TSA Slated for Dismantling

Status
Not open for further replies.

dasmi

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
2,783
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
I think this is good for all of us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35333-2005Apr7.html?nav=rss_business

TSA Slated for Dismantling

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 8, 2005; Page A01

The Transportation Security Administration, once the flagship agency in the nation's $20 billion effort to protect air travelers, is now slated for dismantling.

The latest sign came yesterday when the Bush administration asked David M. Stone, the TSA's director, to step down in June, according to aviation and government sources. Stone is the third top administrator to leave the three-year-old agency, which was swiftly created in the chaos and patriotism following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The TSA absorbed divisions of other agencies such as Federal Aviation Administration only to find itself now the victim of a massive reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security
The TSA has been plagued by operational missteps, public relations blunders and criticism of its performance from both the public and legislators. Its "No Fly" list has mistakenly snared senators. Its security screeners have been arrested for stealing from luggage, and its passenger pat-downs have set off an outcry from women.

Under provisions of President Bush's 2006 budget proposal favored by Congress, the TSA will lose its signature programs in the reorganization of Homeland Security. The agency will likely become just manager of airport security screeners -- a responsibility that itself could diminish as private screening companies increasingly seek a comeback at U.S. airports. The agency's very existence, in fact, remains an open question, given that the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security contains a clause permitting the elimination of TSA as "distinct entity" after November 2004."TSA, at the end of the day, is going to look more like the Postal Service," said Paul C. Light, a public service professor at New York University and a Brookings Institution scholar who has tracked the agency since its birth in February 2002. Light calls the TSA "one of the federal government's greatest successes of the past half century," and likens it to the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the late 1950s, which was also born amid great public excitement to serve an urgent national need.

But TSA's time in the spotlight is over and it should now step back to serve a more narrow role, Light said. "It's a labor-intensive delivery organization that is not going to be making many public policy decisions. Its basic job is to train and deploy screeners," he said.

Bush administration officials say they don't expect the demise of TSA, adding they will know little about the future of the agency until new Homeland Security Sec. Michael Chertoff completes his review of the department, which will likely prompt a major overhaul.

"TSA has taken significant steps to enhance the nation's transportation and aviation security over the course of the past two years and TSA continues to have the confidence, not only of nation's air travelers, but of departmental leadership, to continue in this important mission," said Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse. "Secretary Chertoff is open to adjustments in the way that DHS does business but will not advocate for or against any change until a thorough review of the changes are complete." The review is expected to be completed in May or June.The government has pumped more money into airline security than any other Homeland Security effort. Much of it goes toward salaries for more than 45,000 security screeners at over 400 airports.Travelers know TSA mostly by its operations at the airport security checkpoint, a highly public role that magnifies agency's smallest blunders and often forces it to have to defend itself.

"Republicans didn't want to create this [bureaucracy] in the first place. Democrats see security as an easy target. So you don't have anyone to defend it," said C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., former assistant secretary for policy and planning at Homeland Security's Border and Transportation Security directorate, which includes TSA. "If someone sneaks a knife through an airport, it makes the news. If the Coast Guard misses a drug boat, no one hears about it."The TSA won early plaudits for swiftly building the first new federal agency in decades and restoring confidence in the nation's aviation system. It achieved 51 goals demanded by Congress under tight deadlines and took over many responsibilities from the Federal Aviation Administration, including the expansion and operation of undercover air marshals. At its peak, it had 66,000 federal employees and met deadlines that were unthinkable by the federal government, installing luggage scanning technology and hiring a new workforce of airport security screeners within a year.

Bit by bit, however, the agency's responsibilities have steadily dwindled amid a succession of directors. Many of its operations have been folded into the Department of Homeland Security, which it joined in 2003. TSA scrapped early plans to create a broad law-enforcement division. The air marshals, who lobbied to leave the agency, were transferred to the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division -- to the dismay of TSA leaders. Next, the explosives unit left. Now, the agency's high-tech research labs in Atlantic City are also going to another division of the department.Last week, momentum accelerated in the push to replace federal screeners with private contractors at the nation's airports. FirstLine Transportation Security, a Cleveland private security firm, became the first company to win approval for liability coverage under the SAFETY Act, which means that if the firm takes over checkpoints, claims will be capped in the event of a terrorist attack.The move clears a major hurdle in the return of private screening companies. The law creating TSA allowed for federal screeners to be replaced by private ones after two years.

