Originally Posted by
Bicostal
Everyone has agreed that some form of security is required. That has a cost. The cost should be born by the user. The current standards aside, the risk of passengers varies. As such, assessment of risk level is an additional cost. If you elect to undergo this assessment you pay the cost.
You pay a user fee for a drivers license.
Your argument is focused on the mechanism used to ensure airplane security.
I posted my astonishment that no one argues for no security. It's the perfect guarantee of your personal civil liberties. If you think it's ok to force you through a WTMD and have your personal property examined by X-RAY is not an infringement on your civil liberties but a Gumby MMW with your shoes off is then you need to understand my confusion.
It's like being a little bit pregnant.
Not at all.
The risk of passengers varies so little -- given how few terrorists there are in the US (who have targeted domestic aviation) per huge numbers of harmless passengers on board -- and the competency of the government to cheaply find terrorists before terrorists strike so questionable that counting on $85 per terrorist or $85*100,000 to do substantial good is just like relying upon my 18-month old relative's throwing of Legos to defend the country against terrorists: a big joke.
These "user fees" won't cover the true cost of what the TSA does. Government using "user fees" as a "market-based economic" solution? Talk about a trick played on the naive or self-dealing. That the government established a fee for use is more usually the antithesis of a market-based economic solution.
Do you really believe that the DL fees cover all the costs of issuing DLs in each and every state in the US? Apparently you should check out a lot more state government budgets and historical budgeting practices.