Posted on 11/01/2001 4:28:54 PM PST by FairWitness
Edited on 05/11/2004 5:33:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PS: Ganske needs a challenger for the Iowa Senate GOP nomination.
Just cannot understand this reasoning; other than so many post Sept 11 just imagine that 'Federal' 'feels' like a better security blanket.
Have you ever gone to a VA hospital? Dealt with Social Security Administration? Happy with your tax forms? Public schools? How about the FAA; what HAVE they been doing for the past ten years, improving safety for passengers; despite all the warnings? And for that matter, the FBI, who just chose to not believe the handwriting on the wall. . .
How about those 'social services'. . .Welfare, no problems; Federal contracts. . .same. . .protecting children. . .yes, our Government has been there. . .too late smart in most cases.
As for hiring, underqualified, underpaid. . .what does the Government usually do? You want people motivated to work or those motivated by knowledge that it is hell to get them fired - a 'government job' . . .and it will be hell, despite what Gephardt says. More carrots will be offered with every election. . .
Do we not have enough to do, without attempting to arrogantly reinvent the wheel; why cannot we take take advantage of what our European 'neighbors' and the best teacher, Israel. . .has to offer; they have been 'here' and done this' for sure and know what of they speak. They tried and learned. . .and they are warning us, that Federalizing security is a mistake...
Then there is the actual 'security of 'Security'. . .Imagine, spies infiltrating. . .or a 'home grown' spy. . .as a 'bag checker'; piece of cake compared to what they have done in the past operating in our Government. Let's see, how long did it take the FBI to discover Hanson. . .twelve years?
Truth of the matter, our biggest fear should not be privatizing; it should be having any Liberal working in 'security'.
Federal oversight is sufficient; a good balance of Government/Private; with neither holding all the reins; a kind of checks and balances built in. . .
Security being 'secure' in our Government is just plain scary. . .
Come on folks. . .
Immediately? How long do you suppose it would take to recruit and train these wonderfull federal employees? Long enough that taking the time to do the right thing wouldn't change the time that whatever force or arrangements are put in place by enough to matter. Heck we might actually get better trained screeners sooner this way than creating a whole new federal agency/bureauracy.
But ONLY if that attachment is in play. If they pass a private bill with no liability protection it is as good as no bill at all.
Are you saying that the attachment frees the private inspection companies from lawsuits if they fail at their purpose or if they are not PC?
I want them to be fully liable if they fail to provide adequate security. You could never attach liability to federal employees or agencies. It always would fall back to those of us who pay taxes. It is exactly this risk of liability that would make them effective.
Epitome of integrity and professionalism, ain't they?
Why is it, that the nationalize everything socialists, in the Democratic Party, can be called patriotic, for attempting to steal, the freedoms were supposably fighting for. But, the GOP gets blamed for failing to protect the public. It's the infringement, of our right to keep and bear arms, which allowed the highjacking of 4 jets on 9/11, with such pitiful weapons as box cutters, and resulted 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.
No, the slowest thing to do would be to federalize, because we would have to hire a federal workforce and train them, and background checks alone would take three months. If we go for federal oversight, then we can start beefing things up and firing bad apples right away.
The surest measure of the best way to do this is to look to the Europeans and the Israelis. My understanding is that they started with federalization and 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.
"He means he'll pull some partisan politics until someone else dies on a plane so he can blame Bush. Hey, politics first. So what if a few peasants die "for the good of the federal employee union votes."
It was interesting to see the spin on the 10 O'clock news (Channel 5, NBC, St. Louis).
"House minority leader Gephardt suffers setback in his push for airport security"!
As if 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!"
Just let the pilots have guns, and we won't need these goons going through our personal effects and putting their grubby hands on our bodies.
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.