TSA

[Alaska Darin]

Security hiring a costly effort

[JimBob2232]

Duh. I still cant believe someone (or a bunch of someones) actually sat around and said "ya know what...I bet if we federalize airport security, we can do a much better job at a much cheaper price" Morons. Name ONE area of government where they actually do a good job of responsibly managing their finances.

[Taro T]

Duh.  I still cant believe someone (or a bunch of someones) actually sat around and said "ya know what...I bet if we federalize airport security, we can do a much better job at a much cheaper price"  Morons.  Name ONE area of government where they actually do a good job of responsibly managing their finances.

577295[/snapback]

No one said it would be cheaper. IIRC, it was one of the bones thrown to the Democrats to get the DHS approved. (Ironically, they were the ones screaming loudest to get the DHS set up in the 1st place.)

[Mickey]

Duh.  I still cant believe someone (or a bunch of someones) actually sat around and said "ya know what...I bet if we federalize airport security, we can do a much better job at a much cheaper price"  Morons.  Name ONE area of government where they actually do a good job of responsibly managing their finances.

577295[/snapback]

CDC CDC 2006 Budget Request Summary

 

I am sure that with a 7+ Billion dollar budget there has been some poorly spent money but overall, I think they do a very good job with, compared to the severity of the threats for which they are our only line of defense, very little money.

[UConn James]

Duh.  I still cant believe someone (or a bunch of someones) actually sat around and said "ya know what...I bet if we federalize airport security, we can do a much better job at a much cheaper price"  Morons.  Name ONE area of government where they actually do a good job of responsibly managing their finances.

577295[/snapback]

 

Government spending + Investment (business) spending + Consumer spending + Net exports = GDP. There's no point where you can spend more in one by taking the same amount out from another where it's going to change the GDP (or GNP or whatever you use).

 

Not making excuses for TSA or whatever agency, but I know plenty of private business endeavors that do much worse or no better at managing their money and employees than gov't. Cost and efficiency b/w the two doesn't change all that much.

[IUBillsFan]

Duh.  I still cant believe someone (or a bunch of someones) actually sat around and said "ya know what...I bet if we federalize airport security, we can do a much better job at a much cheaper price"  Morons.  Name ONE area of government where they actually do a good job of responsibly managing their finances.

577295[/snapback]

Well as one FORMER senator once said you can't professionalize unless you federalize...

[Alaska Darin]

Not making excuses for TSA or whatever agency, but I know plenty of private business endeavors that do much worse or no better at managing their money and employees than gov't. Cost and efficiency b/w the two doesn't change all that much.

577632[/snapback]

Bull. If companies ran as poorly as the government they'd be out of business in short order. There's only so long that commercial entities can run in the red before there are consequences. The government doesn't have that issue.

[RkFast]

Private airport security worked SOOOO well, didnt it?

 

I understand Darren's point, but Argenbright and the other private security firms were a joke. They had women in burquas who could barely speak English checking bags at Dulles for $8/hour.

[Scraps]

Private airport security worked SOOOO well, didnt it?

 

I understand Darren's point, but Argenbright and the other private security firms were a joke. They had women in burquas who could barely speak English checking bags at Dulles for $8/hour.

578975[/snapback]

 

Actually it worked the way it was supposed to work. The hijacker were detected but they used weapons that were permitted on the planes using the rules at the time. Recently, the TSA has decided to relax the rules almost to the point to where they were back in 2001.

 

Couldn't the rules have been changed and standards been raised but the work still have been contracted out? Its easier to fire a bad contractor than to fix a government bureaucracy.

[RkFast]

Actually it worked the way it was supposed to work.  The hijacker were detected but they used weapons that were permitted on the planes using the rules at the time.  Recently, the TSA has decided to relax the rules almost to the point to where they were back in 2001.

 

Couldn't the rules have been changed and standards been raised but the work still have been contracted out?  Its easier to fire a bad contractor than to fix a government bureaucracy.

578995[/snapback]

 

 

If thats true then why do we have publicly paid police officers instead of security guards?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Actually it worked the way it was supposed to work.  The hijacker were detected but they used weapons that were permitted on the planes using the rules at the time.  Recently, the TSA has decided to relax the rules almost to the point to where they were back in 2001.

 

The hijackers also leveraged the then-existing practices for responding to a hijacking...namely, give them what they want but get the plane down as quickly as possible. People forget that every hijacking to that point pretty much involved holding the plane for ransom, in which case it made sense to give the hijackers control of the plane, as it was in their interest to keep it safe and whole as well (crash the plane, don't get what you want). If the pilots keep the cockpit doors closed and locked, odds are 9/11 doesn't happen. Instead, operating in their well-etablished and proven paradigm, they give the hijackers control of the plane, not realizing that the hijackers were operating under a completely new and different paradigm designed to take advantage of their entirely predictable response.

