Bush Flip Flops on TSA: Safety in exchange for Profit
Op-Ed Mauricio Rosas, Co-Editor
10.17.05 - Tampa - Not long ago Bush and his supporters were patting each other on the back because they created the Transportation Safety Administration making America "safer." He said, "Today, we take permanent and aggressive steps to improve the security of our airways." He said permanent but did he mean permanent? Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of the word or maybe his "child genius" Karl Rove forgot to tell him. Bush goes on to say, "The events of September the 11th were a call to action." I guess now there is no need for action? At least no action to safeguard airports but action to safeguard profits.
"The law I will sign [Transportation Security Administration on Nov. 19,2001] should give all Americans greater confidence when they fly." So today, Oct. 17, 2005 he signs a new law giving Americans less confidence! Will he have the balls to say to the American people, "Today I have signed a new law that may or may not be permanent but it will surely make you less confident and my buddies richer." I doubt it. This is one of those hush, hush deals.
Back then he was so proud of his work. He would go out of his way to tell us how he worked with Congress on a bipartisan way. "Despite divergent views, the Congress worked closely with my administration to develop a bipartisan conclusion that will help protect American air travelers." And today despite divergent views he's protecting the bank accounts of his buddies who own private rent-a-cop agencies. As Americans we're certain to feel safer with business as "old" usual.
I'm certain Bush will feel safer when he flies Air-Tram. Oh me, oh my, I forgot. He doesn't fly on commercial airlines. He has his own private flying castle. And when he leaves office he will still feel safe because his Mummy and Daddy have their own flying castle.
So my fellow Americans, I say to you, if you want to feel safe
when flying call 1-800-Fly-Bush and make your reservation on the most secure
planes in the nation. Op-ed Mauricio Rosas, co-editor,
www.voiceoffreedom.com
Recall old, flawed screening? It seems
lawmakers don't.
October 17, 2005
USA.com
Air travelers may soon see a change in security procedures - one that takes them back toward the bad old days when passenger screening was a sieve. An obscure provision in a bill President Bush is scheduled to sign Tuesday will make it easier for airports to dump federal screeners in favor of private companies - exposed as utterly inept after 9/11. It exempts airports from being sued for failings of private screeners in the event of a terrorist attack.
This is a triumph of ideological rigidity and political scheming over common sense.
It's hard to imagine a level of incompetence greater than that shown by the private companies. In the bright, post-9/11 spotlight, one report after another found low pay, high turnover, vague standards and low morale combining to make screening nearly useless. After weeks of debate, Congress created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and put it in charge of a new public workforce. Though the system has its flaws, few fliers would argue that the new screeners aren't more professional than the old.
Yet some Republican lawmakers cling to the past. They've been pushing to return to a variation on the old system, allowing airports to contract with private screeners, trained and supervised by the TSA.
That's about as smart as encouraging the FBI or local police to subcontract their law-enforcement duties, which is why Congress and the administration have nudged the changes along out of public view. That maneuvering, too, is reminiscent of the pre-9/11 era, when industries with clout, bungling federal agencies and a politically weak Congress let air security disintegrate.
The erosion began earlier this year. The Homeland Security Department, TSA's parent, granted similar protections against lawsuits directly to two private screening companies. They handle test security programs at the San Francisco and Kansas City airports.
Lobbyists for airports then pressed for comparable treatment, and Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., complied, inserting broad airport protection in the final version of the Homeland Security Department's 2006 spending bill, a must-pass piece of legislation. The screening companies that airports employ could also be exempted by Homeland Security. The bill passed the House by a wide bipartisan margin and the Senate by a voice vote.
A large part of the motivation is ideological. Several Republicans in Congress, notably Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record) of Florida, who chairs a key subcommittee, wanted to keep the old system all along. They preferred a private-sector strategy, despite its glaring failures.
The private security firms, which stand to profit the most, pushed their agenda with strategic campaign donations. For instance, a political action committee (PAC) run by FirstLine Transportation Security, which provides screeners in Kansas City, Mo., gave $2,000 to Mica. Its president, John DeMell gave $1,000 to Rogers' leadership PAC.
Mica argues that the private sector, under government supervision, will maintain high standards but be more flexible and efficient - reasoning we often favor in this space. But not in circumstances where it has failed. Surely, the TSA has invited some of the push for private screeners through its own inability to respond to airports' needs.
The solution is to fix that problem, not to undermine the system
built through trial and error over the past four years. A variation on the
dismal security that 19 hijackers foiled in 2001 is no way to make the publicsafe.
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-10-16-our-view_x.htm
Mauricio