well documented and investigated. A "Czar" is not, in my opinion the answer to the problems wracking this countries security protocol.

We need a non-partisan person to head up the new position.

I BELIEVE, KEEP THE CIA, FBI AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUT ADD A CABINET POSITION WHO COLLATES AND TRACKS ALL AGENCIES TO THE PRESIDENT AND CAN ACCOUNT FOR ALL AGENCIES HAVING ACCESS TO INFORMATION REGARDING SECURITY HERE AND ABROAD AND LETTING THE PRESIDENT AND THE NSA TAKE RESPONSIBLE ACTION IN A TIMELY AND EFFICIENT MATTER, A BUREAUCRATIC CHALLENGE BUT GOOD FOR OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD.

I do agree with the recommendation to appoint a head person to pull together and oversea all the intelligence depts. I do not agree he/she should be called the "Intelligence Czar".

Yes I agree. BUT, I would ask why aren't the CIA, FBI, NSA and others aren't communicating to each other and sharing intel already? Maybe fix that problem too?

It appears all our intel agencies need to reinvest in Low Tech approaches such as Human Intel aka moles and spies. The Soviet Union had many flaws and was a doomed system, but they had some of the best Intel for years because they didn't depend on only one type of gathering ability -- we shouldn't either. We are after all the only remaining super power and the Nation all other Free nations are going to look to for answers and help.

I'd only agree if the CZAR has both a carrot and a stick. As you are aware, we still fight joint requirements amongst the services and the JCS certainly is toothless and DOD Staff too fractionalized to make the services work together. Want an example. Investigate how many imagery based targeting systems the services have. You'll be surprised how many are in just one service. A second example. JFCOM conducts a bi-annual Combat ID Exercise because of the disparity in ID systems and Goldwater-Nichols has been in place since...what, 1976? As far a suggestion for integration, look for corporate/public organizational benchmarks. For instance, Bank, Insurance and Finance corporations have been merging for quite a few years now. They are all in the same business, but have different products and customers, but that doesn't seem to keep them from making it work. On a micro scale, many cities have combined police and fire in to a "Safety Department" with a Public Safety CZAR to oversee. The power and influence to rule and lead will be absolutely necessary. Don't create a political hack position and don't fill it without giving him/her the power to fire the bureaucrats who created the intel stumbling blocks in the first place.

The intent to establish a cabinet level "Czar" to consolidate intelligence appears to be a step in the right direction; only if this position is limited to consolidation only. The effects of a micro-managing cabinet position could easily limit intelligence collecting by creating the unwanted bureaucratic hurdles that will ultimately restrict and reduce the intelligence agencies.

A cabinet-level czar is not needed to oversee all of our intelligence agencies. I would suggest that if it's important to have one person responsible (in charge) that we utilize the positions we already have. I would restructure the FBI and CIA into two divisions of an Intelligence Community headed by a CEO-type person who would report to the Vice President and the National Security Director and/or the Secretary of State. This would lessen the filtering of information to the President. I would not support this as a role of a Secretary of Defense. First of all, the agencies need to work together and need to share information (a new intelligence system or just a great report writer, maybe one that will access the information in each system and generate one report). What may not be important information to the FBI may be significant to the CIA and/or to military intelligence.

Yes, and I think it should be a cabinet level position.

-Vicky R. from Northfield

While I believe a centrally located resource should be encouraged, it should not be in the Cabinet. These folks are not autonomous enough to each President. In addition, the system should be examined for why it failed. It was not because the didn't have a "CZAR". The spook system has been unreliable since it divested itself of its main coordination with and support of the military. They don't trust each other...why? This dates back to McArthur and must be changed. If a CZAR can get people to work together...good. I am skeptical. Too many novels have led Americans to believe our intelligence is superhuman. We need to deal in reality.

Timothy A. from Victoria

We need the Intelligence Agencies that already do exist work independently of the politics that create an unnecessary and dangerous filter to the gathering and dissemination of information. I couldn't disagree more with this proposal. As it stands the Executive Branch is upsetting the balance of power, which is central to the effective operation of our nation’s government. I trust that you, as a legislator, will not help to push the pendulum any further in that direction.

NO!

All this will do is add to the confusion and create even more problems with the intelligence community. Just what we DO NOT need when we have a group of people determined to kill all Americans NOW.

