|
||||||||||
Posted on 10/27/2001 9:03:57 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Saturday October 27 11:32 AM ET
|
||||||||||||
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (news - web sites) asked Congress on Saturday to reject a proposal that would make all passenger and baggage screeners federal employees. He suggested indirectly that such a move could make it more difficult for managers to fire delinquent workers.
In his weekly radio address, Bush renewed his call for placing the government in charge of overseeing, but not employing, airport security workers - an approach embraced in a House bill that will likely face a vote next week. A Senate bill ``federalizing'' the security work force passed, 100-0, on Oct. 11.
``My approach gives the government the flexibility it needs to assemble a skilled and disciplined screening work force,'' Bush said.
He said the Senate bill was ``well-intended,'' but the House legislation is ``the quickest, most effective way to increase aviation security.''
It would ensure that ``security managers can move aggressively to discipline or fire employees who fail to live up to the rigorous new standards,'' he said.
The president's remarks echoed comments Thursday by his press secretary, Ari Fleischer (news - web sites), who questioned whether government employees could be disciplined if they failed to do their jobs.
``If somebody joins the federal civil service, it's often impossible to take any discipline action in a prompt fashion,'' Fleischer said.
The bill pushed by House Republicans would create a Transportation Security Administration within the Transportation Department responsible for security of all modes of transportation. It increases the number of air marshals on flights, takes steps to strengthen cockpit doors, requires law enforcement personnel at each screening location in airports, and imposes a passenger fee of up to $2.50 per flight to pay for new security measures.
The Senate bill and legislation introduced by House Democrats contain many of the same provisions. But the Senate bill would make all 28,000 airport screeners federal workers, allowing smaller airports to use local or state law enforcement officials.
Bush had his national security briefing at Camp David on Saturday morning, with Chief of Staff Andrew Card and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), among others.
The president planned to watch the opening game of the World Series on Saturday night.
-
The House Republican bill is H.R. 3150.
The Senate bill is S. 1447.
That is the problem with elections. They have fixed the laws where the officials use our taxes to re enforce their entrenchment.
this list could get real "serious", money wise, so;
hey, dascHOLE, how ya gonna pay for it?
To be fair, I don't think that's a comparable example. There are plenty of reasonably competent federal workforces like the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and ATC, to name just a few.
This is a security detail, and would have to be structured as such. The notion that supervisors could not take disciplinary action is nonsense. If an air traffic controller needs to be fired, for example, he can be fired without many problems.
I know our President doesn't want to create another federal workforce, but the reasons he is citing are bogus. And I have to admit, I think our party may be wrong on this one. I would never de-federalize a defense bureaucracy like the Coast Guard, and I think this is one of those basic national security tasks that may be best performed by the federal government as part of the constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense.
Airport security should remain the business of private firms. Stiffer regulation alone will suffice to make airports more secure. It is a canard to claim that the eyes on a salaried civil servant pulling down 50 grand a year are inherently more reliable than the low-wage personnel now doing the job. Firms can be encouraged to "professionalize" their employees through regulation, and perhaps higher salaries for these positions are in the public interest. But another government bureaucracy is definitely against the public interest, and I say it should be fought against tooth and nail.
You're just flat out wrong. Government employees are backed by one of the strongest unions in the country and the union fights every damned attempt to fire someone - whether they are in the wrong or not. Check the numbers.
No, I'm not. There is not a single union that oversees all government employees, especially those in critical positions. Again, look at the Air Traffic Controllers. These guys are paid well, professionally trained, and can be removed from the job easily when they show incompetence.
Surely, America can do the same.
I am distressed to hear today that Bush has said he will not veto a bill that comes through with the Federalized Air Screeners. He must. But he won't. Because if he does - and if something else bad should happen on our airliners - he will be held accountable for not signing the bill! Sickening. Why couldn't the Republicans in the House and Senate put language that allows for federalizing it now but transitioning it to private agencies in 4 years - or something like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
