Users who Dugg This
Redsfaithful
5953 Followers
MediaSight
13125 Followers
Jeff Flowers
18282 Followers
Billiegh Gene
970 Followers
Cecil Helton
12879 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
caramba421Nov 29, 2010
Actually, I just posted yesterday that I think the airlines should be handling their own security. It's an accepted part of their business that keeping a 2000 ton monstrosity in the air is risky business. It basically amounts to corporate welfare that these multi-billion dollar corporations get their security taken care of for free with my tax money.
If the airlines are too invasive in their procedures, then another airline will come to fill the gap of providing air service with less stringent security requirements, with a slightly higher degree of risk.
However, there are two problems with what they're proposing here:
A) In their scenario, it is still under the government's authority, but the authority has now been delegated to private enterprise. This amounts to corporatism. The government should not be subcontracting this work, they should not be involved at all. It should be wholly the airlines' problem.
B) Racial profiling is still illegal no matter who does it.
freedomjoeNov 29, 2010
Great comment. My only quibble is that our tax dollars are still going to pay for the private contractors. You're absolutely correct re A and B, except that if the airlines pay for their own security (not thru TSA rules), there will be no standard. There has to be a unified federal system re transportation for this reason. Since airlines are in it to make a profit, they will spend the least amount possible on security, which leaves us at risk. However, I think your points overall were spot on.
arschgaudiNov 30, 2010
The airline/airport may pay for the security but the requirements will still flow down from the government.
Of course private enterprise is going to do it for the least possible cost. That's the whole point of private enterprise. Lowest cost doesn't necessarily mean poorest service. You can obtain lower cost with efficiency, volume.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtnmusicmanNov 30, 2010
You can't be serious? Lowest cost? Haaa
bille3Nov 30, 2010
So, where has the government operated anything in an effecient, cost effective way?
Amtrak? Postal Service? Medicare? Social Security? War on Poverty? War on drugs? Fanne Mae? Freddie Mac?
caramba421Nov 30, 2010
Actually, the postal service can take my mail from a mailbox super close to my house and have it 3000 miles away in like 5 days for 41 cents. Pretty good deal if you ask me.
chilidogsNov 30, 2010
Apple to oranges.
racer20Dec 1, 2010
@Caramba
We disagree elsewhere in this thread, but I agree with you here.
There are some services that are needed, but simply are not good profit centers. Roads, police/fire protection, USPS, Medicare are not designed to be profitable, and by their nature, cannot be so without significantly raising prices OR reducing the quality of service.
While private industry competition can be a good thing when it results in better products (cars, computers, etc). But for some products, there really is no "better product." Generally speaking, a gallon of BP gas is no different from a gallon of Exxon gas. They can't differentiate their products from each other in the consumer's eye, so the only way they compete is on price. Eventually, the price gets pushed down so low that, in order to remain financially viable, the company has to skimp on quality or raise prices significantly, or both. What you end up with at that point are the horrendus state of affairs that the airlines are in, OR the ridiculous prices and arbitrary caps for wireless service, or, worst case, oil spills and mine disasters.
These are all cases where competition has actually made things unnecessarily worse and/or more expensive.
mtnmusicmanDec 1, 2010
If you think Blackwater or other private security will give a "great deal" to we the tax payer, I have one hell of a bridge to sell you.... And which government are you talking about present or past?
enantiodromiaNov 30, 2010
"You can obtain lower cost with efficiency, volume."
we aren't talking about manufacturing widgets. do you really not see the difference?
arschgaudiNov 30, 2010
Good luck in art school.
racer20Nov 30, 2010
The goal of a corporation is to maximize profit, NOT reduce cost. The on-the-ground operations such as the actual screenings at the airport and contracts for equipment might end up cheaper, but those savings will go straight into executive compensation, lobbying, and marketing . . . all things that DO NOT make us more secure.
