Slashdot Mirror


Congress: The TSA Is Wasting Hundreds of Millions In Taxpayer Dollars

TheGift73 writes with a Techdirt story about a House Oversight Committee report that is very critical of the TSA's handling of money. "The House Oversight Committee has come out with a report slamming the TSA for tremendous amounts of waste, specifically in the 'deployment and storage' of its scanning equipment. Basically, it sounds like the TSA likes to go on giant spending sprees, buying up security equipment and then never, ever using it." Earlier this month Rand Paul laid out his plan for dealing with the TSA.

199 comments

  1. That was Rand Paul. by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 5, Informative

    That was Rand Paul in that article you linked, by the way. They are not the same person.

    1. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's cute that you think samzenpus is actually literate.

    2. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, great job with that whole "editing" thing...

    3. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue the "they might as well be" crowd.

    4. Re:That was Rand Paul. by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      Hell, you even email the guy and the issue doesn't get fixed.

      I certainly hope they don't pay him.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:That was Rand Paul. by PuckSR · · Score: 2

      Given that Rand Paul frequently lumps so many things that are disconnected together(i.e Fed employees make more than the average American)....I don't think it is too bad that they got him confused with his Dad.

      Note: The error with the Federal Employee comparison is that it would be more apt to compare Federal employment to a large company like 3M(with a large number of professional employees) than to compare it with the entire population of the country which has a high number of minimum wage employees and retirees.

    6. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that both the link he posted and the title of the article clearly say "Rand" instead of "Ron". Anyone with 1/10th a brain would have gotten it right. The Slashdot editors seem to be lacking even that much mental prowess.

    7. Re:That was Rand Paul. by morari · · Score: 1

      All politicians are the same.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    8. Re:That was Rand Paul. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Federal employees in professional jobs also make more than their private-sector counterparts these days (if you measure total comp, critically pension benefits), is the thing. It used to be that public sector meant lower pay but stable job and short hours, but that just hasn't been the case for a while now.

      Oh well, eventually we'll either make cuts or the government will collapse under its own weight, and either way the comp issue will be corrected.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Ron Paul would probably like to shut down the TSA too, he just wasn't the one to come out and say it.

      Hell, if Ron Paul had his way, he'd probably shut down the FAA and the entire public airport system and sell it off to private companies and let them run everything.

    10. Re:That was Rand Paul. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      I suspect that has more to do with the private sector getting shittier, than with the public sector getting better. Why not raise private wages and benefits to match or exceed those in the public sector instead?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because its a free market and the comparison positions are far above minimum wage so you can't legislate the wage changes. Even if you could, how happy would everyone be when the companies relocate those jobs over seas?

    12. Re:That was Rand Paul. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering when we're gonna outsource Congress. What else is left?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    13. Re:That was Rand Paul. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm ok with paying federal employees more than the private sector, after all, we want good people who do good work. I'm not sure we're getting our money's worth, though.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:That was Rand Paul. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Government does produce wealth, by tackling matters of public good which the private sector is unwilling or unable to handle, and by dealing with market failures, and by regulating private entities that are unwilling or unable to act in a restrained manner. However, government should not act for its own benefit, but instead for the benefit of its citizenry, residents, and others, somewhat like a non-profit organization, so this might not be apparent to you.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    15. Re:That was Rand Paul. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      Remind me why we allow them to move jobs overseas? Free markets are fine if they produce a greater benefit to the people than any alternative, but if they don't, we shouldn't pause for a moment to intervene to ensure a more useful outcome. A variety of options present themselves, including strengthening unions (whilst keeping out corruption), limiting the freedom of movement of capital (and perhaps the accumulation of over large amounts of the same), weakening the dollar, taxing imports from countries that don't adhere to environmental / labor / civil liberties standards similar or better than our own, reforming the government to discard odious debt, etc.

