5 ms·

I think Trump would abolish the TSA. Cruz has said he would, too. I'd like to see either one get in, though I wonder if the President should be able to just dec

I think Trump would abolish the TSA. Cruz has said he would, too. I'd like to see either one get in, though I wonder if the President should be able to just decide on his own to shut down an agency that Congress has approved. Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA, so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them. It affects so many people you could probably get elected just on this issue alone.

spyspy 11y ago
But any politician that supported such a bill would be crucified if and when another terrorist attack occurs.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  Additionally, they'd be vilified by the people who de facto support things like the TSA as "soft on security".
brown9-2 11y ago
Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA, so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them Good luck finding someone who wants to be the anti-airport-security candidate.
- crystalmeph 11y ago
  I don't know. Is there anyone who isn't a politician or employed by the TSA who thinks the TSA is doing a job worthy of their funding? Even though you have to take it as a fact that the status quo is a powerful force in politics, it seems like there is room for someone who wants to get elected on a populist platform to make this a banner issue.
  - mikestew 11y ago
    Is there anyone who isn't a politician or employed by the TSA who thinks the TSA is doing a job worthy of their funding? Yes. By some counts that group would include the majority of Americans. Personally, I've heard the words, "it makes me feel safer" come out of the mouths of what appear to be otherwise competent adult humans.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Nothing destroys a political career quite so violently as being the guy who relaxed some apparent safeguard just before a (potentially uncorrelated) bad thing happens that the safeguard was meant to prevent. This is why no one will back off the light pollution from Chicago's streetlights. If you're the alderman who made that street dimmer at night, and someone gets murderered there, your career is over forever.
ChrisBland 11y ago
This makes me sound jaded, but its a jobs program at its core. Every person in congress with a major airport in their district will try to prevent it from being privatized / disbanded. There are two types of people that go work for the TSA: 1) Those who can't get a job anywhere else, and 2) People trying to break in to the federal security market by going to TSA and transferring in. Yes, in gvt it is easier to get a new job if you already work in gvt vs applying from the outside.
- strictnein 11y ago
  It's not just a jobs program, it's a federal public union jobs program. Which means lots of money spent on politicians.
- madengr 11y ago
  The ones in KC are already contractors. "First Line" instead of TSA. They are also a lot nicer than the government TSA, who typically bark orders like prison guards.
CaptainZapp 11y ago
Ok, the TSA sucks big time and should be abolished. I get that. But what about the alternatives? In this day and age it's just not thinkable to let people enter a plane without a security check. So you need some entity performing it. I think one factor on providing successful and to the passenger acceptable (they will never be pleasant) security checks is adequate funding and employing adequately compensated professionals. It's weird that my wait time on any European airport I ever use is literally always below 10 minutes and usually much less than that. And it's not that checks are less thorough around here. It really just seems to be a funding issue.
- MichaelBurge 11y ago
  I think the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the airports comply with them, and the airports would be responsible for doing screenings. Somehow that got warped into government agents doing the work. Why is it 'unthinkable' to let people enter a plane without a security check? We let people get on a bus without a security check. If you're worried specifically about someone taking over the plane and crashing it into a building, you can protect the pilots separately from the people. International flights are a little different, because someone already needs to verify a passport. Even there, I don't think the security checks are actually necessary. I'm definitely opposed to classifying this as a 'funding issue' and giving the TSA even more money.
  - CaptainZapp 11y ago
    Then we probably have to agree to disagree. Air travel is in that sense special that you and up to 500 of your fellow passengers are in a metal tube in 12'000 metres height, which makes it conceptually a bit different from a bus, or even a train. Cockpit doors are already re-inforced, but the cockpit is not the only sensitive part of a plane when a passenger wants to cause mayhem with a high powered rifle, or a - pistol. In addition I, for one, prefer to take a flight without a bunch of open carry zealots believing that they have a god given rigth to take their guns everywhere and which would surely wind up armed on commercial flights. But again, we seem to have a completely different opinion here and I have no urge to try to convince you why I don't think it's a good idea to abolish security checks for flights.
mikeash 11y ago
The President clearly does not have that sort of power. The power of that office has been exaggerated to a crazy degree. Regardless of what he wants, President Trump can't shut down the TSA, or for that matter deport Muslims or build a wall on the Mexican border. I can't see Congress abolishing the TSA. Just bringing up the idea will give a representative's opponents tons of ammunition to paint them as "soft on terror" and endangering Americans. People are fearful of this stuff. To the extent that people dislike the TSA, it's only because they're more annoying and slow than necessary, not because people think the whole concept is bad. If a member of Congress could come up with a way to improve the TSA then I imagine that would pass pretty easily, but of course that's a harder job.
- kreneskyp 11y ago
  Abolishing the TSA doesn't mean ending airport security. It would mean replacing it with privatized security. The TSA is universally hated so it wouldn't be that hard to find enough Democrats to go along with it.

