Did the 9-11 Commission recommend union access to Homeland Security workers?

No, I didn’t think they did, either.

The media has reported breathlessly the last couple of days about how the Senate passed a bill that would implement “many of the remaining reforms suggested by the Sept. 11 commission, answering its three-year-old call for better emergency communications; more money for cities at high risk of terrorist attacks; and tighter security for air cargo, ports, chemical plants and rail systems.” But what they didn’t tell you was how passage of this bill benefits unions (aka some of the biggest supporters of Democrats) more than anyone else (the WaPo classified the bill as ‘expand[ing] the labor rights of 45,000 airport screeners’).

In fact, that’s been the main issue behind all the posturing Democrats did when slamming Republicans prior to the 2006 election for not implementing all the recommendations made by the Commission – even though they admitted shortly after the election (once they had won it) that they had no intentions of implenting ALL of the recommendations, either.

So what basically happened here is that Democrats waved the national security banner for the last two years about the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, claiming Republicans were derelict in their duty because they hadn’t implemented them all, when in reality the real agenda of the Democratic party was not to implement all the recommendations and not to serve the American people in the interests of national security, but instead to give a payback to the unions, in order to serve a different kind of security interest:

Political security.