      Working out possible solutions and taking action strikes me as better than your policy, which seems to be to do nothing, and complain that you're all out of ideas.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    16. Re:That was Rand Paul. by ax_42 · · Score: 1

      I'm ok with paying federal employees more than the private sector, after all, we want good people who do good work. I'm not sure we're getting our money's worth, though.

      As long as the federal employees are subject to the same risks (job insecurity) and are also measured on merit, no problem. Out in the private sector, inefficiency/incompetence is punished through markets (your competitors eat your lunch). As a state, you usually have no competitors (it's not as if we can go and buy a military from someone else), so a key factor driving efficiency is simply not there, so states (often) end up inefficient and bloated.

    17. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing you cited "produces wealth". At best, it moves wealth from someone who earned it to someone who did not. But it creates nothing new.

      I have a friend who works for the Federal government who produces nothing of value (no one in the private sector would pay for the work that is done), who earns a six figure salary, and will have an 80%+ pension for life (plus health care). Total scam. Try finding that in the private sector.

    18. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Pewpdaddy · · Score: 1

      Government has been in the business of making money for itself for some time. Not the government at large per se, but the senators, congressman et al for sure. Regardless their behavior has been bad, and getting worse for some time. The FCAT in FL is a prime example, the Bush family is tied to the folks that score it. http://progreso-weekly.com/2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1592:evidence-that-bush-family-profits-from-florida-education&catid=43:this-aint-disneyland&Itemid=62

    19. Re:That was Rand Paul. by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think about it part of the reason why the private sector is doing worse is because the public sector is doing better. Since the government doesn't produce wealth just consumes it, the private sector's wealth is being transferred to the public sector.

      So when the government builds the interstate highway system or a new bridge, hiring contractors to do the actual paving, etc, that is not producing wealth? If that's just "transfer of wealth" in your book, then no activity private or public produces wealth.

    20. Re:That was Rand Paul. by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Nothing you cited "produces wealth". At best, it moves wealth from someone who earned it to someone who did not. But it creates nothing new.

      I have a friend who works for the Federal government who produces nothing of value (no one in the private sector would pay for the work that is done), who earns a six figure salary, and will have an 80%+ pension for life (plus health care). Total scam. Try finding that in the private sector.

      Hell, the CEO of my company makes $19M per year and has a pension plan that compares to the lottery. Try finding that in the public sector. See what I did there? Anecdote != data.

    21. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As long as the federal employees are subject to the same risks (job insecurity) and are also measured on merit, no problem

      Just because public sector doesn't have the same job insecurity, it doesn't mean they do not have risks. They have different risks

      Public sector gets a lot more attention and scrutiny than the private sector (I mean, we're talking about them now aren't we?)

      Public sector also has a higher risk of "guilty by association" (one part of government screws up, other parts also get flak)

      Public sector also has the risk of being the scape goat for private sector in both good times and bad. When private sector is doing fine, people go "man private sector is awesome, not like those lazy public sector folks. If only they weren't there!". When private sector is doing bad, they go "it must be because of the damn public sector sucking up money! If only they weren't there!"

      Out in the private sector, inefficiency/incompetence is punished through markets (your competitors eat your lunch). As a state, you usually have no competitors (it's not as if we can go and buy a military from someone else), so a key factor driving efficiency is simply not there, so states (often) end up inefficient and bloated.

      A state's competition is its own people. If a state is incompetent/inefficient, its own people will eat it alive. If a state continues to exist despite being horribly bloated, it's not the state's fault, but the people's own fault for not acting to fix it.

    22. Re:That was Rand Paul. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, pay should be tied to merit, not time served. This is the #1 thing I dislike about unions.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, everybody knows that "producing wealth" is when you use computers to execute millions of microtrades a second on the market, or lobby for legislative barriers to entry to prevent competition in your market sector, or when you make bad loans, rebrand them as "investments", and sell them to pension funds.

