Replies

I’m not sure America is willing to vote in another Texan after we saw what Bush did with DHS and TSA.

Bush gets a bad rap about a lot of things, i.e, the education bill and the prescription drug bill, and this is another. After 9/11 he combined a few existing agencies into one for greater efficiency. Another reason was that the new DHS, at least initially, was not covered by the Civil Serve regulations which prevented the firing of government employees. That was a good step. What is your complaint about it?

Bush wanted private contractors to handle TSA duties, deemed necessary for security at the time, so that they could be hired and fired according to their performance. The Democrats insisted on and got a new government agency for obvious reasons, like more union members who can't be fired. What is your complaint about that?

>>What is your complaint about it?<<

I tend to think like most capitalists and business owners. If I am going to combine existing departments into one for greater efficiency, the goal to be accomplished should be doing more with less employees. Is this what Bush accomplished with TSA?

"TSA now operates with an ever-expanding federal army of more than 62,500 employees, not to mention scores of contractors. The number of employees at TSA exceeds the staff of nearly half a dozen Cabinet agencies.

These are not short term temporary employees. These are full time, full benefit employees that You and I will have to support until the day they die. That's right, they will receive pensions and medical plan benefits until the day they die!

"TSA’s massive administrative staff includes 3,770 bureaucrats in Washington and more than 9,300 administrative personnel across the country. For the nation’s 447 airports, that’s an average of nearly 30 TSA administrative staff for each airport, before even counting the army of screeners.

(snip)Worker attrition also plagues the agency and inflates agency costs unnecessarily. More than a billion dollars has been spent to train replacements for TSA personnel who have walked away from their jobs. Not even collective bargaining will be enough to quell the discontented screeners who come to work and observe a dysfunctional agency top-heavy with highly paid bureaucrats.

Perhaps you don't mind being x rayed, probed, poked and groped but I do. I resent this monstrous government agency being thrust onto the list of monthly bills I must pay. I especially resent the salaries and benefits this ineffective agency gives to our unproductive civil servants.

Bush deservedly gets a bad rap about a lot of things. Increasing the number of federal employees by almost 50% is one of them. You say he wanted to do this with full time, long term, private contractors. Can you name any agency that hires employees to operate under such terms. See the word contract within contractors? That represents an agreement which must be renegotiated to be renewed. Do you really believe that they would remain "private"? No, and neither did Bush. If you foolishly believed the news piece about TSA you don't yet understand how politicians speak.