"We need to step back and look at the billions of dollars we spent on the system, which doesn't provide much more protection than we had before 9/11," said Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), referring to tests conducted by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General that gave a "poor" rating to TSA screeners for their ability to catch weapons at the checkpoint. Mica, a key lawmaker who helped write the law that created the agency and chairs the House aviation subcommittee, would like to see private contractors take over screening jobs at airports. "TSA was something we put in place in an emergency, but it needs to evolve. You could whittle TSA down to a very small organization and do a much better job."

TSA's three leaders each have had distinct management styles and approaches to security, creating a culture of perpetual change. Its first leader, John W. Magaw, was a former head of the U.S. Secret Service who wanted to make TSA into a broad law enforcement agency with cops at every checkpoint and agents directing investigations at airports. After six months of protest from Congress and the airline industry, Magaw was replaced by a popular, industry-friendly former Coast Guard Commandant, James M. Loy. Loy spent much of his first year getting rid of what he called Magaw's "stupid rules" such as the secondary screening at the gates. Loy was so well liked that he was promoted to the No. 2 job at Homeland Security, from which he resigned along with former Sec. Tom Ridge earlier this year.

Stone, TSA's current leader, is new to Washington and has been known for his cautious -- some say near paranoid -- approach to security. He presides over a much slimmer TSA, with 52,000 employees, and said he supports the president's proposed changes and is happy to give up programs -- even large ones. "I'm a big optimist," Stone said in a recent interview in is office, which looks out on the side of the Pentagon hit by a United Airlines jet on Sept. 11, 2001. "I'm not really concerned about turf if that's what is best for the American people. I want to look back 10 years from now and say we did it right at TSA."

TSA and Homeland Security spokesmen declined to comment on Stone's departure. "We don't discuss personnel issues," said Roehrkasse.

Every morning, Stone begins a daily two- to four-hour intelligence meeting, in which he and 40 of his top managers review incident reports from the country's 429 major airports and from train, bus and trucking systems. They comb reports of evacuated terminals, unruly passengers and unattended bags, looking for the next big threat.

Travelers, airport workers and flight crew members involved in incidents are nominated to the government's secret "watch lists," meaning they will be singled out for extra screening the next time they arrive at an airport. So-called "selectees" wind up on the agency's secret list because they disrupted a flight -- not necessarily because they are viewed as terrorists. For at least six months, the selectees will be pulled aside for extra scrutiny every time they fly. Several thousand names are believed to be on the list.

Stone, 52, believes the exercise shows that TSA still serves a critical role in the nation's intelligence network. He has told new Homeland Security Sec. Michael Chertoff that he hopes the agency will keep this role. Airlines have complained that hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent passengers, and even pilots, have been added to TSA's "selectee" list or that some names are confused with those on the "No Fly" list, subjecting travelers to delays and hassles at the airport.

At a February meeting between TSA and 18 major carriers, airline representatives were asked who had crew members on the list and "they all raised their hands," said one airline source who was present. Airline officials said crew members on the list must be stripped of their badges and cannot perform their duties, according to TSA rules.

Stone said "one or two" pilots who are approved to carry guns in the cockpit have been put on the selectee list in the past year. He said he recalls a "handful" of other pilots who have been added to the selectee list because they were involved in "outrageous" incidents. He cited an incident last year in which an intoxicated pilot punched a patron at a restaurant and threatened him.

"We take all of these incidents seriously and we work to resolve them quickly because we know that people's livelihoods are at stake," said TSA spokesman Mark Hatfield.

Going forward, Stone faces the challenge of keeping TSA's workforce motivated. Many screeners took their jobs expecting that the new agency would provide a path to a federal career. At a recent hearing, Stone acknowledged that screeners suffer from low morale. According to an internal survey last year, 35 percent of employees are satisfied with their job.

Stone said security directors around the country sympathize with him, saying: "You've got the toughest job in federal government. You're under the gun for every little thing. You're constantly under the microscope."
 
"...Paul C. Light, a public service professor at New York University and a Brookings Institution scholar who has tracked the agency since its birth in February 2002. Light calls the TSA "one of the federal government's greatest successes of the past half century," and likens it to the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the late 1950s..."