    24. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm... good point.
      More correctly then, government consumes wealth, but *may* produce it also.
      When activity is private, (I buy this from you, and we're both better off), wealth is definitely created since we're both better off (or else we wouldn't make the transaction).
      When the government builds a highway, the contractors are better off, or they wouldn't agree to build it. But, the people don't have a (direct) choice. In this case, they're probably better off (highways are really useful). But they would be even better off if they could have agreed to build the highway without government involvement (not likely, but...), since they wouldn't have to pay for all the government workers also. So, that is the sense in which government only consumes wealth. Only to the extent that it's theoretically possible (but not practically) for people to just spontaneously do the things that government forces them to do for less cost.

    25. Re:That was Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't build the highway or bridge. They hire contractors to do it. Those contractors are the wealth producers, the government is transferring wealth. Me making a widget is wealth creation. Me purchasing a widget is wealth transfer. Not all transfers are bad, but the government actually produces in only a few sectors.

    26. Re:That was Rand Paul. by GoDj1rrA · · Score: 1

      If you think about it part of the reason why the private sector is doing worse is because the public sector is doing better. Since the government doesn't produce wealth just consumes it, the private sector's wealth is being transferred to the public sector.

      So when the government builds the interstate highway system or a new bridge, hiring contractors to do the actual paving, etc, that is not producing wealth? If that's just "transfer of wealth" in your book, then no activity private or public produces wealth.

      He was generalizing, but now you are. Yes, the government provides infrastructure which helps produce wealth. His point is valid though that you don't spend more on support staff than the revenue you generate.

    27. Re:That was Rand Paul. by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      If you think about it part of the reason why the private sector is doing worse is because the public sector is doing better. Since the government doesn't produce wealth just consumes it, the private sector's wealth is being transferred to the public sector.

      So when the government builds the interstate highway system or a new bridge, hiring contractors to do the actual paving, etc, that is not producing wealth? If that's just "transfer of wealth" in your book, then no activity private or public produces wealth.

      He was generalizing, but now you are. Yes, the government provides infrastructure which helps produce wealth. His point is valid though that you don't spend more on support staff than the revenue you generate.

      No. He claimed "government does't produce wealth." I clearly show that it can.

    28. Re:That was Rand Paul. by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      Heh... thought it was intentional. There are some similarities in the belief structures of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul.

      As a side note, typing those two names next to each other almost made me have a dyslexic seizure... kind of makes me want to try it a few times over...

      Ayn Rand Ron Paul Ayn Rand Ron Paul Ayn Rand Ron Paul... kind of like a tongue twister for fingers.

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
    29. Re:That was Rand Paul. by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Hm... good point. More correctly then, government consumes wealth, but *may* produce it also. When activity is private, (I buy this from you, and we're both better off), wealth is definitely created since we're both better off (or else we wouldn't make the transaction). When the government builds a highway, the contractors are better off, or they wouldn't agree to build it. But, the people don't have a (direct) choice. In this case, they're probably better off (highways are really useful). But they would be even better off if they could have agreed to build the highway without government involvement (not likely, but...), since they wouldn't have to pay for all the government workers also. So, that is the sense in which government only consumes wealth. Only to the extent that it's theoretically possible (but not practically) for people to just spontaneously do the things that government forces them to do for less cost.

      First, when you buy something from me, wealth is not being "created" it is once again being transferred. Saying that we wouldn't make the transfer if we weren't better off does not mean wealth is being created. Also, sometimes one has no choice to buy something (food, transport to a job, shelter, clothing). Second, yes the people may not have a direct choice about the highway; so what? That has nothing to do with the the wealth creation vs transfer meme. You can call what government does "forcing people to build the bridge" but that's precisely what government is for - doing the things that people have no inclination to do but need to have done; it's called the common good. And if we didn't have roads, police, and armies, you'd be enjoying a shitload of violence and mayhem (if you were even alive).