If you pay a contractor to work on your house, the contractor will probably get better material prices than you, and may even get the job done faster and more efficiently than you. But in most instances, it will cost you MORE money, even though material costs and productivity have improved. In a lot of cases, you could have even done a better job because the contractor has to make a certain level of profit based on time worked.
All the reasons I'm seeing for privatizing the TSA are generalizations about economic theories, and ignore the way things work in the real world.
suz123njNov 29, 2010
That great - then we can pay an extra fee to felt up!
r0am3rNov 30, 2010
You are already paying this fee. Check your pay stub and notice the line that reads FEDERAL TAXES.
pinskiaNov 29, 2010
It was their responsibilities before 2001.
kuzotzNov 30, 2010
shhh Americans don't remember that.
racer20Dec 1, 2010
Ok, and that method worked until about sometime around September of that year.
The world changes. Staying the same means you get left behind, sort of like how our country is today in things like education, health care, productivity, quality of life, etc. etc.
Closed AccountNov 30, 2010
wrong, there is a little thing called disparate impact
if mostly arabs are terrorists, it's not illegal to profile them, although the hippies will complain until their eyes bleed organic soy milk
kuzotzNov 30, 2010
well mainly because arabs aren't mostly terrorist. you got the kurds, you got the uighars, you got the irish, got a lot of white nationalist, etc etc.. what the media is always projecting doesn't mean its the only group doing it. It just means they are zeroing in on that group and shaping your perspective. you just want to be a bigot, and racial and ethnic profiling is horrible. Not only does it not work, there are ethically boundaries being crossed.
caramba421Nov 30, 2010
Ok, then I'm sure you won't mind also profiling right wingers. You know the same people that blow up Federal buildings and abortion clinics. I mean, not every conservative is a domestic terrorist, but most domestic terrorists ARE conservatives. I'll bet you won't mind when we start sending people with Gadsten flag accoutrement to secondary screening.
racer20Dec 1, 2010
Profiling can be done in an intelligent way. Let's be realistic here. If a grown man walks into a 7-11 wearing a ski mask and gloves, should be be treated the same as if a 7 year old walks into the same store wearing the same?
Profiling doesn't mean harassing every middle eastern looking guy in line. But there's no reason it shouldn't be used as a tool (one of many) to help *well trained* security personnel identify threats. The issue is not black and white, but like so many things, we succumb to the lowest common denominator and throw all common sense, good judgment, and personal responsibility out the window. We treat a 4 year old with a leg brace or an elderly man with urinary cancer as if they were threats to our national security, which is just as bad as the other extreme.
The issue with conservatives calling for Israeli-type measures is that the most important part of the way they do things is the high levels of training the ground level agents have, and the level of judgment and responsibility they are given. We'd try to implement the same profiling, multiple checkpoints and interviews with the same flunky-level mall cops we have today.
theswashbucklerNov 30, 2010
It's a moronic idea. No way are the fat cats on Wall Street going to allow the government to put the economic future of this country in the hands of a cut rate airline that is motivated more to cut costs and boost profits than it is to provide real security.
Closed AccountNov 30, 2010
But that's the problem...about 97% of the general public thinks this utter nonsense they are pulling "is for the better good" and that the TSA is providing "real security".
I'm saying this "HYPOTHETICALLY" but what happens when teams of terrorists fan out in the top 10 airports in the country and blow themselves up (and take 500 people with them)...all before they get to the scanner?
PETN can be stored in an anal cavity (as was attempted and almost successful at taking out some Saudi delegation recently) and there is JACK s**t that Big Sis and her granny molesting defenses can do about it.
That's why we have these ridiculous lines in the airports. People in WAY above their heads, making decisions that they have no business making.
spazattack5000Nov 30, 2010
Wouldn't be the dumbest thing they have ever done.
bille3Nov 30, 2010
Racial profiling is not necessary. Islamic terrorism is not race based. It is a culture and that can be profiled and screened for, if we wish to prevent terrorism. However most people do not really want to prevent terrorism, they are too concerned with being politically correct. Making a much easier for the terrorists. Terrorists can still easily fly in or simply just pay the drug cartels and walk across the border. We have little real protection agaisnt terrorism.
caramba421Nov 30, 2010
"Racial profiling is not necessary. Islamic terrorism is not race based."