We are in the middle of a war against an enemy where we need our intelligence resources more than ever. While the group is NOT playing well together at the moment, messing with this group is NOT the way to fix things AND keep the public safe.

Somewhere down the road, maybe it should be done, but NOT now.

Besides, WHY can't these groups talk and cooperate? I think it's incumbent on Congress to tell the leadership of our intelligence community to either learn to work together and share information or we'll find people who CAN make this happen. Plain, simple and to the point. This is NOT a technological problem, this is a leadership problem and a change in leadership is something that CAN be done.

I can understand the benefits to having an intelligence czar, but I worry about the potential abuse of power. Such a position would be more palatable if we had some type or check and balance on the power. You are doing a great job and again this year will have my total support in the election effort. Sorry I missed your educational round table.

Yes, I believe a position like this would help ensure that the intelligence agencies would act in concert and shared communications.

Yes, I very much believe that there needs to be someone that all the intelligence agencies need to report to. Right now they are like a ship without a captain each doing their own thing. There needs to be one place where the buck stops. It does not have to be a cabinet-level position but the person needs to report regularly to the US Congress members...

NO, I don't agree with the "Czar" overseeing everything. That is just more government.

Get rid of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in both hiring these people and in their job descriptions. LET'S profile these terrorists. Any one who pays any attention knows our enemy is Arab men between the ages of 17-40. Let's start profiling. I am sick and tired of allowing the left to screech about everything and no one...stands up to them. I am not the only one who feels this way.

Any director of Intelligence should not be a cabinet post. The director should be free to pursue intelligence without the encumbrance of the political pressures a cabinet environment would create. He or she should report to the president and be subject to serve at his direction. He should oversee a centralized data center for sharing information.

No, I do not think that creating that position and the staff under it are necessary at this time. As commander in chief I believe the president should mandate & receive without question cooperation & information sharing among all agencies of the federal government. I also believe that the states & local enforcement agencies should have access to the information & resources of the federal agencies. Perhaps more money should be allocated to upgrade technology where needed at local & state levels rather than creating another federal bureaucrat and staff.

Yes, create a cabinet position for intelligence agencies.

I believe the real problem is in the State Department. The revised intelligence structure must make our Embassies and consulates major sources for gathering information. This means a major overhaul of State by Congress. Obviously, this will require a bigger majority in the Senate, and reelection of Sen. "Zel" Miller.

State must report to the Intelligence Czar (IC). As the CIA also needs major overhaul and upgrading this may be a great opportunity.

John, we need less Bureaucracy, not more. We need clear lines of reporting. We need can do it or out mentality. (Like the USMC/USA/USAAF/USN/USCG) where there is a lot of respect for the guy/gal doing the job, but if they can't get it done they go. May the I service is a quasi-military service??

The problem with intelligence gathering is that everybody does it, but no one is responsible for it...for determining how the information is used once its collected. In many respects, the Intel community in the US is a victim of its own making. Following the Cold War, humans were furloughed in favor of signal intelligence. We are now paying the price for that move as our intelligence community is woefully equipped to fight a terrorist enemy that is well organized yet less sophisticated. We need to reorganize our intelligence gathering and dissemination framework, not create even new layers of bureaucracy. We do not need an Intel Czar, we need a leader that creates an environment and a framework where agencies can share information. We have enough intel agencies!! They just don't work well, nor play well with others. I don't know if anyone can correct this "tradition" but it needs to get fixed ASAP. A bottom-up review and restructuring is a start.

I agree that there needs to be coordination between Intelligence agencies. I thought that was the job of the National Security Advisor.

Instead of a Czar (I detest that word!) perhaps the heads of the agencies (CIA,FBI,NSA) should form a tribunal.

I believe a Cabinet level position for an Intelligence Czar is unnecessary and would only add another bureaucratic layer to our bloated government. Also, my fear is that an Intelligence Czar might create another J Edgar Hoover – someone with sensitive information too closely aligned with political policy makers. It’s ripe for abuse.

I also believe no one person could have prevented 9-11, and no one person will prevent the next attack. We’d be better off allowing the FBI, CIA and Military Intelligence Agencies, and for that matter, local law enforcement agencies, do their work. We should have never scaled back their ability to forge human-intelligence by actively spying-on and engaging our enemies on their turf.