    30. Re:That was Rand Paul. by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      They don't build the highway or bridge. They hire contractors to do it. Those contractors are the wealth producers, the government is transferring wealth. Me making a widget is wealth creation. Me purchasing a widget is wealth transfer. Not all transfers are bad, but the government actually produces in only a few sectors.

      So what? It is not government's job to make a profit - they are there for the public good. Cleaning up water and air, protecting us from invading armies and murderers may not "create wealth" but sure as fuck is good for the people.

    31. Re:That was Rand Paul. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Free markets are fine if they produce a greater benefit to the people than any alternative, but

      That overseas guy? Yeah, he's human too, and has every bit the same right to a job that you do. Remind me why we still allow such overt racism in modern political discussion?

      A job's worth what's it's worth. Find something to do with your life that the community actually needs: makework has no place in life.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re:That was Rand Paul. by lgw · · Score: 1

      CEOs and sports stars get paid about the same, for basically the same reasons.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:That was Rand Paul. by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      CEOs and sports stars get paid about the same, for basically the same reasons.

      Not for the same reasons at all. CEOs collude to drive up their salaries by being on each others' "compensation committees."

    34. Re:That was Rand Paul. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      It's not racism, it's civic nationalism.

      Lacking the freedom to casually move around the world to follow jobs as easily as capital can move around, we are all compelled to seek the best situations not only for ourselves, but our neighbors and fellow citizens and residents in our polities.

      So I don't bear a foreigner any ill will for trying to get work, and I wish him the best of luck, but neither do I want to see his success come only at some cost to someone in my country. If forced to choose between them, I'd choose my countryman. I don't expect anything different in return.

      But I'd certainly be happier if the rules were changed so that everyone can enjoy a healthy, happy life instead of having to fight one another. Feel free to make a suggestion as to how to accomplish this.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  2. ..Again. by rykin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yet another reason why the TSA is useless.

    1. Re:..Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. See, they're job creators for all the TSA inspectors, baggage handlers, factory workers creating the dvices, and the engineers who designed them. Of course, I can't say if the failings of the aviation industry outweight those or not. But it made some people a lot of money. It must be good!

    2. Re:..Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another reason why the TSA is useless.

      Well, it is highly useful to lots of contractors who benefit from this shopping spree. The discussion/reports seem to assume that the goal is to not waste money.

    3. Re:..Again. by Entropius · · Score: 3, Funny

      We could achieve the same economic effect with much less fuss if we'd just pay all the TSA inspectors to stay home and dress up as Barney Fife while we groped ourselves. Probably be a better economic stimulus in other ways, too, if y'know what I mean.

    4. Re:..Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA is far from useless. They're doing exactly what the fearful "conservatives" who pushed for it wanted: instilling fear, training people to accept wholesale violations of their rights with no Constitutional justification whatsoever, and most importantly, removing cats from private businesses (airlines) and shifting billions in tax money to for-profit corporations.

      Oh, and other thing nobody mentions: even if you believe the lie that "nobody could have imagined" what happened on 9/11/01, it's surely known now. If something like that were to happen again and the airlines were still in charge of their own security like they ought to be then, why, they might be held accountable for a failure of security. It might even cost them money. That goes against the capitalist mantra of internalizing profits and externalizing costs don't you know.

      The TSA is doing exactly what it's supposed to do, which has next to nothing to do with actual security.

    5. Re:..Again. by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Note, the politicians will spin this either way for their own benefit...

      But in the end, TSA's mission was something no one knew how to figure out.

      And much like the Space Program, which had a lot of failures before Apollo, if you don't know what the solution is, it's going to cost a lot. Ask any researcher, it's going to be wasteful and big budget. If TSA knew how to solve it's mission beforehand everything would be peachy: e.g. standard gov't waste.

      Also, that's why Linux is cheap, we knew what needed to be done! (j/k)

    6. Re:..Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they're job creators for all the TSA inspectors, baggage handlers, factory workers creating the devices, and the engineers who designed them.

      Not to mention how much easier it makes the job of teachers when covering the broken window fallacy.