spyspy 11y ago

But any politician that supported such a bill would be crucified if and when another terrorist attack occurs.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Additionally, they'd be vilified by the people who de facto support things like the TSA as "soft on security".

brown9-2 11y ago

Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA, so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them Good luck finding someone who wants to be the anti-airport-security candidate.

crystalmeph 11y ago
I don't know. Is there anyone who isn't a politician or employed by the TSA who thinks the TSA is doing a job worthy of their funding? Even though you have to take it as a fact that the status quo is a powerful force in politics, it seems like there is room for someone who wants to get elected on a populist platform to make this a banner issue.
- mikestew 11y ago
  Is there anyone who isn't a politician or employed by the TSA who thinks the TSA is doing a job worthy of their funding? Yes. By some counts that group would include the majority of Americans. Personally, I've heard the words, "it makes me feel safer" come out of the mouths of what appear to be otherwise competent adult humans.
- superuser2 11y ago
  Nothing destroys a political career quite so violently as being the guy who relaxed some apparent safeguard just before a (potentially uncorrelated) bad thing happens that the safeguard was meant to prevent. This is why no one will back off the light pollution from Chicago's streetlights. If you're the alderman who made that street dimmer at night, and someone gets murderered there, your career is over forever.

ChrisBland 11y ago

This makes me sound jaded, but its a jobs program at its core. Every person in congress with a major airport in their district will try to prevent it from being privatized / disbanded. There are two types of people that go work for the TSA: 1) Those who can't get a job anywhere else, and 2) People trying to break in to the federal security market by going to TSA and transferring in. Yes, in gvt it is easier to get a new job if you already work in gvt vs applying from the outside.

strictnein 11y ago
It's not just a jobs program, it's a federal public union jobs program. Which means lots of money spent on politicians.
madengr 11y ago
The ones in KC are already contractors. "First Line" instead of TSA. They are also a lot nicer than the government TSA, who typically bark orders like prison guards.

CaptainZapp 11y ago

Ok, the TSA sucks big time and should be abolished. I get that. But what about the alternatives? In this day and age it's just not thinkable to let people enter a plane without a security check. So you need some entity performing it. I think one factor on providing successful and to the passenger acceptable (they will never be pleasant) security checks is adequate funding and employing adequately compensated professionals. It's weird that my wait time on any European airport I ever use is literally always below 10 minutes and usually much less than that. And it's not that checks are less thorough around here. It really just seems to be a funding issue.

MichaelBurge 11y ago
I think the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the airports comply with them, and the airports would be responsible for doing screenings. Somehow that got warped into government agents doing the work. Why is it 'unthinkable' to let people enter a plane without a security check? We let people get on a bus without a security check. If you're worried specifically about someone taking over the plane and crashing it into a building, you can protect the pilots separately from the people. International flights are a little different, because someone already needs to verify a passport. Even there, I don't think the security checks are actually necessary. I'm definitely opposed to classifying this as a 'funding issue' and giving the TSA even more money.
- CaptainZapp 11y ago
  Then we probably have to agree to disagree. Air travel is in that sense special that you and up to 500 of your fellow passengers are in a metal tube in 12'000 metres height, which makes it conceptually a bit different from a bus, or even a train. Cockpit doors are already re-inforced, but the cockpit is not the only sensitive part of a plane when a passenger wants to cause mayhem with a high powered rifle, or a - pistol. In addition I, for one, prefer to take a flight without a bunch of open carry zealots believing that they have a god given rigth to take their guns everywhere and which would surely wind up armed on commercial flights. But again, we seem to have a completely different opinion here and I have no urge to try to convince you why I don't think it's a good idea to abolish security checks for flights.

mikeash 11y ago

The President clearly does not have that sort of power. The power of that office has been exaggerated to a crazy degree. Regardless of what he wants, President Trump can't shut down the TSA, or for that matter deport Muslims or build a wall on the Mexican border. I can't see Congress abolishing the TSA. Just bringing up the idea will give a representative's opponents tons of ammunition to paint them as "soft on terror" and endangering Americans. People are fearful of this stuff. To the extent that people dislike the TSA, it's only because they're more annoying and slow than necessary, not because people think the whole concept is bad. If a member of Congress could come up with a way to improve the TSA then I imagine that would pass pretty easily, but of course that's a harder job.

kreneskyp 11y ago
Abolishing the TSA doesn't mean ending airport security. It would mean replacing it with privatized security. The TSA is universally hated so it wouldn't be that hard to find enough Democrats to go along with it.