 

Airport security doesn't make a damned bit of difference, not when paradigms shift so drastically. The real security comes from the things we don't hear about - the standing order to airline pilots to get the plane down as quick as possible, and regardless of how many passengers' throats the hijackers slit do not open the cockpit door no matter what, which I'm sure is in place. Knives are allowed on planes now because a knife isn't going to bring down a plane again.

[Scraps]

If thats true then why do we have publicly paid police officers instead of security guards?

579003[/snapback]

 

Because the role of police officer and that of a security guard are different. Security guard functions are contracted out quite frequently at government facilites. I know that at the base I work at there is a small contigent of federal security people and a larger group of contractor security guards that man the gates. The TSA people doing the passenger screeenings are similar to security guards. Why can't that role be contracted out? I thought you were a conservative? Why don't you try acting like one.

[RkFast]

Because the role of police officer and that of a security guard are different.  Security guard functions are contracted out quite frequently at government facilites.  I know that at the base I work at there is a small contigent of federal security people and a larger group of contractor security guards that man the gates.  The TSA people doing the passenger screeenings are similar to security guards.  Why can't that role be contracted out?  I thought you were a conservative?  Why don't you try acting like one.

579120[/snapback]

 

Geez...a bit cranky? So you want to recklessly privatize everything? I thought you were a Democrat....start acting like one! Oh, calm down, Scrappy. Youre sitting there yelling PRIVATIZE, but when I tell you last time private security was in place it was bad, you just say "SO??!!?" Thats your answer?

 

Yeah, no sh--, Sherlock...privatized, more efficient systems would work better. Got a clue for ya....Govt. run, more efficient systems would work better too.Weve been down the private security road. It doesnt work, and even though CTM's point above is spot on, the airport security system in this country was in terrible shape pre 9/11 and had to be fixed. Im not a huge fan of the TSA, but the state of security today is better. There is no doubt. But there are clearly signs the TSA its falling under...into a govt. monolith. But Im not ready to toss it out completely and go back to the other way of doing things.

[Scraps]

Geez...a bit cranky? So you want to recklessly privatize everything? I thought you were a Democrat....start acting like one!  Oh, calm down, Scrappy. Youre sitting there yelling PRIVATIZE, but when I tell you last time private security was in place it was bad, you just say "SO??!!?" Thats your answer?

 

Yeah, no sh--, Sherlock...privatized, more efficient systems would work better. Got a clue for ya....Govt. run, more efficient systems would work better too.Weve been down the private security road. It doesnt work, and even though CTM's point above is spot on, the airport security system in this country was in terrible shape pre 9/11 and had to be fixed. Im not a huge fan of the TSA, but the state of security today is better. There is no doubt. But there are clearly signs the TSA its falling under...into a govt. monolith. But Im not ready to toss it out completely and go back to the other way of doing things.

579214[/snapback]

 

I'm not a Democrat, nor have I ever been one. I don't know why you thought I was one, other than the fact that I disagree with most of what GWB actually enacts. I was a Repbulican for 24 years. I've come to realize the Republicans only give lip service to Conservative ideas, so I no longer belong to a party.

 

You haven't responded to the fact that under the privatized system worked the way it was supposed to work. You never responded to the idea of raising the standards on the industry. Nope, your solution is Big Government!

 

You're not willing to toss out the TSA despite the fact that its falling into a gorvernment monolith? I didn't want expansion of the TSA to begin with because I knew it would turn into a government monolith. That has been the history of Government programs. Why did you think it would be any different this time? Who is the Conservative here?

[RkFast]

I'm not a Democrat, nor have I ever been one.  I don't know why you thought I was one, other than the fact that I disagree with most of what GWB actually enacts.  I was a Repbulican for 24 years.  I've come to realize the Republicans only give lip service to Conservative ideas, so I no longer belong to a party.

 

You haven't responded to the fact that under the privatized system worked the way it was supposed to work.  You never responded to the idea of raising the standards on the industry.  Nope, your solution is Big Government! 

 

You're not willing to toss out the TSA despite the fact that its falling into a gorvernment monolith?  I didn't want expansion of the TSA to begin with because I knew it would turn into a government monolith.  That has been the history of Government programs.  Why did you think it would be any different this time? 

 

Who is the Conservative here?

579291[/snapback]

 

Private security for the airlines worked the way it was supposed to? Youre kidding. Youve GOT to be kidding.

 

Hate to drive another truck through your argument, but there was talk of making a Federal security system BEFORE 9/11 becuase the state of airline security under the stead of private firms subsidized by struggling airlines became so bad. So your "fact" about an effective private system is about as much of a "fact" as the exsistence of the tooth fairy.