Lawdy, Lawdy. That's enough to scare a dog off a gut-wagon. Make a buzzard throw up. Gag a maggot.

If the TSA is a success, God help us if there's ever a failure.

:barf:

Art
 
The only thing better would be if all TSA hive sub-entities got themselves deported to someplace that has a tradition of cannibalism.
 
and likens it to the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the late 1950s...
Considering that it isn't hard to find people who think NASA was (and is) a horrible idea, that comparison doesn't do a lot for me.
 
I'll vote for NASA being a terrible idea, and it has only gotten worse since the 70s. At least they used to be somewhat useful while spending billions (trillions?) of dollars.....
 
I'll vote for NASA being a terrible idea, and it has only gotten worse since the 70s. At least they used to be somewhat useful while spending billions (trillions?) of dollars.....

I'll not say NASA was a bad idea, it served a purpose. But when your greatest victory was 35 years ago...
 
Send the

T heives &
S tealers
A SSociation

folks out to the deep southwest. MAYBE they would be better at spotting illegals than contraband in suitcases.
 
If TSA is eliminated, look for something run even more poorly with an even larger, more bloated bureaucracy to run it.
I'll vote for NASA being a terrible idea, and it has only gotten worse since the 70s.
That's because it's no longer being run by engineers like Werner Von Braun, it's being run by brown-nosing bureaucrats and is deep in the clutches of "political correctness." A few years back, while waiting for a flight at the airport, I had the opportunity to talk to a recent retiree from NASA. He'd been a young engineer during the Apollo days, and retired as some sort of a manager. He told me that shortly before retirement, he was told he was going to hire a person to fill a position - and no matter who he interviewed or who was best for the job, the person he ultimately chose was going to be a black female. Period. He was pretty bitter about this. (I saw a similar story as a "letter to the editor" in a trade journal - made me wonder if it was the same guy.)
 
I will go on record saying that I don't believe it. There is NO WAY that the feds would admit such a big mistake so soon after making it. The quotes in the article support nothing more than a rumor. At most, the name may be changed and some duties reshuffled.
 
There should have definitely been a sunset on all of these post-9/11 security hooplah agencies. TSA is an affront to freedom.
 
Unlike the TSA,

NASA was one of the best investments the USA ever made. Look at the computer you are using, the microchips in it were developed in part by NASA in the 1960's in order to miniaturize computer systems so they could be taken into space, Cutting edge alloys, materials , software, fabrics, aeronautics, satellite communications, new weapons guidance systems, a lot of the high tech stuff which in part fuels the USA's economic and military advantage was developed by or in support of the space program. NASA is now just a bureaucracy, but scientific research is very important to our economy.
 
NASA was one of the best investments the USA ever made.
I suggest acquiring a copy of Economics In One Lesson so that you might understand why this is a dubious argument.
In short: all the money that was taken from tax payers and given to NASA is money that wasn't spent on private sector growth, research and development. Yes, NASA has done some good work, but it is impossible to see the good work that wasn't done, because businesses couldn't afford to do it, as their money was being funnelled off to NASA.
Plus, by its government nature, many choices of direction in scientific and engineering research have been politicized, rather than being made on the basis of what is most economical. (Like the Shuttle.) These are decisions which have haunted the aerospace industry as a whole, and likely impeded the economic growth of the US.
 
All I have to say to them is "Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out!"
 
Great.

Now we'll have lowest-bidder private contractors violating us in airports, instead of federal employees.

Where exactly is the improvement?
 
There should have definitely been a sunset on all of these post-9/11 security hooplah agencies. TSA is an affront to freedom.

Expecting government functions or even sub-tier bureaucracies to go away reminds me of expecting a tax to be repealed. They might reshuffle the bosses or eliminate management levels, or change reporting structures, but the functions and tax load will still be there.

When TSA is mentioned, what I want to know is the latest on armed pilot and sky marshall policy. I refuse to fly until that's resolved. If they reorganize enough, someone might get it right, but I would be all for dumping someone in charge of a stonewalling policy.
 
In short: all the money that was taken from tax payers and given to NASA is money that wasn't spent on private sector growth, research and development.