The most important job our government has is to protect and defend its citizens. Whatever your decision, make sure it’s well funded. To that point, I would like to see you and the other members of Congress scale back the budget and make real cuts in entitlement programs in order to adequately fund our national security.

Good luck with your hearings. Thanks for serving your country so well. Keep up the good work.

No, I don't think we need a new cabinet position for an "Intelligence Czar". What are our intelligence agencies? Isn't that what the CIA is about? Aren't they doing their job?

John, to add an Intelligence Czar seems to add another reporting layer to a structure already in place seems ridiculous. Wouldn't the top guy at Homeland Security already be coordinating these proceedings with the CIA, FBI, etc? I think we have enough players in place. We just need to have one position coordinating the intelligence to facilitate communications between each division.

If the Intelligence "Czar" will actually get useable information, in a timely manner, that indicates the level of readiness, and the concerns of intelligence agencies (ie Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, etc.) so that he/she could see patterns of activity, etc. that would be a good thing. This person should not have a huge staff, however. Information should be clear and concise and should be put in that form by the sending agencies

Yes, we need someone to head up the intelligence community, but let's give him the authority to do a comprehensive job, including the ability to hire and fire, and the ability to control budgets.

I do not agree with the recommendation to appoint an Intelligence Czar because I feel it would be too big a job for one person to handle efficiently. I suggest our intelligence agencies start by changing employee attitudes, I fear there is too much competition among these agencies when they should be cooperating. That attitude change must be reinforced by the authority figures within each agency to reward employees that cooperate with others. Its important to retain some confidences so that information can be verified, but each agency needs to be aware of how their activities can/do affect what other agencies are doing, and then they need to be encouraged to care about that impact, instead of compete with it.

You do need One person that all these agencies eventually report to, which is the National Security Advisor.

I agree with the findings but the Czar should not be politically picked. He should be independent. Also contrary to our presidents thinking, he should have authority over all branch heads to make sure that the bureau infighting stops!!! His authority should not be held up or held prisoner by funding issues.

I agree with an intelligence level cabinet position but it must in some way coordinate with the national security advisor.

Absolutely. Even though the President gets daily intelligence briefs, it only makes sense to have one person coordinate all our intelligence efforts in today's environment.

There seems to have been no coordination between the different intelligence agencies so I feel it would make sense to have someone to coordinate intelligence gathering and deciphering between the different agencies. I wouldn't allow it to get to cumbersome though or you will defeat it's purpose.

I agree that we do need an Intelligence Czar. This person also needs to have budgetary control and responsibility.

We believe it is important to support President Bush on policy regarding reformation of the intelligence agencies. Please don't rush to any major changes.

A Cabinet level position is waste of our money. A National Security advisor already exists. Getting the confirmation of another cabinet member will end up in another bureaucratic mess that drags on. We need professionals not politicians that are around just long enough to learn the job.

I don't have an answer to the question; however, I do not like the term "czar" used to refer to top-level appointments. It sounds too much like communism. Please use a different term.

Rather than create another unnecessary level of bureaucracy please implement the necessary changes in our current agencies. Lets go back to the days when assets on the ground in addition to "sign-it" was important. It takes years to establish those assets and its not too late to vigorously proceed because we face many dangers in the decades to come. We are facing a brutal enemy--lets get back to being tough.

Drug Czar -- Intelligence Czar---haven't we learned anything?

I guess that I would agree, but should have a little more information to totally commit!

My answer is no. I think there are already too many levels to intelligence, security and government. The less levels and politics the better. Our intelligence community used to be much better before budgets were cut and career politicians were put in control. FBI, CIA, Secret Service and military should all be headed up by career individuals from those fields. Promote from within!

Yes we need a single point to handle the information

The term "Intelligence Czar" is worrisome. Possibly too much power in one person. I suggest a loose knit group of the various intelligence groups that meet initially monthly to set priorities and interfaces. The group chairmanship would rotate (periodically, maybe every six months) and would report to the president.

I agree there should be an intelligent czar, but not one to coordinate the intelligence functions of other agencies, but someone who would have all intelligence functions reporting to her/him.

I would agree with this recommendation

I think having one person accountable for intelligence analysis and reporting is good idea. However, I have serious concerns about consolidating all budget responsibility for intelligence operations in one area. In the past liberals have tried to find every way possible to cut defense and intelligence budgets. I'm afraid that when the liberals win an election (scary thought) they will gut the programs...

