Originally Posted by
yaychemistry
Apologies for the earlier snark (feeling a bit punchy today).
Though I do disagree with your point. Perhaps what you say is true, that if passengers take up the slack and make the TSA line more efficient then the TSA will reduce staffing. I have no problem with that - that means the TSA won't be as big a burden on the tax payers. Yes, the TSA will still probably waste a bunch of tax payer money, but at least they will waste less of it.
No worries, I thought it was funny!
The idea that the TSA will cut staffing is ridiculous. The TSA will instead require more arduous screening. Examples would be...
- Requiring additional items to be taken out of bags (jumbles of cords, food stuffs, batteries, etc)
- Increasing the sensitivity on millimeter wave scanners (raising the number of post-scan pat downs)
- Running additional "random" explosive detection screens
- Engaging in more behavioral screening
- Hire more drug - er, I mean, explosives dogs and handlers
- Expand VIPR program (i.e., more security at bus terminals, train stations, etc)
- ...and so on
Government agencies do not self-reduce funding*. They will find a way to justify their existence (while holding to a sufficient line metric as to not cause an uproar as done previously). Once could argue that the GAO would say they're not adding value with each incremental ridiculous screening step, but no one (within government) is willing to challenge the TSA due to the "CYA syndrome". If the TSA was defunded and their was a terrorist attack, oh my! (regardless of whether incremental TSA funding would have actually prevented the attack to begin with).
* this is not a knock on government - I think government and regulations are important - but it is reality