You and I may know that, but what about your average TSA worker?
racer20Dec 1, 2010
@Caramba
Strangely enough, agreed again. Profiling != racism if done properly.
racer20Nov 30, 2010
Actually, the corporations don't need security. PEOPLE need security. Its not like we're paying for some fat cat CEO's personal body guard. Airport security is intended to make sure YOU get where you're going safely, and to make sure something as devastating as 9/11 never happens again. Delta Airlines wouldn't be flying empty planes around the world for fun, they do it because YOU want to travel.
The government provides security in EVERY other situation that includes members of the general public. Ever been to a professional sporting event? A big concert? Police and fire departments play a heavy role in securing those types of events every day, from directing traffic, to patrolling the area, to being prepared in case of emergency.
caramba421Nov 30, 2010
Actually, the corporations DO need security because:
A) They are civilly (and criminally, in the case of gross negligence) liable for the safety of the product they sell.
B) Their airplanes cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
racer20Nov 30, 2010
That's a straw man argument.
The TSA does not cover product liability, nor does it cover property loss. The airlines ARE responsible for their own "security" in those cases, and that's why they carry insurance policies, just as any other corporation does.
The TSA provides security for people, not goods. You're making connections that aren't there to support a weak position.
caramba421Dec 1, 2010
"The TSA does not cover product liability, nor does it cover property loss."
Yet, the TSA financially assists in mitigating both.
"...and that's why they carry insurance policies, just as any other corporation does."
The people that underwrite those insurance policies no longer will if they feel that there is too great a degree of risk in doing so.
racer20Dec 1, 2010
Oops, posted in the wrong place. Reposting here so it doesn't get lost.
Ok, another straw man. Look at the big picture. Even if there are some auxiliary coverages (I couldn't find any details with a quick Google search), the reason the THREAT of terrorism exists is due to the potential for catastrophic damage to human life and/or national infrastructure. Terrorists aren't interested in destroying things or corporations. Their targets are people's lives, our national infrastructure, and the symbols of our prosperity.
Your comment was that corporations get their security paid for with your tax dollars. Yes, the airlines are private corporations, but the security is provided to protect against the threat to human life and society in general. Otherwise any company with major assets would have their own specialized government security. If you can't see the difference, then I don't really have much else to say.
linuxpersonNov 29, 2010
Privatization would be great for the consumers and the tax payers alike except for the fact that private airliner screeners would have to comply with TSA guidelines.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerNov 30, 2010
"great for the consumers and the tax payers"
How so? Do you think the airlines are going to pay for private security? Who will pay for it? The consumer in higher airfare. And if the security is paid for by the government, you know contracts. Who pays for that, the tax payers. Lets not forget the Gov. gets the lowest bidder. Imagine the company that cuts corners to win that contract. Then you will be crying when the company hires cheap labor that consist on ex-cons. Of there security is so bad that a terrorist attack gets by. You'll see.
linuxpersonNov 30, 2010
"How so?"
If airliners are liable for what happens to their customers, rather than the TSA, they would have the incentive to make sure their planes are secure. Competition breeds more efficient business models which ultimately benefits the consumer, are you claiming otherwise?
"Do you think the airlines are going to pay for private security?"
They are already paying for it albeit with a tax payer subsidized rate. If you think the TSA is entirely subsidized by tax payer dollars and thus no cost for security is passed on to the consumer, you are economically naive.
"Who will pay for it?"
Airliners will pay a security firm and account for it as an expense. Ultimately, their consumers (i.e. people who want to purchase flights) will foot the bill, did you really need me to explain that? I don't fly commercially and I haven't in nearly a decade, why should my tax dollars go to subsidize another persons plane ticket?