    7. Re:..Again. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I would agree, but there are successful models of TSA to work from.

      Spending wasteful amounts of money to make people move through lines even more slowly isn't progress it is congress.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:..Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think of the boom in costume sales!

      On the other hand, security theatre almost requires that we be asked to sacrifice something, or at least be inconvenienced to some degree. I don't about you, but I wouldn't find groping myself in public to be that much of a sacrifice. (getting arrested for public indecency on the other hand...)

    9. Re:..Again. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      But in the end, TSA's mission was something no one knew how to figure out.

      Yeah, there's no way they could have copied the Israelis or anything like that.

      (The people who sat an air marshal next to the shoe bomber a few weeks before the TSA let him board a 'plane with a one-way international ticket and no luggage)

      --
      No sig today...
  3. Rand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paul...

  4. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The purpose of the body scanners was to make Michael Chertoff very rich.

    And in that goal they have been a smashing success. And they still are.

    1. Re:Of course by smchris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. "Waste" is a polite, or innocent, synonym for corruption rotten to the core.

    2. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everywhere I look, the U.S. government is VERY corrupt.

  5. I feel better. by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    I assumed they were wasting billions in taxpayer dollars.

    Hundreds of millions is an improvement.

    1. Re:I feel better. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      This is just unused capital costs. I'm sure the total loss is far worse.

    2. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've developed a handy guide to determining how much taxpayer money the TSA is wasting.

      Step 1: Determine the total budget of the TSA.

      You are now done.

    3. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They are just being job creators. If they stop buying so much stuff, the factories & sales staff for security companies will have to lay off staff !
      Why does Rand Paul hate job creation?

    4. Re:I feel better. by folderol · · Score: 1

      Clearly that is precisely the problem. They are failing because they aren't wasting... um... spending anything like enough money.

    5. Re:I feel better. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to realize that one is a subset of the other.

      They still could be wasting billions!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:I feel better. by tato+(and+tato+only) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forgot to include the value of the items stolen by TSA employees, and items confiscated because they are alleged security hazards. Also, if you value the time of travelers as anything greater than zero, the needless delays imposed by TSA practices should be included.

      --
      tato (and tato only)
      This post is strictly opinion, including the spelling.
    7. Re:I feel better. by ExploHD · · Score: 1

      Joking or serious, you are right

    8. Re:I feel better. by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

      In addition to what tato said, you're also missing opportunity cost.
      Imagine what great and wonderful things could be accomplished if that capital stayed in the hands of its rightful owners (i.e. the taxpayers) where it could be invested or used to buy innovative products and services. Or if the thousands of people, who have died because they'd rather risk the higher fatality rates of the highways than get sexually assaulted at the airport, had lived to be creative and productive.

    9. Re:I feel better. by atriusofbricia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forgot to include the value of the items stolen by TSA employees, and items confiscated because they are alleged security hazards. Also, if you value the time of travelers as anything greater than zero, the needless delays imposed by TSA practices should be included.

      Don't forget:
      1. Lost value from people who no longer fly due to the TSA
      2. Lost value from International tourism which no longer happens because of the TSA
      3. Lost jobs from damage to the tourism industry
      4. Projects canceled because of all of the above

      And on and on and on and on...
      End the TSA!

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    10. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and don't forget reduced tourism as people stop dealing with airports, and reduced airline revenue (and thus reduced corporate tax receipts from same) and...

    11. Re:I feel better. by zentigger · · Score: 4, Informative

      actually the value of articles confiscated is not entirely wasted as those articles have founded a flourishing "surplus" industry:

      http://www.eyeflare.com/article/where-buy-goods-confiscated-tsa/

      --

      the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

    12. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lost lives as a result of cancer from being subjected to the scanners...

    13. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd also have to calculate the efficiency loss of all those tax dollars going to the TSA versus how much economic activity and wealth they'd generate by staying in the private sector (E.G. your wallet). Just imagine how much of the current recession could be wiped out if we eliminated the TSA!