I don't necessarily feel the 911 Commission recommendations have to be implemented without question. We need to take a calm measured approach to changes considering the long term effects. Hang in there and keep slugging. You are doing a GREAT job.

I agree that there needs to be person (agency) responsible for bringing intelligence info together collaboratively. Thus focused on the security of the USA and not the existence of any one agency.

I agree that we do need an Intelligence Czar. This person also needs to have budgetary control and responsibility.

I support a cabinet position for Intelligence.

Give the Czar budgetary and personnel authority.

Yes, I agree with a 'Intelligence Czar', but maybe not cabinet level, more like Alan Greenspan. He/she must have accountability, responsibility to hire/fire and independent from the admin and congress...

Yes, I like the idea of a cabinet-level ‘Intelligence Czar’ and would like to hear more discussion about the idea.

Yes I Do. I also believe he/she should be a member of the President's Cabinet. This cabinet post should keep all future President's from being entangled in a mess as President Bush has been.

If memory serves, the Central Intelligence Agency was originally constituted to serve a function similar to that of the proposed "Intelligence Czar." Rather than create a whole new (and expensive) bureaucracy, I would propose that the CIA become a true CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE Agency. The last thing we need is another cabinet level agency.

In my opinion, the creation of a cabinet-level Intelligence Czar in unnecessary and would only create more room for miscommunication between intelligence cabinets and intelligence officers in the field.

In order to make our intelligence agencies more effective, our country needs to continue to break down barriers between information collecting agencies, which should include military infantry and State-wide law enforcement officials. If a scumbag would-be terrorist jaywalks in the U.S., all Homeland Security officials should know about it. As we learned from 9-11, the smallest bits of information might help us to see the bigger picture in the works (9-11 could not have been prevented and the Bush administration is doing an excellent job on the war on terrorism). We need to put so called "low lives" and street smart agents into the field, although not your ideal Gov't employees, they may be able to get results a traditional FBI agent is incapable of getting. Women, children and misguided Americans should not be left out of the scope of suspicion as the enemy continues to change tactics as we increase our security measures on the home front. Retired military, after receiving security clearance, can volunteer their time searching the web and coaxing out potential problem individuals for our administration (I for one would be honored to help out in such a manner). In closing, I fully support our current administration and sincerely appreciate the e-updates from this web list. Keep up the good work.

I agree that there should be an 'Intelligence Czar'. However, I do not agree that it should be a cabinet position. Who is going to watch the watchers? Maybe Congress needs to consult with some former KGB leaders who I am sure can offer some advice on the political challenges of having the Administration as overseer of NSA, CIA, FBI, etals.

An "Intelligence Czar would work as long as he /she would have no power other than to gather information. Putting all these agencies under the guise of 1 person could spell disaster.

As I recall this was the original intent of forming the CIA. Since the CIA Director doesn't control the purse strings the director has no real clout. All I see with the "Czar" is creating another agency that will spend money on growing itself. It could also become a sort of secret police like in the old Soviet Union. Lets fix the problems in the system we have rather than creating another.

Only if the 'Intelligence Czar' has authority to supervise the other directors or why would it change. The federal officers on a local level need more discretionary power and decision making ability than they have. Local law enforcement has more authority to take on cases, write search warrants and subpoenas, and make probable cause arrests. Remove the bureaucracy and I think you will see more effective enforcement on the federal level.

I agree that the intelligence community needs a major management overhaul. The various agencies need to be mandated to cooperate and share intelligence and resources. At the same time however, the State department must be mandated to comply with security directives to prevent issuance of visa's to individuals already on the "watch" lists; such as occurred prior to and following 9/11. If a cabinet level position is created, that position must be an actual director of intelligence not a political figurehead with no real power or authority. By that I mean that the "Intelligence Czar" must have the authority and backing to remove (fire) political appointees or bearcats that refuse to put the safety and interests of the U.S. above their personal interests.

Yes, but only if he has full budgetary control.

We should absolutely build bridges among all the intelligence and policing agencies we have so they can share information. Independent silos of critical information do not serve the country. The 'should we do it and why' question is a slam dunk...the 'how to do it' question is the tough one. One thing that might help is to stop using the 'czar' phrase. It does not foster the respect this individual must earn from the various intelligence agencies in order to be successful. These agencies do not seem to share well and feel they are 'giving something up' in this process. The 'how' behind this project is tougher than the 'why' by a long shot. Good Luck, and thanks for asking.

