When will we do away with these idiots?

[Know It All]

According to a report released by Department of Homeland Security.

 

"The investigation found that TSA at Newark took corrective actions for only 42 percent of security breaches at the airport between January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2011."

 

Click for Article

 

Apparently, the TSA has been incapable and ineffective at consistently performing basic functions of their job because they cannot "centrally gather intelligence" to monitor trends and make improvements. This is a government agency that has continuously been discredited for being intrusive and incompetent. They have an annual budget of $8.1 billion despite remaining unpopular among public opinion and making T.V. headlines for security breaches . I.e. Knives and a dead dog passing through security, body screenings that reveal full nudity, "random" pat downs (what purpose does luck play?). Airlines are more than capable of creating their own systems of security based upon their own rationalization. So why does the federal government insist they are a necessity for airport/amtrak security? How much must be spent to have a successful federal agency (depending on what your interpretation of success is)? Why do we place so much emphasis on government dependency instead of allowing private institutions (who have the incentives) to perform their required duties?

 

I know the TSA subject has been touched on quite a few times, but this is a poor excuse for security breaches. They have roughly 58,000 employees and DHS wonders why the TSA cannot effectively report and track breaches. It's a lot easier for one airline to maintain their own security than one government agency maintaining ALL airline security. I don't see the logic.

[Jim Schue]

According to a report released by Department of Homeland Security.

 

"The investigation found that TSA at Newark took corrective actions for only 42 percent of security breaches at the airport between January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2011."

 

Click for Article

 

Apparently, the TSA has been incapable and ineffective at consistently performing basic functions of their job because they cannot "centrally gather intelligence" to monitor trends and make improvements. This is a government agency that has continuously been discredited for being intrusive and incompetent. They have an annual budget of $8.1 billion despite remaining unpopular among public opinion and making T.V. headlines for security breaches . I.e. Knives and a dead dog passing through security, body screenings that reveal full nudity, "random" pat downs (what purpose does luck play?). Airlines are more than capable of creating their own systems of security based upon their own rationalization. So why does the federal government insist they are a necessity for airport/amtrak security? How much must be spent to have a successful federal agency (depending on what your interpretation of success is)? Why do we place so much emphasis on government dependency instead of allowing private institutions (who have the incentives) to perform their required duties?

 

I know the TSA subject has been touched on quite a few times, but this is a poor excuse for security breaches. They have roughly 58,000 employees and DHS wonders why the TSA cannot effectively report and track breaches. It's a lot easier for one airline to maintain their own security than one government agency maintaining ALL airline security. I don't see the logic.

 

If the airlines were capable of doing so before, why weren't they? Oh, I know that answer: Because it was too expensive. That's why the "let's leave it up to the private sector" argument doesn't always work. More often than not, the private sector will let things slide and be reactive instead of proactive in cases such as these, because they don't want to pay the money up front.

[Know It All]

the private sector will let things slide and be reactive instead of proactive in cases such as these, because they don't want to pay the money up front

 

So you're basically saying airlines are willing to risk consumer safety over security expenses? They would go bankrupt if the consumers' felt threatened every time they traveled. Airlines have an incentive to pay for top notch security especially in this decade.

[Clyde]

If the airlines were capable of doing so before, why weren't they? Oh, I know that answer: Because it was too expensive. That's why the "let's leave it up to the private sector" argument doesn't always work. More often than not, the private sector will let things slide and be reactive instead of proactive in cases such as these, because they don't want to pay the money up front.

 

 

I agree with Jim. Business is so tough for airlines that they cannot take on additional expense that doesn't produce any revenue. They will live with the odds. They simply cannot take on the expense.

[Habib]

So you're basically saying airlines are willing to risk consumer safety over security expenses? They would go bankrupt if the consumers' felt threatened every time they traveled. Airlines have an incentive to pay for top notch security especially in this decade.

 

I think you're overstating your case quite a bit. History is rife with contradictions to the notion that private firms are incentivized to provide for the general welfare and it is rare that it is ever even a tentative connection to profit, which is the chief motivator.

 

I also say this as a person who agrees with your points on the TSA. We are going to have to strike a balance between liberty and perceived security, and right now liberty is losing in dramatic fashion.

[Know It All]

I think you're overstating your case quite a bit. History is rife with contradictions to the notion that private firms are incentivized to provide for the general welfare and it is rare that it is ever even a tentative connection to profit, which is the chief motivator.

 

I also say this as a person who agrees with your points on the TSA. We are going to have to strike a balance between liberty and perceived security, and right now liberty is losing in dramatic fashion.

 

I am just pointing out that they are capable of providing their own form of security. As you stated the chief motivator is profit for any business. If consumers' feel too threatened to travel then airlines would lose business. How is that not correlated with profit? ^Bolded. I agree to a certain extent. Businesses must provide what the consumer demands. In this case, travel safety.

