The privatized TSA will still be groping or using the porno-scanners that are expensive but easily beatable as we have seen recently as well as a few years ago. They will still be humiliating Americans and preventing babies from flying because of incorrect no-fly lists and declaring cream cheese dangerous.
Why isn't anyone asking Rep. Mica how the privatized TSA will be any different with these problems?
The Hill:
Rep. John Mica (r-Fla.) has long pushed for private screeners at Orlando's Sanford International Airport. He said Monday he hoped the move at the airport in his home state would open "a new era of reform for TSA operations, not only at Orlando Sanford but across the nation.
“It’s critical that TSA get out of the business of running a huge bureaucracy and human resources operation and refocus its attention on security, analyzing intelligence, and setting the highest risk-based security standards," Mica, who is a vocal critic of TSA, said in a statement.
3 comments:
Good questions.
I agree that it's unlikely that private screeners will do a better job or treat people with more dignity.... But, the TSA is so bad that I say, it's time to give private screeners a chance! I'm a lifelong Democrat and generally pro-choice, but the TSA and the impending police state are just too much. I can't support it.
Of course, I realize that big corps are running the show, whether you use govt. screeners or private contractors because big corps. run the govt. It's time for American to wake up and realize that corporations ARE Big Brother and that they are using such heavy-handed tactics as the TSA uses to monitor and control the public. By doing so, they ensure they will stay in power, and they help promote the rash consumerism that lines their pocketbooks at the same time!
So, you're right: private contractors will change the situation very little. However, if it introduces competition between companies, this could be a slight improvement over our current airport security monopoly. (You see, security has nothing to do with keeping us safe; it is another cash cow business, and that is all.) If screeners at Airport A treat it's customers badly, maybe they will go to Airport B next time, and hopefully Airport B's "security" personnel will have better customer service skills, therefore encouraging more people to fly out of Airport B, increasing Airport B's profits, causing Airport A to tell its screeners to get their act together or they will be fired.
I believe the Congressional reps who are promoting the use of private screeners are doing so only to appease private contractors (aka. donors). I do not believe it will do much more or less to improve security (of course most airport security is completely superfluous anyway). Given that the TSA is basically a monopoly run by a select group of business people and that they really suck at their jobs, introducing competition from other companies probably won't hurt us that much.
At the very least, it should be easier to manage the personnel if we allow several smaller groups to oversee airport security operations. Right now, the TSA is so big that the people near the top (or even in the middle) can't possibly manage all the thousands of incompetent idiots they're employing.
No pro-choice. I meant pro-union. (I'm also pro-choice just for the record.)
Post a Comment