The President’s overall Request of $7.1 billion for TSA reflects a total increase of $286 million over the FY 2008 enacted level. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

That's $165,000 per employee. Since only Kip and a few of his minions earn that much, where is the rest of that money going?

But back to TSA's effectiveness.

Here's one of my favorites.

Did you see the bold text above? So what exactly are we getting for the 7 billion we're spending on TSA?

Welcome to FT, SPOTnik.

- Pat

I'm partially in that group :)

Generally, I've switched to Seaplanes for PR/USVI/BVI flights because they don't fly out of SJU (it also gives me the warm fuzzies that these trips are usually $50-150 less than AA/Eagle)... and if I have more than a bag to carry, I do the same trips by private vessel (which is sadly at a cost nearly double that of AA/Eagle)

The TSA can take the security fees they would earn from me on those flights and shove them :)

I don't know that "overboard" is really the right adjective. We have not made many significant improvements to security. The lesson to take from 9/11 is that we paid a very serious price for ignoring the threats that were out there. The lack of meaningful security reform is evidence that the policymakers who needed to learn this lesson didn't, in fact, learn much of anything. :mad::td:

Agreed, in it's current form, it is very bad. That's why I stated that even if we keep TSA around, a major housecleaning is in order. The Constitutional standards for imposing on individual rights in the name of national security are not met, in my opinion, by TSA in it's current form.

I also agree that we should not do a thing just because the Constitution says we can. Restraint is one of the most important virtues that should exist in policymakers. I would also say that just because the private sector can do a task does not mean that they are the best option. (Yes, I will stipulate that they are usually the best option, just not always.) I certainly do not think that private US military/security contractors in Iraq are superior to the real US military.

9/11 was not the sole or primary attack in US, not to mention world, history. 9/11 vividly demonstrated that the US had it's pants around it's ankles when it came to national security issues. There are still real threats out there. Sure, we could change the recommendations of how to handle would-be hijackers, harden cockpit doors, give crew members self defense classes, then brush our hands off and say, "Well, good job. 9/11 will never be repeated." The problem is that we would still be ignoring other current and emerging threats. 9/11 is over. We need to be concerned about how we respond to the new threats/plans.

Note: This is not a justification for the current response. I don't think we are doing serious , risk based, real security. The recent GAO report is just the latest information to support this statement. This does not mean that real security cannot be provided. This does not mean that the government or the private sector are inherently better suited for the job which needs to be done. I would support any change that would, in my opinion, improve security and restore civil rights. (And, yes, I expect both from my government, so should you.)

I know you're very pro-privatization. I would like to see a meaningful, apples-to-apples type comparison of private security to federal security. SFO has their problems, too, but they do seem to be a good model for private security programs.

Well aware. Of course, the result of this hypothetical employee's grievance would depend on the specifics of the case. If you have solid, documented reason to support your action, it will usually be upheld. If, on the other hand, your action was a result of illegal bias, or was not documented, or if you were found to be keeping secret unofficial files, or your action was part of a pattern of abuse of certain employees, or your action was a result of nepotism, or you failed to follow proper administrative procedures while withdrawing the conditional offer....

Well, I'm sure you get the point. Of course, these are all purely hypothetical examples, and I'm sure you wouldn't find yourself in any of these sorts of uncomfortable situations. I would love to elaborate on the specifics of what I've personally witnesses in my employment with TSA, but I'm pretty sure it's one of these topics that would land me in severe trouble. (For those who are wondering, I do work those things which I personally observe through the proper channels, and I have educated several of my coworkers on their obligation to do the same.)

Fair point. Anything other than anecdotes and op-ed pieces to indicate that this is a severe and widespread problem? Also, anything that divides pax reasoning for taking other modes of travel? You know, TSA, airline customer no service, forced rebookings, baggage fees, service cutbacks, misdirected/lost luggage, poor food, fear of 9/11? Fact is, until the recent fuel cost run-ups, pax loads increased considerably throughout the country.

