[zook]

I think it has to do with the fact that the Senate bill gives the Attorney General fairly stringent controls over the workers (can't strike, etc.) and because the Senate felt it was important to move quickly in a bipartisan fashion. Quite frankly, I think some Republicans are making too big a deal out of this. Whether they are federal employees or not, they'll still have the right to unionize, and the conditions under which they are hired and under which they work will probably not change their individual voting habits.

[Digger]

Its cover for ole GW. Now he can expand the government & blame others due to the numbers. They ALLLLLL "The Two-party Cartel" play this game at YOUR expense. Toe sucker (Dickie Morris) probably told them to do so ---maybe the pubbies would pick up an illegal vote over it , again at YOUR expense. See why the elites wanted GW as president. He can come in and expand gov or NO pubbie even questions it & if you do they critizise you for being a sellout. Wake up sheeple.

[Lady_Marmalade]

Because the current system of minimum wage hacks isn't working, and the Senate GOP realized this. It's not too difficult to wrap your mind around, really.

If congress saw fit to pass the bailout for the airline industry, why is it so hard for you to understand that the next order of business is shoring up airport security?

Have you flown lately? I've taken three roundtrip flights for business since 9/. The airport is a different world now, with airmed servicemen and women on visible patrol. Also, the federal government is running the air marshals program. Why not have the fedgov run the whole security operation and include the air marshals in that program?

[Common Tator]

Because it is the one of the few jobs that our costitution clearly provides for the Federal goverenment. The first sentence of the constitution says:

   We the People of the United States, in Order to form a   
   moreperfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
   Tranquility,provide for the common defense, 
   promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of 
   Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and 
   establish  this Constitution for the United States of
   America. 

Since we are obviously in an era where nations will attack American citizens in the United States, it is the job of government to provide for our common defense against attack.

No where in the constitution, or in federal law or common law does says corporations are responsible for the defense of Americans from attack. You have gone from a liberal democrat to an anarchist. Are you sure you are not related to Jane Fonda or Rosie? Your reaction resembles their thinking.

But beyond the aguments in the lay, Republicans and Democrats try to do what the people want. On any issue in which over 70 percent of the population is in agreement, that issue will be supported by both parties. We are are representative Republic. Congress is elected to do the poeples will. Not your idea of principles,either. The Keyes and Buchanan principle pitch is straight out of the Hitler playbook. Not many of us will go there.

The way our government works is real simple. What the American People want, the American government gives them.

What part of that don't you understand.

[Jefferson Adams]

Another good question is "Why won't they allow pilots to carry firearms with frangible bullets?"

There is NO suitable reason, save for the powers that be not wanting people to be armed.

[Dengar01]

Maybe Hillary Clinton used her witch craft on them to brainwash them. That's what I think. She is a witch isn't she?

[OWK]

Question: Why Did Every Senate Republican Vote "Yes" on The Aviation Bill?

Because Ron Paul is in the House.

[Skooz]

Law enforcement is one of the few legitimate functions of government. I have no problem with it.

[Dave S]

Perhaps because the private companies that have been involved in security at the airports have done a damn poor job of it. I believe there are three or four companies that provide security for the airlines at most airports in the US and they are known for hiring people with criminal backgrounds, etc.

As much I philosphically would prefer to have private companies doing this, the senators may have figured it was better to get something in place now as long as the Attorney General has some authority over firing, etc. What we have now is the pits.

[afz400]

I'm afraid the reality is that the Democrats will ensure that these Federal jobs will be filled by welfare to work people. Already the FAA has hired 3,000 of these not so energetic (to be polite about it) people, who they can NEVER get rid of, believe me. Want to sleep at your desk and get a cash award for contributing to the "model work environment"? Join the FAA. Thanks Jane Garvey, for destroying what used to be the best agency anywhere!

[michigander]

Bottom line.
If you don't like the "rules" at airports or on commercial airlines.
Don't use them.

[JSteff]

Technically because the Feds are allowed to regulate interstate trade this actually does fall under that. I am tossed on good or bad but as others have said in this threadwhy not at least have all the security -air marshalls, airport guards, security personnel on the same page. Yes the idea that their union will probably end up with democratic officials makes me sick.

[B4Ranch]

Let me pi$$ you off real good. I heard on TV today that the existing Security employees are exempt from the 5 to 10 year background check.

Do you feel more secure now?