The dirty nature in politics is that in September and October of 2001 the Democrats continued to hammer away at the lie that the screeners failed to perform their jobs on 9/11. They then insisted on holding up any legislation to strengthen airport security if it did not include this disgusting workfare program.

The Republicans wanted to create more defined rules and strengthen government oversight of airport security without creating this disgusting workfare program. Comrades Daschle and Gephardt refused to allow any legislation through that did not include workfare recipients. Who can forget Comrade Daschle's infamous claim that "You cannot professionalize until you federalize"? How did that work out?

Anyone who thinks that the behaviour of this disgusting workfare program and it's workfare recipients is going to improve with Democrats in control of congress is either an idiot or delusional.

You are right that the Democrats upcoming control of Congress won't be a panacea for the traveller or for security. But I'm hoping that a little budget friction between the Executive and Legislative Branches helps somewhat. And if things don't improve "vote the bums out" again.

Sorry, I disagree. I do believe that the stated Republican position called for government oversight of private security screening; I disagree that the Republicans either firmly believe this today or would change everything if given the chance. And I also disagree with the notion that the Democrats would arbitrarily increase the number of screeners as part of a workfare program. I do believe the Democrats will authorize increases in manning levels since TSA has been arguing for the past five years that 45,000 was not enough, but TSA and DHS will have to present a convincing argument. (It has in the past, but Congress---both Democrats and Republicans---remained stubborn. I think that will change.)

Disappointing that you refer to this as workfare. But that's your view. As a flight attendant once told me: "there are passengers in first class and there are first-class passengers."

That's off-topic for this thread. Want to bring up other non-relevant items? ;)

[ As a flight attendant once told me: "there are passengers in first class and there are first-class passengers."[/QUOTE]

Very true.
If a pax gothrough TSA check point with bad attitude he will get bad treatment.The moto i leave with "a friendly smile open big doors"

I'm looking for the moderator title under your screen name and don't see it.

Now there's some hypocrisy.

But I'm sure there's a military saying for that, right?

Now, now... in defense of Bart (as though he needed it!) I will say that although I have seen his temper fly up and take him by his own throat a few times, generally the information he can and does supply on these boards is as accurate as you will get from any TSA worker who Knows The Rules.

And, yes, he does irately refer to some folks by a peanut-butter brand rather than their own names, but he will eventually give up an argument about which he knows TSA leadership is not only wrong, but stupid (to the point of silent awe). I cannot fault his perseverance with an argument about which he has righteous conviction, and he can lay intellectual waste with his intrinsic debate strengths.

But he works for the many-headed Snake. Therein I find the greatest paradox when I read his clear and witty posts.

Personally, to win a verbal/cerebral challenge to some topic dear to ME, I routinely cut off the hand of any victim left dangling over the edge of Cliff Confrontational so I can continue grinding down on the fingers long after the body is gone...

Bart doesn't ALWAYS do this.