    14. Re:I feel better. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Another BIG one!

      All the gasoline burned by those who choose to drive (where possible) instead of fly because of the whole TSA mess in airports.

      Not only a huge additional cost which should enrage those on the Right, for those on the Left concerned about AGW, it's also a huge amount of additional CO2 dumped into the air.

      One would think there should be broad bipartisan support for ending the TSA based on just those two factors alone, never mind that the TSA does almost nothing to actually increase security.

      But, we all know this isn't about logic or principles, nor any concern for protecting anyone but themselves. It's about paying off political cronies and labor unions while all but wiping out what's left of the poor, abused, Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments.

      They've stopped even pretending to hide it. Now, they're just looking right at us with their arms spread, and saying; "What? Yeah, and what're YOU gonna do about it, punk bitches? Go make us a sammich!...Err...an income tax payment, and quit yer whining before we black-bag yer ass!".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    15. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...Lost lives from people who alternatively made their trips by land on a road, a much more dangerous way to travel.

    16. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Personal dignity is priceless.

      A prerequisite for air travel in the United States of America in 2012 is that every passenger allow a government agency to photograph their naked bodies or submit to a manual genitalia palpation. It's a disgusting what our leaders have allowed to happen.

    17. Re:I feel better. by Sosarian+Avatar · · Score: 2

      Wow, the sites that page links to have some really interesting things for sale—even children! Makes for a great new parental threat: "Bratleigh, don't forget, little boys and girls that misbehave at the airport are confiscated by the TSA and auctioned off to meaner parents..."

      --
      Apathy Sucks, Nobody for President!
    18. Re:I feel better. by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The TSA was designed by private interests for the benefit of private interests. Those flying private or charter never need fear. Everyone else, well, ultimately you are the enemy of the 1% and a threat to their existence, a threat that needs to be controlled and taught it's place. You or your family have no right to privacy not of their possessions or of their body. Upon demand you and you family will present themselves naked to be physically molested at will. When the real intent of the TSA is corrupt don't be surprised when the organisation becomes corrupt. Reality want change then demand TSA conduct the same activity for private and charter flights, watch how fast the law changes after that.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can personally verify the driving bit. I recently drove from Vancouver, BC to San Franscisco and back because I didn't want to be subjected to any TSA mind games. That's ~6 tanks of gas.

    20. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Lost value from people who no longer fly due to the TSA

      I used to fly every 3-4 weeks. I have only flown commercial twice in the last ten years due to the TSA "Papiers bitte!" bullshit. I am an American citizen traveling within the USA's borders so contrary to TSA party line I do NOT agree to give up my inalienable rights just because I am boarding a commercial flight. Now I will fly only on a chartered flight (which is expensive), on a private aircraft, and will put off traveling cross-country regularly until I can afford to own and operate my own aircraft.

    21. Re:I feel better. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, they need more funding then.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    22. Re:I feel better. by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      2: not just tourism, transits. I take great care never to connect through the U.S. any more.

    23. Re:I feel better. by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      not to excuse any of it, but is the groping really so prevalent? i flew recently and didnt have an issue.

      in japan i get groped at the airport security line, but it is by cute girls (the only kind of girls japanese airlines will hire, it seems).
      six different girls have stuck their hands down the front of my pants to feel my zipper or something. i dont know, i dont complain. dont have to take my shoes off, either.

      wouldnt like for a male TSA agent to do it though.

    24. Re:I feel better. by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      By the way, what happened to the PROPERTY RIGHTS in USA?

      How is it possible that a fucking TSA monkey, that is representative of your chimp government can just steal your fucking private property?

      How the fuck do you all still look at yourselves in the mirror knowing that you didn't throw the fucking turds out of power yet with an armed revolt?

