Edward Snowden's dramatic disclosures have focused public attention on more that one important issue of public debate. In addition to the questions raised about NSA surveillance, the fact that he was a contractor with a private company which in turn was a contractor for the federal government has raised a question about the privatization of government functions. I just came across a thoughtful and well written piece on the subject at The Atlantic website and thought that I would share it.

Edward Snowden and Booz: How Privatizing Leads to Crony Corruption



Booz Allen Hamilton, Edward Snowden's former employer, is a cash cow earning billions from its intelligence work for the U.S. government. Snowden is among thousands of people who used to work for the government who went on to earn far more doing the same things for legions of private contractors. Almost 500,000 private employees held top-secret clearances in 2012, giving them access to the most sensitive secrets of the United States, with much of the clearance process itself done by ... the self-same private contractors.

But in recent decades, the dramatic push for more and more privatization of federal functions has gone beyond a discussion or analysis about how to best sort out public and private functions, turning into a headlong rush to privatize more. A good part of this is ideological in nature -- driven by vociferously antigovernment ideologues who want to squeeze the size and role of government, decapitate government-employee unions, and discredit government generally along the way. Another part is greed: Sell off parts of government, or hand out contracts, in ways that reward one's cronies and campaign benefactors. And a third part is to hide the costs of difficult or unpopular activities such as war or spying. Mixed in with these motives is a broader, less malign one: As government has been squeezed and public employees vilified and cut back, the only feasible way to hire competent people who are needed to fill important functions is to do it through the back door.

One of the things that gets overlooked in the discussions about Snowden and his qualifications is the fact the he had previously worked for the CIA as a government employee. Without that experience and the accompanying security clearance, it is highly unlikely that he would have ever been hired by Booz-Allen. However the issues being raised go far beyond this particular situation.We saw patterns with this trend in the huge numbers of private contractors used in the war in Iraq, There was often compelling evidence that they lacked the accountability and discipline that would be expected of members of the regular military. In the eyes of the people establishing those programs that was likely a feature rather than a defect. The majority of people working in those positions were former service members who were getting paid far more than when they were in uniform.

This is certainly something that goes on in many areas of government. There are recurring debates about people who hold high level administrative jobs in government agencies who go to work for lobbying firms where they are paid much larger salaries to influence their former colleagues. That kind of influence peddling has been going on for a very long time. It has likely grown in size and scope with the exponential expansion of the lobbying industry.

The situation in terms of national security and military operations, however comes close to the heart of the government and its core authority. The power to police its citizens and to wage war are functions over which the government should maintain careful control and ultimately be accountable to its citizens. So one of the many questions we now have about the NSA is just how much control does the government have over the people who operate its programs. If Snowden had transferred from the CIA to the NSA as a government employee, it is certainly possible that he could done the same thing. However, the issue of responsibility is diluted.