"The consumer in higher airfare. And if the security is paid for by the government, you know contracts."
To my knowledge, airliners still have to pay the TSA; however, the TSA is subsidized by tax dollars as well.
"Who pays for that, the tax payers."
Well then, stop stealing money from people who don't fly commercially to subsidize airline tickets for people who do fly. Let whoever wants to fly foot the bill, is this really such an insane idea?
"Imagine the company that cuts corners to win that contract. Then you will be crying when the company hires cheap labor that consist on ex-cons."
Actually wrong, I won't use an airliner who I perceive has inferior security because it's the 21st century and I'm an informed consumer. I'll pay a little more and go to another airliner with better security. You're always discounting the fact that competition breeds lower prices in the absence of government coercion.
"Of there security is so bad that a terrorist attack gets by. You'll see."
You live in a paranoid world. If you want terrorist attacks to stop, demand that the US military GTFO of the Middle East.
theswashbucklerNov 30, 2010
"Privatization would be great for the consumers and the tax payers alike"
Really? How?
mtnmusicmanNov 30, 2010
Well, the folks at Blackwater could just shoot anyone that didn't want to be patted down or scanned and Halliburton could charge America a hideous amount of money for their services......
linuxpersonNov 30, 2010
Are you suggesting that competition in the market place does not produce better results than a monopoly? Come again?
racer20Dec 1, 2010
The government is not a monopoly in the traditional sense, because it's motive is NOT to make a profit. It's sole motive (on a large scale) is to provide services to the people. With a corporate monopoly, not only is there no competition to control prices and quality, but the people have zero control over the corporations leadership or policies.
The government is different because although there may not be an alternative provider of the services or goods, we DO have control over the policies via our elections. Prices (taxes) to high or services no good? We can vote them out.
Essentially, the democratic process serves the same purpose for the government that competition does for the private sector. The British Monarchy was essentially a monopoly over the colonies and the rest of its empire a couple hundred years ago. Our country was founded in direct opposition to those principles.
Closed AccountNov 29, 2010
Oh that dastardly Fox News!
Ta-da!
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/18/revolt-orlando-airport-to-drop-tsa-as-security-screeners/
Orlando Sanford International Airport has decided to opt out from TSA screening.
“All of our due diligence shows it’s the way to go,” said Larry Dale, the director of the Sanford Airport Authority. “You’re going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service.”
Dale says he will be sending a letter requesting to opt out from TSA screening, and instead the airport will choose one of the five approved private screening companies to take over…
theswashbucklerNov 30, 2010
Dale is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and having John Mica, the soon to be head of the House Transportation Committee, right around the corner yelling about getting rid of TSA certainly didn't hurt either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drmangrumNov 29, 2010
Many airports are calling for the privatization of security.
People are pissed at the TSA. They are reactive instead of proactive. Instead of using intelligence (getting the CIA and FBI involved) and common sense measures, they treat everyone like a terrorist.
theswashbucklerNov 30, 2010
Private security would have to use processes as intrusive as TSA's. Thus, while private security could be more proactive it wouldn't be any less reactive.
pinskiaNov 29, 2010
Wait I thought the TSA was invention of the Bush Administration. So they want to privatize the thing they publicized to begin with.
thubanNov 30, 2010
Democrats forced the issue of the screeners being Gov. union workers. For some reason Bush folded on it and ta da we have the monstrosity that is the TSA. You should see their digs. From what I understand it's very posh for a government agency building.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinskiaNov 29, 2010
The screeners can be private right now. SFO is an example of where private screeners are used.
crapolatimeNov 30, 2010
Would be nice if the 'TSA security guards' had to comply with Constitutional and Civil Rights first.
Or simply, if someone touches your bits, have them arrested for sexual assault. Or if they try to cavity search, then charge them with RAPE.
