Washington Post Completely Misses the Point (or Misleads)

We all know our new 'security' costs more than those who run things will admit; but a Thursday article in the Washington Post shows either a total misunderstanding of economics, or is a deliberate attempt to mislead us into anti-business class warfare.

The writer, Sara Kehaulani Goo, says, "Airline passengers paid the federal government nearly $1 billion for security last year, more than six times the amount the airline industry paid, according to the agency in charge of airport security."

The numbers behind the ratio, she points out, were $977 million vs $160 million. She doesn't make much of the fact that the TSA mandated the per-leg fees. The conclusion, taken from an attributed quote of Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), is that, "The airlines are not paying their fair share."

Let's have a look at this logic: the passengers pay a direct tax (it's involuntary, and imposed by government, so it's a tax, even if it's called a "fee") that put nearly a billion bucks directly into the TSA's pocket, money that Congress didn't have to take from the (flying and non-flying) public in other taxes. The airlines also spent $160 million, trying to keep up with the TSA's demands.

Now, let's suppose "the airlines" had to pay more of the total tab. Nowhere is there any indication that this would lower the TSA's demand for the $977 million -- the idea is that "the airlines" should simply pay more. OK -- say you buy that argument, because "it's fair." Where, pray tell, will "the airlines" get the money? Yup -- from the passengers. Who pays?

The TSA, of course, is arguing that, because they were so successful in extracting more money from passengers, that the airlines, already crushed under increasingly-expensive mandates and losing passengers to the "hassle factor," should simply charge the fliers more.

The TSA doesn't want to incur the additional wrath of a grumbling populace, so it wants the airlines to front for it, in its enhanced revenue-collection scheme. The TSA, already having overspent and thus embarrassed its nominal boss (Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta), isn't likely to lose another capo by actually asking Congress to cover its bloated tab. [John Magaw, the TSA's first boss, got Mineta into embarrassingly hot water last summer, through his profligate spending. Magaw was quickly dismissed, when the public started asking Congress why he -- already -- needed more money --ed.]

Michael Wascom, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, put a kinder spin on the mess: "We're optimistic that as a new Congress convenes and as a variety of challenges continue to face the industry, that this particular issue can be resolved in an amicable fashion. There are a variety of other pressing issues that command our attention, such as rising fuel prices and excessive taxation."

In the final lines of the story, Goo mentions, almost offhand, that, "Airlines, which received $5 billion in cash assistance from Congress after the terrorist hijackings, balked at paying the $750 million sought by Transportation because they said they have not been reimbursed for up to $4 billion in other security costs... [and] said they still plan to press for a 'rollback' of security expenses." Then she added the following piece of nonsensical 'reasoning:' "They also hope to have the $2.50 fee eliminated because they say it prevents them from raising prices." [emphasis added]

FMI: www.tsa.gov, www.airlines.org