 

A quick Google on Argenbright yielded the following:

 

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0...1001252,00.html

 

For a company hired to screen passengers at the nation's largest airports, Argenbright Security has proved unnervingly lax at screening its own employees. Last year, following an investigation at the Philadelphia airport, Argenbright pleaded guilty to criminal charges of falsifying employee backgrounds, which had led to the hiring of those whose records included drug possession and aggravated assault. The FAA imposed a probation, and Argenbright's then parent company, AHL, paid $1.6 million in penalties.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/argenbr...ings101601.html

 

Preliminary findings of the assessment have found that:

 

Screeners at some airports had a prior criminal record that should have disqualified them from employment in security sensitive positions. For example, a screener at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport was removed from his post and had his secure area identification badge revoked after investigators learned he had been convicted on charges of being a felon in possession of a handgun.

 

 

Investigators have also worked with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine whether employees who were foreign nationals had authorization to work in the U.S. INS detained seven screeners at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport after finding they were illegally working in the U.S.

 

 

An individual was arrested by OIG special agents at Washington Dulles International Airport on October 13 after he passed through a security checkpoint with a concealed pocketknife on his person. The individual was detained and was arraigned October 15 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, VA on charged of attempting to board an aircraft with a concealed weapon. A preliminary hearing was set for October 23.

 

 

Also at Dulles, 7 out of 20 screeners re-tested during a spot check at a security checkpoint by OIG were not able to pass the skills tests required as a condition of employment. To be employed as a screener, applicants must complete 12 hours of instruction, pass a written

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._15/ai_79344534

 

"Sieve" rather than "security" may be the more accurate description of the system. The term applies not just to the screening process, but to those doing the screening, many of whom were hired under fraudulent pretenses. Falsified background checks have enabled burglars, drug abusers, former prostitutes, and foreign nationals from countries known to harbor terrorists to become security screeners with unescorted access to airport "sterile" areas, according to Government documents detailing the illegal activities of a major security company.

 

So there's your wonderful private security. Yeah..lets go back to THAT! And even if we did, you speak of the NEW private system being forced to become better and more efficient. Guess whose responsible for that? DING! The Feds...the FAA.

 

Now...the TSA. I dont think I EVER said they were the solution to this mess. But they are....listen carefully.....BETTER than what there was. Its an improvement. And while there is work to be done to improve the new system, you dont throw out the whole thing and waste the money and time invested to set it up in the first place after a few years. But your solution to the problem is to shitcan the whole agency and go back to what was a horrible, terrible system to manage the task; and to do this for the sole reason to make us feel better becuase we prevented what you call "Big Government."

 

Im sorry, thats just insane.

[Scraps]

Private security for the airlines worked the way it was supposed to? Youre kidding. Youve GOT to be kidding.

 

Blah blah blay deleted

 

So there's your wonderful private security. Yeah..lets go back to THAT! And even if we did, you speak of the NEW private system being forced to become better and more efficient. Guess whose responsible for that? DING! The Feds...the FAA.

 

Now...the TSA. I dont think I EVER said they were the solution to this mess. But they are....listen carefully.....BETTER than what there was. Its an improvement. And while there is work to be done to improve the new system, you dont throw out the whole thing and waste the money and time invested to set it up in the first place after a few years. But your solution to the problem is to shitcan the whole agency and go back to what was a horrible, terrible system to manage the task; and to do this for the sole reason to make us feel better becuase we prevented what you call "Big Government."

 

Im sorry, thats just insane.

579484[/snapback]

 

 

When did I say that security then was better than or equal to what it is now? My argument was that the problem was the rules in place at the time, coupled with what CTM said, allowed 9-11 to happen. Do you think that things would have been any different if federal employees were doing the screening? The weapons were found under the old system. Couldn't the old system have been improved? Couldn't Argenbright have been fired? What's easier, firing and incompetent contractor of fixing a government agency? Can you answer any of these questions? Can you avoid arguing against positions I have not taken?

 

You were probably in favor of the Airline bail out and the creation of the Homeland Security Department too.

[RkFast]

"You haven't responded to the fact that under the privatized system worked the way it was supposed to work. "

 

Who said that? Dick Jouron?

 

And stop !@#$ing projecting things on to me. Stop saying "you probably THIS or you probably THAT". Stick to the topic of the debate.

[Scraps]

"You haven't responded to the fact that under the privatized system worked the way it was supposed to work. "

 

Who said that? Dick Jouron?

 

And stop !@#$ing projecting things on to me that I then have to address and defend, ok? Stop saying "you probably THIS or you probably THAT". Stick to the topic of the debate.

579745[/snapback]

 

Yes I did. Box cutters were detected but by law box cutters were allowed on planes at that time. Given that, is the problem private security guards or the laws and rules at the time?

[Scraps]

"You haven't responded to the fact that under the privatized system worked the way it was supposed to work. "

 

Who said that? Dick Jouron?

 

And stop !@#$ing projecting things on to me. Stop saying "you probably THIS or you probably THAT". Stick to the topic of the debate.

579745[/snapback]

 

Dude, you do that all the time.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Defining what inherently governement is what the task is, right?