You might want to rethink that statement. NASA was the agency in charge, but all the "growth, research, and development" that went on was done under contract by firms like Boeing, Grumman, McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, GE, IBM, etc., all of which are private sector firms. These companies did not take the money, build the part, and then ignore all the progress made. They capitalized on the ideas and research funded by NASA. They took all this progress and used it to generate new markets for new items and processes, most of which were aimed directly at the civilian market. This spurred rapid, significant advances in materials, manufacturing, electronics, navigation, chemicals, and many, many more. Every aspect of society benefitted, and the economic stimulus was tremendous.

The money spent by NASA on the space programs has generated hundreds of trillions of dollars in private sector economic activity around the world over the last half century. What NASA has spent on research and development is a pittance compared to this.

That being said, I'm glad to see the TSA go bye-bye. I might shed a tear. Of joy.

Brad
 
Now we'll have lowest-bidder private contractors violating us in airports, instead of federal employees.

Where exactly is the improvement?

They'll have less job security.


For one I’m glad that the TSA is leaving, the company I work for will more than likely take over for the TSA once they leave considering the fact that we have had a ongoing contract with the local airport for a number of years, even before the TSA was formed. And I’m very happy to have the chance to make an extra 1.00 to 2.00 per hour and I’d be more than happy to line everyone up and start kissing everyone’s ass. Then I’ll leave for the bank to deposit that extra cash that I made being extra nice to everyone.

Theirs just no such thing as a happy medium when it comes to things like this. If you’re too nice, stuff gets blown up. If you crack the whip, you piss people off. It's just really hard to keep everyone happy. You got the higher ups on one side of you yelling at you to enforce the rules and regs they pass down and on the other side you have a commuter that feels that those rules are BS. I'll be the first person to say that a lot of rules and regs are total BS but on that same note I get paid to do a job to the best of my abilities and to be as professional as possible when doing so. I understand that there are a lot of people in private security that take things way too far but where I work those people get booted out. We have neither the time nor the patience to back up and stand up for someone that’s not being as professional as he/she should be when working.

I'm not sure where I’m going with this but I would like to say that just yesterday I was working curbside at my local airport. A middle aged women pulled up, parked, and went to walk inside. She disregarded the thousands of no parking signs and she disregarded what she was told by the security guard at the checkpoint when first driving into the airport. Most people know that it's a standing rule at just about any airport that the curbside is for loading and unloading only, and that if a car is parked or left there it will be towed. I stopped her before she walked into the building to inform her that she could not park there and nor could she sit and wait there (If I was any more professional when doing this it prob would have killed me, meaning I did everything I could to be as professional as possible). Really I was trying to help her keep from getting her car towed.

She then began to cuss me out and called me a few choice names in front of a number of small kids and their families. She then got back into her car and sped off at a high rate of speed and in the process running THREE different stop signs. Well I thought that was the end of that and when on with my day. It was really nice out and my shift was just about over and I was having a really good day up until then. About 15 minutes later she pulled up again, this time she stopped in the middle of the street blocking all of the traffic behind her and also blocking the bus and shuttle parking area curbside. In a louder than normal voice (to get her attention) I said "mam" and wave my arm in a motion for her to full forward and pull curbside. She pulled up to where I was standing, rolled down the window and said " You know what, you're a Pri**! You're and Fing pri**!

After she finished saying more choice words in front of a few more families she pulled up curbside and parked. At this point I was getting a little more than mad, so I called one of my coworkers on the radio and asked him to switch with me so I could get away from her and finish off the last five minutes of my shift with no conflict. My other coworker keyed the radio and said to watch out behind me, I turned to see this lady running at me swinging her carry on at me. All I could do was block her misguided attacks and call for back up from the airport police. The police were curbside within seconds (I guess there was one just inside the door as this was going on) to handle what was going on. Once the officer took over I turned to walk in the opposite direction; I wanted nothing to do with what was going on. I just wanted to go home because my shift was over. I'm not sure what the officer did with her after that, I was collecting up my things in the brake room and getting ready to go home. The officer stopped me before I left and asked me to write up a statement and drop it off to him first thing next morning.


Like I said, I’m not sure where I was going with this. I just wanted to say that there are a lot of us that are not "mall ninjas" and are very professional and work very hard to . . .

1) Provide a safe environment for the actions that are taking place within the area we are guarding.

2) Enforce the rules and regs that are passed down to us by the higher ups.

3) And most importantly, be as professional as possible and have a good time while doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top