 

I agree with Jim. Business is so tough for airlines that they cannot take on additional expense that doesn't produce any revenue. They will live with the odds. They simply cannot take on the expense.

 

They must take on the expense. Would you travel on an airplane with a lack of security? I doubt most people would post-9/11.

[Clyde]

I am just pointing out that they are capable of providing their own form of security. As you stated the chief motivator is profit for any business. If consumers' feel too threatened to travel then airlines would lose business. How is that not correlated with profit? ^Bolded. I agree to a certain extent. Businesses must provide what the consumer demands. In this case, travel safety.

 

 

 

They must take on the expense. Would you travel on an airplane with a lack of security? I doubt most people would post-9/11.

 

 

That's not the debate. The debate centers around the taxpayers footing the bill and the airlines living with it being less than perfect vs them hiring and paying their own security.

 

The airlines are simply playing the odds.

[Habib]

I am just pointing out that they are capable of providing their own form of security. As you stated the chief motivator is profit for any business. If consumers' feel too threatened to travel then airlines would lose business. How is that not correlated with profit? ^Bolded. I agree to a certain extent. Businesses must provide what the consumer demands. In this case, travel safety.

 

I think you would have a stronger point if we were talking about maintenance and general aircraft safety. They certainly have a strong incentive to make sure their planes take off and land without issue. But we are talking about how much they are willing to factor in abstract national security concerns into their business models and I can't imagine them being willing to extend anything more than lip-service toward that end. I would be quite surprised if the airlines would even entertain the idea of taking on that role.

[Know It All]

That's not the debate. The debate centers around the taxpayers footing the bill and the airlines living with it being less than perfect vs them hiring and paying their own security.

 

The airlines are simply playing the odds.

 

The debate was meant to center around the DHS report on the ineffectiveness of the TSA. I agree they are more than happy to let the government provide the security. I don't see how they have played the odds though. The TSA was established in November, 2001 so the airlines didn't have to increase and improve security (which they would have had too).

[Know It All]

I think you would have a stronger point if we were talking about maintenance and general aircraft safety. They certainly have a strong incentive to make sure their planes take off and land without issue. But we are talking about how much they are willing to factor in abstract national security concerns into their business models and I can't imagine them being willing to extend anything more than lip-service toward that end. I would be quite surprised if the airlines would even entertain the idea of taking on that role.

 

I'm not talking about maintenance. Speaking hypothetically, airliners could afford at least one security guard on each flight, scanners, metal detectors, a cockpit that remains locked under all circumstances, high-tech equipment, etc.

 

Article about a new law passed this recently that makes it easier for airlines to privatize security.

Here

 

Mr. Dale, who is the president and chief executive of Orlando Sanford International Airport, said, “We’ve visited a number of airports who have opted out of the T.S.A. screenings, and no one wants to go back…We think this will be more efficient and customer-friendly for us.”

 

A House transportation committee reported that, on the contrary, if the nation’s top 35 airports switched to private contractors taxpayers would save $1 billion in just over five years. Similarly, Justin Harclerode, a spokesman for the committee, said that private contractors “exceeded or provided the same level of security as T.S.A. screeners.”

[Clyde]

The debate was meant to center around the DHS report on the ineffectiveness of the TSA. I agree they are more than happy to let the government provide the security. I don't see how they have played the odds though. The TSA was established in November, 2001 so the airlines didn't have to increase and improve security (which they would have had too).

 

My "play the odds" comment was aimed at the fact that the airlines KNOW some people are getting through that should not. This isn't news to them. Yet they still fly planes every day.

[leatherneck]

That's not the debate. The debate centers around the taxpayers footing the bill and the airlines living with it being less than perfect vs them hiring and paying their own security.

 

The airlines are simply playing the odds.

 

So is the existance of the TSA an example of "corporate welfare"?

 

For the record, I'm in favor of the TSA handling security. I do think the TSA should charge the airlines (and ultimately the passengers using the airlines) at least part of the costs.

[Clyde]

So is the existance of the TSA an example of "corporate welfare"?

 

For the record, I'm in favor of the TSA handling security. I do think the TSA should charge the airlines (and ultimately the passengers using the airlines) at least part of the costs.

 

 

I'd say "no" to your question.

[leatherneck]

I'd say "no" to your question.

 

Please provide the reasoning behind your "no".

[Clyde]

Please provide the reasoning behind your "no".

 

Let me use an example of what I do consider to be.

 

The huge subsidy that the taxpayers give to oil companies falls into "corporate welfare" for me. Not sure what we as taxpayers really get in return.

 

I KNOW what I get in return for taxpayers paying for the TSA. Sure, it could work better but I'm still getting a service.