Just like this former border guard.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Border+guard+found+guilty+forcing+strip+searches+women/3690838/story.html
Closed AccountNov 30, 2010
Idiots, they still have to follow TSA guidelines
arschgaudiNov 30, 2010
Sarah Jones is a complete buffoon. But she does have a double major in Psychology and Latin. Probably belong to the dance team.
enantiodromiaNov 30, 2010
that was ridiculous and tenuous, even for you
arschgaudiNov 30, 2010
"Yes, this is so much better than training the TSA agents and attracting better talent through union benefits. "
Just a little gem from Sarahs pen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsDec 1, 2010
I don't understand. You don't think that union benefits are desirable and would therefore attract more qualified applicants?
nmessickNov 30, 2010
blah... fox has nothing to do with this. Several airports are considering it on their own.
miklkitNov 30, 2010
Great. So now there will be a bunch of rent-a-cops groping you. Who will do the background check on them? The DMV?
madtechnologistNov 30, 2010
At least with security in the private sector you can have some f**king accountability. These jackboots think they are God.
miklkitNov 30, 2010
Suuure. What do you think you could get out of an $8.00 an hour rent-a-cop that just got hired off the street?
dauntless1Nov 30, 2010
Exactly. You see videos all over the internet of idiot minimum wage rent-a-cops waving their non-existent authority about. It's gonna be no different with these guys.
madtechnologistNov 30, 2010
At least with an $8 an hour rent a cop you have a chance to plead your case and even sue the company if they fondle your junk. Government has you by the balls and you seem to enjoy it.
enantiodromiaNov 30, 2010
uhm, you have that backwards.
private companies are not really bound by the Constitution, and their stated purpose to exist is to make money, not to serve the people.
madtechnologistNov 30, 2010
To whom do you file a complaint with our current system? You get a big middle finger to your forehead is what you get. Ever tried to sue the government??? It doesn't happen. Why? Because governments have a superior attitude and look at you like you are a criminal. Why does everyone around here think the government owned business is all so benevolent? It's a terrible idea.
racer20Dec 1, 2010
You file a complaint directly to the TSA. Google TSA + Complaint and the info is right there. The government has more incentive to respond to complaints than any CEO would. You can't vote a CEO out of a job. Plus, if a private company handled security, their customer would be the government, NOT you. They don't have to satisfy YOU in order to keep the revenue flowing. So your complaint would still end up on a TSA desk, but there would be the extra layer of BS that it had to go through to get there.
mtnmusicmanNov 30, 2010
Well, the folks at Blackwater could just shoot anyone that didn't want to be patted down or scanned and Halliburton could charge America a hideous amount of money for their services......
miklkitNov 30, 2010
Just like in New Orleans and Iraq.
mtnmusicmanNov 30, 2010
Hell yeah......
phillymozartNov 30, 2010
Does anyone really believe the TSA would have prevented 9/11? Everything the TSA does is reactionary. We are only protected from the terrorists attempting the same thing for the SECOND time,
bille3Nov 30, 2010
Quite true, the terrorists are smarter than our own government. All our government can do is react, not plan ahead. They still leave the borders wide open for anyone to cross carrying anything.
dudecoolnameNov 30, 2010
Oh noes! the big scary corporations are going to take over!
Corporations can get sued, etc.
Private TSA > Gov't TSA imo
linuxpersonNov 30, 2010
So you're telling me accountability is a good thing? Get outta here!
ajrmorrisNov 30, 2010
heres the point that needs to be addressed. This is a debate between private security vs sanctioned government security. I am aware that the right wing wants as much of as possible to be privatized in order to reduce the strain on the tax payer and shift the cost to the private consumer. However this boils down to one major thing. Do you feel safer when you deal with a mall cop or a real cop? The TSA lacks professionalism and training. If you want effective and non intrusive security then you will need better personnel, better guidelines and better standards. Privatizing wouldn't solve the problem, just shift the responsibility. the rule of free market only works when there is adequate levels of competition instead of static demand for travel and increasingly inferior products. This applies specifically to wants and not needs. The market covers the wants while the government has to deal with needs. we need safety. we want to fly around the world.
