What is most interesting in the article is a passing reference to the benefit of holding a security clearance.
In a recent survey by the jobs Web site ClearanceJobs.com, contractors with security clearances earned an average salary of $98,221, or 18 percent more than those doing similar jobs in the government.
It is understandable that a security clearance equates to a higher salary. Eligibility to work in a position is a qualification which might enhance a candidate's earning potential. What I find troublesome is that there is a website devoted to recruiting persons with a clearance. There are several such sites, actually.
The notion of restricted information is antithetical to open government. Classified information should be kept to an absolute minimum. Are there now so many federal agencies that multiple companies exist to identify and recruit people eligible for a clearance? At a time when the federal government is broadly expanding its involvement in the economy it is worrisome to think that at some point a security clearance might be needed for a large number of jobs- if we are not there already. The biggest concern is that people might tailor their conduct to fit the requirements of a security clearance. The adjudication process for a clearance is about "suitability" and while that effort attempts to be apolitical it is a difficult challenge.
If opportunities requiring security clearance were a minor part of our economy, this would be a non-issue. But if such positions become so important to young job hunters that it becomes inadvisable for an undergraduate to say, work on the campaign of a third party candidate, or advocate publicly for a controversial position, everyone should be concerned.
That sort of self-censorship can only weaken the voices of dissent in the country.
One might argue that suitability involves the most basic issues of morality and legality, which everyone can agree upon.
Even assuming such a norm could be found, I have two counterarguments. One, the federal government should not de facto set such a standard for potential applicants; such moral standards should be set by the states. Secondly, such a system might be horrifically abused.
Rick Santorum's highly amusing explanation of federalism in the most recent GOP debate makes this point. The former senator claimed the USG has a responsibility to prevent the states from allowing gays to marry. The Founders grossly limited the authority of the federal government to prevent just such centralized planning. Santorum and other social conservatives decry Obama's attempts to plan the US economy, but have no qualms about wanting the USG to say who can marry, or what can be taught in school, or where a mosque might be built. The danger here is abuse of central power.
What if Santorum gets the definition of federalism that he wants, and then a liberal president is elected who argues that everyone should be required to do yoga each morning? What if an autocratic character takes office and orders that anyone who has attended a speech by the Dalai Lama is ineligible for security clearance?
The power to control is fine when you control it, but when someone objectionable has the helm, it can be terrifying.
Great Falls is a very nice place, but it is shameful that the country's economic bright spot is built around inefficient, centralized government. And everyone should be cautious of the increasing importance of a need to hold a security clearance. Classified information should be minimal, and the measures taken to protect it must first protect the right to lawful dissent. We must zealously guard agains the threat of creating a system that is so intent on protecting our liberties that it dissolves them.