Newsstand - Opinion: Taxpayer Soaking Agency?

The Washington Times Editorial (http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030318-26452960.htm)

"The Transportation Security Administration is a fiscal black hole, and fiscal conservatives ought to be enraged. Instead, the Bush/GOP-backed bureaucracy headed by semi-conscious Democrat Norm Mineta is thriving. Sucking down tax dollars like a bagless Dyson Cyclone vacuum gone berserk."

More and more people are waking up and seeing that Emperor Norm and Darth Loy wear no clothes. Much like President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam and his sons, I think we should give Mineta and Loy 48 hours to vacate the TSA before physically ejecting them into the street.


------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I admit I don't much follow the TSA news and FT threads, as I find the security process much more efficient and faster since they took over.

Is it any safer? No. But then airports are not designed to be safe - they are designed to be efficient. And with TSA, that seems to be the case at every airport I have been at since they took over.

As for being a "funding black hole", TSA has absorbed the staffing and duties of a vast number of agencies. I wonder if one added up the aggregate funding of those agencies in Fiscal 2001 (when they were seperate) and TSA's Fiscal 2002 budget (when they were combined into the TSA), would it be all that different? Not to mention the "start-up" costs of a new Cabinet agency.

How is wasting people's time randomly searching vehicles more efficient? How is evacuating a terminal when someone discovers abandoned gumbo more efficient? How is random gate harassment even efficient at all?

Inquiring minds want to know.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SEA_Tigger:
As for being a "funding black hole", TSA has absorbed the staffing and duties of a vast number of agencies. I wonder if one added up the aggregate funding of those agencies in Fiscal 2001 (when they were seperate) and TSA's Fiscal 2002 budget (when they were combined into the TSA), would it be all that different? Not to mention the "start-up" costs of a new Cabinet agency.</font>

Don't wonder. The TSA costs a great deal more than the private-sector screeners that we had before. The number of screeners went from 28,000 to 65,000, and the pay roughly tripled.

While the TSA did take on some responsibilities from other Federal agencies, those represent a tiny part of the TSA's budget. The vast bulk of its costs is for "security" screeners at airports. I believe that most of what they do is unnecessary and ineffective.

Our tax dollars at waste.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
I believe that most of what they do is unnecessary and ineffective.</font>

...And that doesn't even count the standing around part!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
How is wasting people's time randomly searching vehicles more efficient? How is evacuating a terminal when someone discovers abandoned gumbo more efficient? How is random gate harassment even efficient at all?</font>

Much of these policies were instituted to "assure" the "occasional leisure flying public" that it was safe to fly.

Those of us who fly often understand that the airport is no safer come 9/11/03 than it was 9/11/01. But then, we fly anyway, so we are not the ones the TSA is trying to convince. Leisure travel is a very important source of revenue for the airlines. We all remember empty aircraft in October and November of 2001 and bookings took a long time to recover.

When it comes to vehicles, the most likely form of a terrorist attack on an airport will be a fuel-air carbomb at the Arrivals terminal, like employed in Oklahoma City. I agree that it is a pain in the bum, as I went through it in the months after 9/11/01 here at SEA.

As for the terminal evacuations, if the original private screeners were still there, they'd still evacuate the terminals in the event of a security breach. I suppose we could give the police officers on duty at the checkpoints "Shoot to Kill" orders to gun-down anyone who breaches security, but I think that is even more extreme then evacuating a terminal.

Secondary screening was, actually, a detriment to the "image of security" as they often caught things the Tier One screeners had not, and everyone knew how to avoid them, so if you had criminal intent, it was not an effective deterrent.

But the fact of the matter is we live in a "brave new world" - or maybe a "scared new world" would be more appropriate. Those of us who travel a great deal know the drill - take public transport to skip the vehicle screenings; use electronic tickets and checkin to skip the lines; take carry-on to bypass the x-ray machine lines; earn elite status on one airline to use the "express security screening lines"; etc. etc.

I've been in lines just as long since the TSA took over as before. The difference is now it takes me five minutes to move through it, instead of fifty. In my personal experience, I find TSA agents to be far more efficient at moving large masses of people through the system then the private screening companies ever did. Whether that is due to the greater pay, better training, or just a more caring attitude, I for one am happier now then I was then.