ATF and its emergency responders get too little respect from Congress

[alp227]

By Joe Davidson,

This time it’s Boston.

As they did with bombings in New York City and Oklahoma City, and many lesser-known crimes every day in cities all over the country, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, better known as ATF, rushed to the scene. Their specialized expertise and training will be critical in catching the Boston Marathon bomber.

But while the nation relies on the ATF to help nab such culprits, it is an agency often overlooked by those outside of law enforcement and one that gets little of the respect it deserves from official Washington.

...

In Congress, however, the agency is underappreciated.

A distressing example of that is the inability or unwillingness of the Senate for more than six years to confirm an ATF director.

The position required Senate confirmation beginning in 2006. There have been acting directors since then, but no one has been confirmed. Leaving an agency in the hands of an acting director sends a signal that the agency really doesn’t rate.

No matter how good the acting director may be, “it is difficult for the agents to not have centralized leadership,” said Nate Catura, executive vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA).

Catura praises B. Todd Jones, who has been acting director since September 2011, while continuing to serve as the U.S. attorney in Minnesota. How effective can one person be doing two high-pressure jobs simultaneously?

...

President Obama has urged Congress to confirm Jones, but Republicans have raised objections. The National Rifle Association has targeted the ATF. The NRA, which did not comment for this column, has worked to hamper ATF enforcement of federal gun laws by fighting a computerized registry of gun ownership. That forces the ATF to trace guns using a labor-intensive, time-consuming process.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/critical-atf-gets-too-little-respect-from-congress/2013/04/16/bf60c97a-a6b1-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html

Back in February the Center for Public Integrity had this article exploring the underfunding of the ATF. Mother Jones magazine also published it I think. Kudos to Joe Davidson, "Federal Diary" columnist for Washington Post, for bringing up this topic in a mainstream publication. I don't think the Senate's inaction on ATF is accurately called "starve the beast" what is a more appropriate term for intentionally underfunding a body of government and making it ineffective?

[onehandle]

1. Dickless Payola Driven Assholes. nt

[Hoyt]

2. Few steeped in guns care for ATF.