Well, as I'm sure you saw, the majority of those funds do not go to employee payroll. It's just the TSA yearly budget request. So far as I understand, which is not much, the TSA administrator must make an itemized yearly budget request to the Senate appropriations committee. Most of the 1984 sounding stuff is typical government tripe. Mr. Hawley asked for some changes to the accounting and earmark system currently in use, which is probably meant to make it easier for TSA to carry out certain high-priority missions. There are funding allocations for a wide variety of new technologies, this would be some of the stuff FTers have been complaining is available in other countries, but not the US. There's funding requests for TSA's cost in a bunch of the partnership programs. (Additional staffing for natural disasters, changes to the NFL and selectee lists, TWIC, various stuff related to non-aircraft transportation infrastructure.) There is also some workplace development stuff, most of which is boring, but I'd be happy to elaborate as much as I can. There are also the requests for the additional k-9 teams and increased cargo screening.

And I doubt Congress will actually approve the whole $7 Billion, but we'll see what happens.

As for TSA effectiveness, I don't see where that contradicts anything I've previously said. Current information indicates that TSA is no better or worse than previous private contractors, from a security perspective. I need to research the cost issue before I respond, there's some info about privatized screening operations that might be SSI, so I'm not sure how much I can say.

As to the test results, there is a lot of variation between different locations. The media, on the other hand, keeps reporting the same few publicly released (or leaked) numbers. TSA specifically prohibits us from discussing training/test results, otherwise I'd have a great deal to say on the issue. Sorry.

Thank you. I'm very glad that I finally decided to start participating. I hope you've found my contributions useful.

SFO "seems" to be a good model? They outperform their TSA competition! And did you miss the GAO finding?

I realize there was a lot of text in that part of the post, but I did bold the relevant portion.

I'm not always in favor of the private sector being entrusted to perform governmental functions. Just where it is warranted to be more cost effective without compromising mission execution.

TSA would be more effective if it concentrated on developing a small cadre of security professionals tasked with supervising a private screening force. It would be cheaper than what we have now, and we might even get a real increase in security.

I didn't mean to disparage SFO with my comment. There are some private screeners who have complained, of late, about how they believe that their treatment and benefits differ from the federalized work force. SFO has had a few officers, I think only one or two, add their voiced to the complaint. On the whole, that would represent a level of discontent which is below average for TSA as a whole, and when you add that to their high levels of performance, and the management's tendency to be open a direct with the public, I do, in fact, think SFO seems to be a good model for privatized screening. I don't have first hand experience with SFO, so I cannot in good faith make a stronger statement of support than that.

This is yet another good suggestion on how TSA could be improved. One caveat, this move would still require a major housecleaning within the established power structure of TSA. When TSA was created, some of the poor quality, corrupt, inept management was fired as the "aviation security professionals" who were needed to run TSA. Any number of metamorphoses which don't involved getting rid of those who are perpetuating the problems, regardless of how highly placed in the organization such an individual might be, will result in yet another ineffective, abusive mess.

I would also be suspicious of any mass hiring projects to come out of such a change. Problems from the initial mass hiring are still being felt all over the US to this day. It is impossible to get generally good quality employees out of such policies.

Edit: Freudian slip: I meant to say TSA hired poor quality, corrupt, inept managers from the former private companies. Some have since been fired.

I remember that they did it again about a half-year into the whole shebang, sometime in early 2003. There was, like, a purge of a whole lot of FSDs and management, ostensibly for the same purpose.

It is possible we're talking about the same event, though. That'd be near-enough to "when TSA was created."

I also seem to remember a problem that they had at... Dulles, I want to say (though I might be wrong; my memory is kind of fuzzy about this and it was a long time ago) after people's background checks started coming through. Had to fire a whole bunch of the just-mass-hired screening personnel because they were a bunch of criminals. I'm pretty sure it wasn't too much different elsewhere in the country - we had two at HSV that were thrown out when it was made clear that they shouldn't be there. One of them was even taken out in handcuffs.

New question: do TSOs (or BDOs or Team Leads) take an oath when they start their jobs, in the way a LEO would?

In post 103, spotnik, you said this, but are you saying that every TSO goes through this oath?

Spotnik speaks the truth. It's an oath that every TSO takes, and LTSOs, and STSOs, and ASIs, and BDOs, and TSMs, and FSDs. And, I presume by the wording on the webpage where TSA describes it, further up the chain of command to include every body that works for the TSA, totally and completely, to the very top of the agency.

I took this particular oath on 10 OCT 2002.

TSA Oath of Office

How does providing political party rally security fit with TSA's mission statement?
 