I think the 9/11 commission has identified a central problem with the intelligence configuration in our government. However, I think the "intelligence czar" responsibilities should rest with the National Security Advisor to the President. That position should have the budgetary and legal authority over the entire intelligence system.

The "intelligence czar" as a cabinet post position is wrong. It needs to be more like the Federal Reserve chairman...This position HAS to be independent of the administration. I also feel that the agents in the field had the attack on radar and the middle management of the FBI and CIA dropped the ball in not following up on these findings.

I encourage the idea of a person named to head and coordinate the intelligence departments so that all are on the "same page". I am also of the opinion that this person be an independent and be on neutral ground with no political ties to either the Democrats or the Republicans.

I strongly feel that this will not be effective and support the general public unless this person be on neutral ground.

Even though I think "Big Government" is too big and seems to be getting bigger, I agree with this recommendation.  It seems to me that all the intelligence agencies should be able to pool and share information in order to better protect our country and its citizens.  Why was this not done before?  Were egos in the way and each had to do their own thing?  This seems frivolous and not very efficient.  Also, I think too much is leaked to the public.  There are some things that should remain "secret" in order to be more effective.  Yes, I know all about "the public's right to know", but there are times when this is not the way to go...I believe our intelligence agencies would certainly be more effective if they all worked together. One of my nephews worked for the Secret Service for a while and he could not understand why agencies did not work together. Go for it!! Good luck!!

This is a complicated problem. We need all agencies to talk to each other. The is a terrible waste of time and taxpayer money, if we don't get the "most" out of these agencies. This Czar should have full access to all divisions. Also, this Czar should have a group of people working for him/her, to be able to bounce ideas off each other, like a working, "on the fly" think tank.

Czars have no impact unless they control the budget and activities. Drug czars, education czars, etc. have been largely ineffective because they have been given no real power. This strikes me as simply re-arranging an org chart. But there does seem to be a clear need to coordinate intelligence. If serious, give it cabinet level authority with clear budget responsibility and authority to produce results. Otherwise forget about it.

Regardless of the structure of intelligence management, we need to provide whatever resources are necessary to gather and analyze critical intelligence. The days of gutting the intelligence apparatus are over. The world has changed and intelligence needs funding. The intelligence community also needs the freedom to recruit less than completely "honorable citizens" to conduct clandestine operations. That law must be changed or we will constantly be at a critical disadvantage, to our peril.

I listened to the Democratic Convention, I watch Fox News to get a good overview of opposing viewpoints and my main concern right now is that the President and Congress do not rush into implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations just to satisfy the pundits. This process needs to be well planned not thrown together to appease the most vocal. We need clear judgment now, not hindsight later.

I do believe that some sort of "Clearing House" should be established where the various Intelligence Agencies can compare notes. Whether that is one person or a consortium of all of the branches I guess that is up to you.

Thank you for the opportunity to let you know what I think.

An "Intelligence Czar"? Sounds good if congress can find someone with actual field experience. There seem to be lots of administrative types around, many of whom have had minimal or not field experience. Lets not hamstring the agencies with another bureaucrat. Also, there should be a limitation on how often the person can be "called before Congress" or something like that. It seems that many high level administrative personnel end up spending most of their time testifying before congress, or someone, and not enough time actually running their agencies. At least it seems that way to me.

This is a complicated problem. We need all agencies to talk to each other.

Yes I do agree.  I differ with the President, in that this position should not be in the cabinet.  If the position were in the cabinet, it would hold more power over all that the position is supposed to.

Yes, I would agree with setting up a cabinet level position as long as some other "management" position in the CIA, FBI, etc. were eliminated to fund the new, higher level position.

It's a good decision. Make sure the position comes with the responsibility and resources to implement (IE the position should have authority and budget).

Yes, I agree with the recommendation to create a cabinet- level "Intelligence Czar" position, who not only has hire/fire authority but also budget authority over the various intelligence agencies.

John, Thanks for the opportunity for input. I can't recommend whether there should be a czar of intelligence. You guys know how the agencies work together. I would hope you can make a decision that is effective and void of politics.

However it all boils down to communicating effectively and knowing who to trust. If you can be trusted and are part of the team you should have all the information you need to do your job. By the same token if you can't be trusted you should be shut out of any information that is sensitive.