Not to toot my own horn here, but I did predict that TSA would eventually swing more towards a true risk-management philosophy. However, these are mere proposals and there hasn't been any pen put to paper yet.
As for the proposals themselves, I agree with a lot of them. I think relaxing on scissors, knives with blades shorter than 5 inches and razor blades (as opposed to utility knive blades) is a reasonable risk. Not too sure about throwing stars, however. By definition, they are martial arts weapons. They serve one purpose only. Or, to put it another way, there are many non-weapon uses for scissors but there aren't any that I can think of for throwing stars. Therefore, I would continue to prohibit throwing stars. But, it's not my call. Still, I'm curious to see how the new prohibited items list will look.
As for exempting certain people from regular screening, I have to admit that I felt goofy screening the few Senators that I've screened. And I also feel it's a waste of time screening general officers and airline pilots. So if TSA exempts these people from screening, I don't have a problem with it. Airline pilots, by the very nature of their job, don't need a pair of scissors, a screwdriver or even a gun to take down a plane. All they have to do is just point the nose down. So it's a waste of time for us to screen them. What's needed instead is that they undergo a thorough background investigation. I do disagree with exempting anyone with a top-secret security clearance from screening. I've conducted a significant number of criminal and counterintelligence investigations with subjects who had such clearances. I draw the line with general officers because at that point in their careers, they've demonstrated their trustworthiness and reliability after over 25 to 30 years of service. This is different than a 22 year old specialist who also has a top secret security clearance because nothing was revealed in the background investigation to disqualify him or her from that clearance. The question of Senators, governors and other high officials being exempted is a matter of politics more than it is anything else. Soon after 9/11, one of the big media pings against the fledgling TSA was when a nail file was confiscated from former Vice President of the United States Dan Quayle. There have been other similar situations involving other politicians as well. So I don't have a problem with exempting these officials from routine airport security screening. As it is right now, a lot of them are either exempted or given special screening; so it's not really much a big change if it were to happen anyway.
Biggest change that I anticipate is either the modification or elimination of the shoe screening criteria. I predict it will be a modification rather than elimination. I support changing it not only for the reasons I've stated previously in other threads, but also because of a recent class (and I'm talking about a couple days ago as of this posting) that changed my view about shoe bombs. I still believe that shoe bombs are a real threat, but I would look for them in a certain type of footwear rather than, say for instance, dress shoes. I think TSA can ease up on that criteria. Not saying that it isn't possible to pack some explosives into the hollowed-out heel of a pair of dress shoes. But I am saying that I don't think that ALONE would take down an airplane. Big difference.
From this point, it's a wait and see. Publicly making a statement that appeals to a great number of travellers is one thing. Actually putting it into practice is somethinge else.