Assignment Could Last Years, as Autonomous Federal Agency Can't Do Its Job

It's about as bad as the cynics had predicted: the new Transportation Safety Administration, born in haste as a knee-jerk reaction to September 11, can't get the job done in time; and it's going to cost taxpayers even more than the feds had hoped to spend.
As we have repeatedly noted, there were, and are, serious problems in the airport security systems. As no one else seems to have noticed, though, none of September 11's terror was related to any such problems. On September 11, all procedures were followed: box cutters were allowed on commercial airline flights; flight crews were told to cooperate with hijackers; as far as anyone knows, no cockpit doors were forced open. September 11 was the cumulative result of what now looks like monumentally bad judgment by the security experts, rather than any failure of execution by those assigned to carry out the plans. When terrorists planned their despicable acts, they simply followed the rules.
Now, security experts have determined that changing the poorly-trained "low-level munchkins" at the airports will make a difference, and they first inserted thousands of untrained (in that task) National Guard personnel. When the governors' patience wore thin and prompted President Bush to admit that private-sector security was more of a police than a military function (and order the National Guard out by the end of this month), the special police of the TSA were supposed to take over training the security people. Through monumental bureaucratic maneuverings, that agency has now managed to staff one airport -- Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) -- and, even there, the agency admits that "its" screeners (who reportedly can make upwards of $70,000 a year) were made up of those very folks they were called in to replace. John Magaw, capo of the TSA, while not actually answering reporters' questions, did admit that "over half" of the screeners he's now paying, were previous airport screeners. (What proportion "over half," he wouldn't say.)

To Chicago

Since the Illinois National Guard will go back to soldiering, and leave O'Hare and Midway behind this Friday, Magaw's guys were supposed to provide security for that city's travelers. That's not going to happen, though: the Chicago Tribune reports that, "...off-duty Chicago police officers will take over the security details at Chicago's airports." Since the TSA isn't expected to get its job done any time soon, the Jon Hilkevitch and Rogers Worthington story warns that, although the TSA spokesman said the use of Chicago's cops was "temporary," "although he acknowledged it could go on for about 1½ years because of the many challenges facing the agency. And many details remain unsettled, including how much the federal government will reimburse the city for taking over the responsibilities."
The TSA has taken care of its highly-paid bureaucrats, though: it has demanded 20,000 square feet of office space at O'Hare and Midway; but it's unsure just what rent it will dictate that it will pay.

Cities to take up the burden

When we checked on similar TSA arrangements, we were told that the TSA would reimburse the city for direct expenses (e.g.,  hours, overtime) but the TSA couldn't say whether all expenses (prorated benefits, taxes, for example) would be reimbursed; and we were also told that "infrastructure" -- wear and tear on police cars, uniforms, additional staffing required to cover for anticipated additional sick and vacation time, etc. -- would be the local department's problem.

Massive transfer of wealth

The entire program of "federalization" does more than just cost more money for airport, and airline security. It transfers the costs of such security from those who directly benefit (the airlines and their customers) to those who receive little or no benefit from it (such as non-fliers in Montana, for instance). Since the airlines are private entities, their responsibility to provide security should be their expense. If security for the airlines should be the taxpayers' responsibility (regardless whether they fly or not), then why limit federal involvement to just airlines? Wouldn't all transportation industries, all mining, all power generation, all water supply, all banks, and all public beaches, say, be equally deserving of such "protection?"

Fliers pay, too

It's not as though the fliers aren't paying more, also. The "leg tax," currently $2.50 per (with a $10 maximum, per ticket) is currently being reconsidered in Congress; they're talking about voting on doubling that, possibly as soon as this week. The money, which, at the doubled rate, would amount to over $4 billion, would go to the TSA, which says it needs the money, NOW, to buy all those explosive-detection machines. [It is unlikely that, after those machines are purchased, the TSA will lobby to have the "leg tax" rescinded --ed.]

Flying's like smoking, to congress. (It's a way to get more money to spend.)

Continental Airlines quickly pointed out that this would bring the total taxes on a $100 ticket to a record $53 at a time when economic conditions are weak and airlines are struggling to eliminate catastrophic losses.
"Having the effect of a consumption tax, the higher fees will further diminish the current lackluster demand for airline travel," said Continental Chairman and CEO Gordon Bethune. "Legislators have justified taxes on cigarettes and alcohol of up to 18 percent because they are trying to discourage their use. Unfortunately, imposing taxes as high as 53 percent on airline tickets will have the same effect as the sin taxes, thereby threatening the livelihoods of the millions of people working in this industry."

Additional Police Required

Even when the TSA finally gets on with its job, law enforcement will still be assigned to airport security. This is part of their regular duty: one cop, at least, is required for each screening position (if there are more than six lanes at a single point, an additional cop is added for every seventh one). That is a "normal" staffing level, and is not what's at issue here.
What's going on now, is that, as the TSA takes over airport security (and recycles essentially the same people into federal benefits, pay scales, and immunity from civil litigation), additional burdens are being put on the local taxpayers -- even as the number of travelers (those who directly benefit) remains well below year-ago levels. Is security any better than it was before September 11? It's hard to say: September 11 was a unique experience: nothing like it had ever happened before, either -- even with all the low-cost, poorly-trained, privately-employed workers' following what now look like stupid training protocols. The question is, today: which of the new protocols will look stupid, and which of the millions of dollars' wasted, when the next attack occurs -- and will it involve airlines?
As for Chicago's plight: the Tribune writers say that Police spokesman Robert Cargie thinks the department is in for the long haul. With the feds' already admitting they'll be nursing from the Chicago PD for a year and a half, Cargie seems to thing that timeframe would be good news. He thought of the assignment of his officers differently: "I wouldn't call it temporary but open ended."

FMI: www.tsa.gov