US House 'Creator' of TSA Wants To Kill It 681
U.S. Representative John Mica (R-Florida), the sponsor of the original House bill that helped create the TSA, has become an outspoken opponent of the agency. In a recent interview, "Mica said screeners should be privatized and the agency dismantled." Mica seems to agree with other TSA critics that the agency 'failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.' Mica is the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman and receives classified briefings on TSA. Perhaps we should trust him more than most people on this topic.
In an older ABC news article (ignore the unrelated video) Mica describes how he deals with security checkpoints. "He won't go through a full body scanner at an airport because 'I don't want them circulating pictures of my beautiful body' all over. He said he opts for a pat-down, and just 'closes his eyes and imagines a beautiful female.'"
Re:Privatization? (Score:5, Informative)
What are you talking about? Privatization generally leads to more for less. Airport security has already been privatized in other countries; the U.S. would just be catching up in that regard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html?_r=4 [nytimes.com]
There was another story a few weeks ago, about a state that took back a previously privatized prison that wasn't being maintained properly (i.e., the company was just cream-skimming), and much to their surprise they saved about a million dollars in the first year they had it back.
Also, notice that if you privatized the TSA you still have all the same expenses, *plus* the expectation of a profit on top of all that. They only way you get more for less by privatizing is by cutting corners - and you've got to cut enough to satisfy the profit motive just to break even.
Privatization isn't about smaller government, or even getting more for less. It's about putting public money in private pockets. Why do you think Republican politicians always favor it?
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Informative)
And why wouldn't the government feel it should regulate pollution?
"That would be difficult in a country where the government feels it has the right to interfere with the market at any time in any way for any reason. You can hardly blame the free market for screwups in a country where the government feels it has the right to control mercury and arsenic."
See how that sounds?
Re:Got my vote (Score:3, Informative)
The environment is an externality for businesses. In other words, a form of market failure. It doesn't matter how free your markets are, they will never be able to handle environmental problems. This is why things like carbon credits are being tried - they attempt to make the externality internal.