Recently, I travelled a lot, over 30,000 miles in a couple of months. What I noticed was a glut of security personnel. In Atlanta airport several of them standing along the walls directing passengers to where the line is (needed? there are big signs posted everywhere), seveal inside telling passengers to join which line, several actually doing the checking, and several sitting on benches and on the raised podium. Similarly, in other airports many were wandering around, outwardly, doing nothing.
An article in this month of Delta Sky magazine points out to the taxes included in airticket and where most of them go. While I believe in security, are we using the money to, a) provide security. b) create jobs, c) make it appear that the tax dollars are well used, or d) wasting the money?
Interestingly, my bag and I were searched with a wand in a non-US airport and the officer left the wand in my bag! I had to run after him to give it back to him!

TSA? Provide security? That's a laugh. Of course. For most TSO's, it's either TSA or the welfare queue. If TSA got more money, they only want to spend it on more machines that don't work or do anything useful. To the casual traveler, they wouldn't think 'money well spent' when they see the wasteful glut of TSA, they would think 'thanks for keep us safe'. Of course. TSA is nothing more then a waste of money. In terms of airport security, it was far safer without TSA then with it for much less money. The only thing that has improved security since the TSA was formed was done by the airlines, TSA had nothing to do with it (reinforced cockpit doors).

The TSA started as a security agency but quickly grew to a workfare agency. When the Feds took over there were less than 20,000 screeners for US airports. Today there are close to 60,000 screeners.

The only reason I can see for this growth is political gain. Government workers tend to vote overwhelmingly for one particular party. (not mentioning the party to keep this thread from going Omni) The more people you can get dependent on the Government for their bread and butter the more votes you can guarantee at the next election.

To answer the question the money is being used to buy votes.

The last half dozen times I've flown, I've closely counted the number of TSO's actually working and those just standing around. On average, I've observed one TSO standing around BS'ing for every two actually working.

You've caught them at their busiest. Try off hours - I've been the only pax going through a checkpoint at DFW for a 15-20 minute period. 9 screeners for me.

Not to send it OMNI, but yes, clearly said party was responsible for this massive expansion. Remind me, again, which branch of power said party was in control of when it happened?...

Depends on what you mean by control. If you mean real control, you have to look to the Congress and Senate as they control the purse strings and provide oversight.

What party has been dominate in those two bodies during the rapid expansion?

By my recollection the most rapid expansion in budget and personnel has been during the past two years. The last year has been a free for all on expansion.

That's a better ratio than PennDOT. The "men working" sign usually means "one man working, seven men watching" in PA.

Personally, it seems to be that both parties are equal opportunity offenders here - anything they can do to increase power, and get away with, they do. Singling out one party for blame seems rather myopic - it encourages a belief that one need only change the party to change the outcome, which clearly isn't true.

One TSO sleeping at each checkpoint should be plenty. It leaves just one scapegoat to investigate if things go south. @:-)

Doesn't even need to be off-hours. I've seen my terminal at 9am on a Monday morning with one or 2 passengers being screened. The tide of passengers ebbs and flows big-time.

One party tends to grow Government at a much faster rate than the other. But you are right, both parties or better yet most politicians are after power.

To change the outcome we need to vote all incumbents out.

>Implying people actually read the signs.