jackson01pNov 30, 2010
Interesting post.
u2canfailNov 30, 2010
All those private contractors worked so well in IRAQ, and besides Halliburton made a lot of money. We had showers electrocuting soldiers, they were not dying fast enough from bullets or bombs.
linuxpersonNov 30, 2010
"Worked"
FYI, there are more private "security" contractors in Iraq now than there were during the Bush years.
u2canfailDec 1, 2010
And they had private contractors, though Halliburton building things, like showers for troops. It matters not who is President. My comment was on privatization, it is not necessarily better. Oversight and rules and regulations do matter.
thorspowerNov 30, 2010
Do Americans understand the price difference between paying directly to a federal employee as opposed to a company that has a government contract. That company it going to charge 3 to 4 times more then we are already paying. Privatizing the TSA is the worst idea ever.
racer20Nov 30, 2010
There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin.
1. You may end up with slightly increased day to day operational efficiency, but what about the extra layer of insulation between the gov't regulators and private security firms? Mis-regulation of major private industries is a major problem, and has consequences AT LEAST as bad as anything the government can screw up (Enron, Wall Street, BP, Blackwater, All the mine disasters around the world, etc.).
2. Good security requires efficient communication of intelligence. Involving private enterprise in the critical path for intel dissemination poses high risk for intel leaks and slows down the chain of communication.
3. Who gets held accountable for any liabilities? It doesn't always seem like it, but we as a people have significantly more control over the process now than if a private corporation were involved. As in the examples I've stated, having multiple parties involved just invites finger pointing and scapegoating when something goes wrong.
4. Remember that even if the TSA were privatized, WE wouldn't be their customers . . . the Government and airlines would. So our complaints would have to go through a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to make any changes. Even then, responses to those complaints would result in more passing the buck. At least now we know that the buck stops with the TSA.
5. Privatizing adds a whole new layer of profit and lobbying to the situation. With such a huge government contract at stake, the amount spent on lobbying and executive salaries would erase any savings that MIGHT be gained via the supposed efficiency of private business.
6. Corporations answer to their shareholders. Next quarter's earnings should have absolutely no bearing on our national security.
The only benefit I see to privatizing the TSA is that a few individuals in the right positions could stand to make a s**t ton of money.
chilidogsDec 1, 2010
Privatized utilities have significantly increased costs.Privatized welfare in Indiana failed miserably, was corrupted and overwhelmed by employee fraud and cost the Indiana tax payers much more than it had before while failing to provide services. Private industry is great at some things and really s**tty at others. The notion that privatization is always better is demonstrably incorrect.
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2010/09/failed-welfare-privatization-deal-cost.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625744742160575.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r3:c0.111415
racer20Dec 1, 2010
Ok, another straw man. Look at the big picture. Even if there are some auxiliary coverages (I couldn't find any details with a quick Google search), the reason the THREAT of terrorism exists is due to the potential for catastrophic damage to human life and/or national infrastructure. Terrorists aren't interested in destroying things or corporations. Their targets are people's lives, our national infrastructure, and the symbols of our prosperity.
Your comment was that corporations get their security paid for with your tax dollars. Yes, the airlines are private corporations, but the security is provided to protect against the threat to human life and society in general. Otherwise any company with major assets would have their own specialized government security. If you can't see the difference, then I don't really have much else to say.
norml2000Dec 1, 2010
Like thats any better than it being govt run. Lets just put it in the hands of CEO's who will sell the images and information gathered during scanning and searches.
norml2000Dec 1, 2010
Even if it was privatized. Who is gonna pay for it? The government will still be funding the private company in charge. These bull crap Repubs just want to fill the pockets of executives for which they worked for previously or own stock or shares of a company.
Let me guess who would get the private contract for the TSA. Haliburton? Blackwater?