I missed this one, but Dr. S. didn’t:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said yesterday that the time has come for the federal government to regulate security at chemical plants, but that it should rely on the industry to devise its own way to meet targets and use private contractors to audit compliance.

In speeches to industry leaders and the Senate this month, Chertoff has led a carefully choreographed election-year push to close one of the most lethal security gaps that experts say the Bush administration has neglected since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Yesterday, he said government should not “micromanage” the private sector by mandating the use of guards, gates or guns and should reward voluntary security improvements, which Gerard’s group said have totaled $3 billion since the terrorist attacks.

In response to questions, Chertoff generally backed an industry push to preempt state and local governments from enacting tougher rules. He said inconsistent rules that expose businesses to “ruinous liability” would create “a regulatory regime that is doomed to failure.” He criticized as “interference with business” a proposal backed by environmental groups that would require industry to substitute “inherently safer” chemicals and processes.

The Government Accountability Office, Congress’s audit arm, concluded in January that the Department of Homeland Security lacked the authority to enforce security requirements, that the success of voluntary measures was unclear and that congressional action was needed. It said the department has identified 3,400 high-priority facilities where a worst-case release of toxic chemicals could sicken or kill more than 1,000 people, and 272 sites that could affect more than 50,000 people.

In response, the head of homeland security is protecting the chemical industry from the expense of safety regulations.

We need leadership. We’re getting “a carefully choreographed election-year push.”

You see the problem. After all, it’s much more important to protect shareholders than it is to protect the country.

Case in point:

Citing increased concerns about the quality of drugs entering the United States from Canada, federal authorities have stepped up seizures of the prescriptions and sent strongly worded legal warnings to consumers . . . who have ordered the discounted drugs.
Salem resident Nancy Popkin was . . . surprised when she received a form letter in the mail from the Department of Homeland Security rather than her usual shipment of 12 tablets. The letter said her medication had been seized because “virtually all” drugs imported by individuals into the United States are unapproved for consumption here or are dispensed without a valid prescription. The letter cited a federal statute.