Posted on 01/29/2011 9:23:03 AM PST by GreaterSwiss
Washington (CNN) -- A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.
TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.
Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.
The push to "opt out" gained attention in December amid the fury over the TSA's enhanced pat downs, which some travelers called intrusive.
Rep. John Mica, a Republican from Florida, wrote a letter encouraging airports to privatize their airport screeners, saying they would be more responsive to the public.
At that time, the TSA said it neither endorsed nor opposed private screening.
"If airports chose this route, we are going to work with them to do it," a TSA spokesman said in late Decembe
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Gee. hmm confusing. Where’s competitive WTF economy we were promised??
<img src=” http://rlv.zcache.com/union_pussies_bumper_sticker-p128614281779134452trl0_400.jpg
Yeah, this government-supporting union is flexing its muscles.
The Law? What do I care about the law?
The next election is too late. By 2012 they will have homosexualized a large segment of the population by making these same-sex gropings the first sexual experiences of our children.
Get rid of these government leeches once and for all.
NATURALLY the fed.gov HATES competion, as do the nefarius unions - THAT is why real reform us NOWHERE to be even SEEN!
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracies knows no exceptions.
Feign indifference, wait a month, then screw the competition with a bureaucratic edict.
He and Jihad Janet have no intention of releasing the stranglehold they have on travel in the U.S.
Imagine who they can intimidate at will.
"Gosh, Sen. Paul, we don't know how you got on that watch list. We're so sorry! Now strip!!"
Your post is right on the mark. Precisely the reason.
“If an airport prefers to use a private company to conduct screenings, they have that right under the law.”
Law? 0bama don’t need no stinkin’ law!
A 62,000 member union says no to privatization. How bout if 1 million frequent flyers says, give way assholes? Move over and stand down.
If this union seeks to declare war on the frequent flyers, then they are outnumbered.
Now is the time to stand up to these commie union thugs.
“The vice is closing inexorably, day by day, on our freedoms under this totalitarian dictatorship. One day we will wake up to find that we are indeed in a soviet gulag.”
That is the democrats’ plan and has been the democrats’ plan for 130 years.
-PJ
Exactly.
Before the government seized the nation’s airports, I flew several times a month. I haven’t been on a commercial flight since they took over.
If it involves a 2 day car trip, it’s worth the inconvenience.
Protecting Union jobs, shutting down liberties...
I’m not a big believer that the private sector should be involved in every aspect of our nations govt. We need to decide exactly what we the people should take care of (as govt) and what should be handed over to the private sector. I am a believer that unions or employee associations may be OK in govt as long as they can not strike.
I see it as dangerous to the people to get profit motive involved with any issues of public safety, law enforcement, and incarceration or any aspect of government that uses sworn employees. It will eventually lead to more corruption and abuse than what we have. In PA the private prison contractors bribed some judges to get get more inmates.
One other small example are the photo cameras used for speed control. Most states use them because they are run by big business (Boeing) and generate profits that they then share. I despise the concept of law enforcement for profit.
I still oppose any use of private sector as military. That also opens the door to using private military as they did in New Orleans and abused the rights of citizens by taking firearms. I accept that sworn govt agents may have a right to order or tell me what to do, but not private cops.
This is a conversation worth having. My experience and I’ve never worked in government, except for a tour in the military, is that anytime there are public private partnerships with our tax money the door to corruption by politicians, bureaucrats, and contractors is wide open.
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.