Trending Commentary

Does a two-track security clearance process make sense?

I suggest two tracks to determine who should retain security clearances:

First: Review and revoke all clearances as warranted by the conduct of the holder.

Second: Perform a cost-benefit assessment for all security clearances held by those who are no longer on the government’s payroll. That’s just good financial sense.

The first step will protect national security. The second step will save taxpayer dollars.

Critical question: If a person without a clearance will not consult with the President, what difference does possession of a clearance make?

Allegation: Many persons are monetizing their clearances. Why should taxpayers subsidize them?

John Lucas

Share
Published by
John Lucas

Recent Posts

Democratic Voters Want Their Party To Move Even Farther Left On Healthcare, New Poll Shows

A plurality of Democrats want their party to go further to the left on healthcare…

2 hours ago

US Voters’ Confidence In Economy Nosedives To Nearly 4-Year Low

Americans’ confidence in the economy has dropped to a nearly four-year low, according to a…

7 hours ago

Gaming The Midterm Elections Is A Bipartisan Sport

Many pundits are predicting that the Democrats will enjoy huge successes in the November mid-term…

7 hours ago

Elon Musk On Track To Be World’s First Trillionaire After Latest Move

Elon Musk’s SpaceX filed to go public in what could become the largest initial public…

7 hours ago

Abigail Spanberger Takes Ball And Goes Home After Her Gerrymander Gambit Epically Failed

Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is telling her fellow party members it is time to…

11 hours ago

House Finally Takes Stab At Fixing America’s Housing Crisis. But Will It Actually Do Anything?

The House overwhelmingly passed a housing affordability bill Wednesday that would limit major investors from…

11 hours ago