Spotnik, DHS has reported that TSA has been assisting Secret Service at political campaign rallies and conventions. Do you have any idea how this helps your agency achieve its mission of protecting the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement of people and commerce?

The August 22, 2008, DHS press release I cited states:

Why should it be the governments job to protect or ensure the safety of a private enterprise?

The task was being handled by the private sector. The problem was that the rules at the time alllowed items on the airplanes that should have been restricted.

What we have now is a whole government agency sucking up billions of dollars that has it's fingers in everything and is having trouble doing their core job well.

It has been revealed that TSA is using new devices that screen people outside of the secure areas without reasonable cause or warrants.

Apparently TSA has no limits and can surveil citizens anywhere they wish.

I might guess that a) TSA knows more about screening, while the Secret Service is about real threat-based security, or b) walking is now a mode of transportation that needs to be made safer by the TSA.

TSA knows how to search people, but political rallies should be of no concern to them
 

And our military might know more about locking up and abusing people than some county Department of Corrections does, but that doesn't mean it's a good expenditure of Defense Department funding to send soldiers to help out with jails.

We're told that we'll all be at risk if we don't fund agencies like TSA to do the jobs they do. Then TSA uses the money we give them to search people at a bunch of political rallies. Something isn't right.

Spotnik, do you know why the Transportation Security Administration is searching people at political party rallies?

c) Anyone who exercises their first amendment rights to express an opinion not in line with the event is a terrorist and should be treated as such.:td:

Actually, I mistyped. I meant to say that TSA hired some inept, corrupt management (and screeners, by the way) during the mass hiring. Some have since been fired, but not all. I have heard stories of people being thrown out all over the country. Many, incidentally, who got special consideration as former contract screeners. These are just anecdotes, however. I have no way to verify the stories.

Yes, to my knowledge, everyone, from TSO to Administrator of TSA, takes this oath upon entering office.

*Thanks and recognition to HSVTSO Dean for finding the oath of office info on the TSA website. I don't know how I missed it.*

The TSA workforce does more than stand at airport checkpoints. The press release you cited is just the latest example. I know little about the details of these operations. To my knowledge, TSA's role is determined by the agency which holds primary responsibility for the security arrangements of the event (the Secret Service for political rallies.) I don't necessarily have a problem with one government agency borrowing services from another, especially if it leads to better stewardship of tax dollars. I do, however, expect that proper oversight and monitoring is applied. (I an not personally involved in oversight or monitoring of these operations, so I do not know what, if any, oversight and monitoring is applied.)

The VIPR teams are also far from new. These operations are targeted at providing a higher level of security at transportation infrastructure, and are not unusual during high profile events that might present an attractive terrorist target. As you stated, TSA's job is to protect the nation's transportation systems. This includes more than just aviation infrastructure.

I would say this is one of the arguments for doing away with TSA. Of course, the counterpoint is that aviation infrastructure adds billions to the US economy every year, and that it's effect on the economy is important enough that there is an overwhelming national security interest in protecting aviation infrastructure from attack or other preventable disruption.

And I don't think that knives or box cutters should have been prohibited from planes. I don't think that they should currently be prohibited from planes. (I'm not letting them go. My job is still to keep them off planes, even if I don't see how they could be a serious threat in the current environment.) The vulnerability that was exploited by the 9/11 terrorists was the directions to aircrews (and passengers) to not resist hijackers.

I have seen speculation that TSA has some sort of remote screening device that allows them to check people in the public area without the person's knowledge. I have yet to see any actual proof. This speculation seems to be largely based around a poor description of some of the new liquid screening technology. I haven't seen this new gadget personally, but the pictures and descriptions I have seen simply don't back up the assertion that TSA has some remote screening gadget.

Would you please direct me to a source that backs your claim, so I can better evaluate this issue?

My understanding is that these operations are under the jurisdiction of the Secret Service. The Secret Service has held responsibility for security arrangements for national political campaign events (rallies) for as long as I have been able to participate in the political system. I also can't remember a political rally where I haven't been searched for bombs or weapons, even before 9/11.

Air transportation infrastructure exists near almost every major national population center. TSA has a ready source of employees who are trained to screen people for weapons and explosives. If that resource can be used by other agencies for short-term needs, and if such use comes at a lesser cost to the taxpayer, I don't have a problem with these sorts of arrangements.