Ensuring Airport Insecurity
Dana
Ensuring Airport Insecurity
By Deb Lundgren
"I am determined not to create the biggest bureaucracy in the history of a
generation."
-- Rep. John Mica, R-FL, a chief sponsor of the Republican Airport Security
bill.
Everyone agrees that airport security must be improved in the wake of the
terror attacks, but there are serious philosophical differences on just who
is better qualified to handle the job: the private sector or government.
The Democrats feel Americans would be better served if the people in charge
of airport security were federal employees. However, the U.S. House of
Representatives on Thursday defeated a Democratic bill, which would have
turned our nation's airports into another nationalized version of the DMV.
It would also have turned 30,000 private airport security workers into
government union dues-paying members of the Democratic Party.
I had originally favored federalizing the security at our nations airports;
however, the more I listened to the arguments, the more I realized it was
just an emotional knee jerk reaction. I'm glad the House defeated the
Democrat bill, because the Democrats' arguments don't hold up.
One of the arguments supporting a government take-over of airport security
is the assumption that federal force checking of luggage will improve
security immediately in time for the holiday travel season.
However, one of the slowest things we could do would be to federalize these
airport workers. Under the federal civil service laws, it would take years
to hire the 30,000 people to fill these jobs. Just the background checks
alone would take upward of three months. By using the private sector with
federal oversight, we can start beefing up security and firing bad apples
right away.
Another complaint in favor of government workers doing this job is the
quality of work received. Many people are convinced that federal means
expert, implying that private industry can't train qualified employees.
Democrats feel that if you are a union member, it automatically means you
are a better level of worker. I am here to witness that fact as untrue. My
husband has worked in union shops most of our marriage and his constant
complaint has been the total lack of work ethic of many union workers. Many
start off as good workers, but get lost in complacency with the security of
a government job that cannot be lost.
"Do you want to contract out the Capitol Police?" Gephardt asked his
colleagues. "Do you want to contract out the U.S. Marines? If it is good
enough for us, it is good enough for the American people."
Now, Dick, answer this question: If low pay means low security, how come the
Democrats are always standing in the way of giving meaningful pay to the
military?
As Congressman John Mica (R-FL) stated in this debate, "there is a list of
26 federal government agencies that use private contractor security. As a
former employee of a defense department contractor, I'm fairly certain that
three of these agencies are the CIA, the NSA and the Tonopah Test Range -
better known to tin foilers here as Area 51".
What is it that these federal agencies know about using federal employees
for security that makes them decide to use private contractors?
Some people say they would feel safer knowing that the airport security
personal work for the government rather than a private company. Really? When
was the last time you went to the DMV? Has the IRS ever owed you money? Have
you ever gone to a VA hospital? Dealt with Social Security Administration?
Are you happy with your tax forms? Are the public schools a big success?
If you think that having federal government employees screening baggage is
going to make you safe, you're wrong.
It is the Federal Aviation Administration that failed on September 11th -- a
Federal Agency.
It is the CIA and the FBI that failed on September 11th -- both Federal
Agencies.
It is the Immigration and Naturalization that failed on September 11th --
another Federal Agency.
The INS and the State Department "government employees" let many of these
terrorists into the country. Factors contributing to the terror attacks
included the refusal of other "government employees" in the FBI and the CIA
to communicate with each other - in order to protect their turfs.
Ask yourself this question, with affirmative action and political
correctness running wild in government jobs and unions shops, do you
honestly believe that the best people will be hired for the job? The private
sector works better in part because they set standards and enforce them. You
don't hack it--you are fired.
Another fact to consider is other countries have already dealt with this
situation such as Europe and Israel. They began with the federalization of
airport security, but then realized it was a mistake, and moved to the
system that President Bush wants, but it took them years to repair the mess
caused by the initial federalization.
Supporting this is the fact that in the 1980's, Europe used government
airport security, which resulted in 30 hijackings. After the switch to the
private sector with government oversight as our President wants, only 4
hijackings occurred.
Another complaint against the President's plan for airport security is the
idea that his plan "sucks" up to big business.
Wake up! It's the Democrat version that sucks up to big business. By
federalizing the screeners they relieve the airlines of paying the bill.
This amounts to a single mom in Idaho subsidizing some rich fat California
businessman's airline ticket.
But in my opinion, the most important point of all is that a Federalizing
Airport Security bill would be yet another stab in the heart of America and
freedom.
Why is it that the "nationalize everything" socialists in the Democratic
Party can be called patriotic for attempting to steal the freedoms we are
fighting for, but the GOP gets blamed for failing to protect the public. It
is in part the infringement of our right to keep and bear arms that allowed
the highjacking of 4 jets on September 11, with such pitiful weapons as box
cutters, resulting in the death of thousands. It's the American civilians
who are on the front lines this time, and we need the right to defend
ourselves. The terrorist threat should be met by enhancing our freedoms --
not tearing them away.
It is also interesting to watch the spin on the 10 o'clock news: "House
minority leader Gephardt suffers setback in his push for airport security"!
As if to say Gephardt is for airport security and the Republicans are trying
to deny it. If I were writing the headline it would be "President Bush and
Republicans win battle in the House for their airport security bill!"
--
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old
parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in
the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself;
and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." --Alexander
Hamilton