    25. Re:I feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Lost value from International tourism which no longer happens because of the TSA

      I think this loss is a high number. I certainly choose other destinations than the US nowadays, and I spend several thousand dollars per trip in airfaire, hotels, entertainment and shopping. I do not think I am unusual, I go with the flow. This tells me there are thousands others like me, that now choose South am or Canada for our vacations over New York or Miami.

    26. Re:I feel better. by isorox · · Score: 1

      Lost lives as a result of cancer from being subjected to the scanners...

      That's actually a saving on things like Social Security, if the cancer hits towards the end of working life and is swift and cheap.

  6. Oh the same circus again and again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only good TSA is a dead TSA.

  7. Well ... yeah by jxander · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anyone with a functioning brain should realize that TSA is a giant waste of money, unless you have stock in a nail-clipper supply company.

    Every terror plot that has been averted since 9/11, was averted by passengers. Underwear bomber, shoe bomber, etc... all thwarted by civilians who won't tolerate that shit anymore.

    --
    This signature is false.
    1. Re:Well ... yeah by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 2

      bic. bic lighters are making a fucking fortune as a result of the TSA. more disposable and ubiquitous at airports than nail clippers. there are more people who smoke daily than people who happen to need a nail clipper that week.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    2. Re:Well ... yeah by kwiqsilver · · Score: 2

      But imagine how bad it would have been if we didn't have the US government protecting us from terrorists...by helping the underwear bomber get on the plane, ignoring that he was on the watch list, and giving him a dud bomb?

    3. Re:Well ... yeah by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      TSA is a giant waste of money, unless you have stock in a nail-clipper supply company.

      Oh, the list goes on! The whole industry formed around the idea of providing
      3-oz plastic bottles (took years until something convenient came to the market, btw)
      TSA-approved locks on the luggage
      The water/soda vendors in the airport almost doubled their prices.
      TSA-approved laptop bags that make it easier to flip them open
      All we need now is self-removing shoes.

    4. Re:Well ... yeah by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      See? The TSA is helping the American economy. If it wasnt for the TSA, bic sales would be lower.

    5. Re:Well ... yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. The CIA as stopped quite a few.

      Still, no defense for the TSA.

    6. Re:Well ... yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure Bic is originally a French company, Bic Corp. is it's US Subsidiary.

    7. Re:Well ... yeah by isorox · · Score: 1

      Anyone with a functioning brain should realize that TSA is a giant waste of money, unless you have stock in a nail-clipper supply company.

      Every terror plot that has been averted since 9/11, was averted by passengers. Underwear bomber, shoe bomber, etc... all thwarted by civilians who won't tolerate that shit anymore.

      The liquid plot was thwarted by the intelligence services
      The second underwear plot was created then thwarted by the intelligence services
      The print cartridge plot was thwarted by the intelligence services

    8. Re:Well ... yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BIC is a French company BTW.

  8. Re:It's worth the expense by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

    Too bad they so far have failed to do that. Why not just light 100 million dollars on fire and call it the same thing?

  9. Thank Goodness! by firewrought · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine what a pain travel would be if they used their funding to full efficiency. :O

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
  10. Re:It's worth the expense by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

    I'm going to guess "trolling" on this one. He's too literate (and too anonymous) to be serious, and no astroturfer would word it that way.

  11. Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Harassing me, making me miss my flights, rifling through my belongings, grabbing by genitals, bombarding me with carcinogenic rays, infringing upon my human rights, AND wasting my tax dollars? Now that's where I draw the line!

    1. Re:Huh. by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      yep. cuz if they would just use all that security equipment they paid for then all the groping and cancer that we pay for would be justified...

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    2. Re:Huh. by meerling · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say justified, but there might just be a bit less sexual harassment of commuters.

    3. Re:Huh. by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      or maybe they harass us because they're underpaid and trained to intimidate. and not well educated. and so many other things that have nothing to do with the number of scanners available for use.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    4. Re:Huh. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Privacy violation (requiring identification as well), unreasonable search (and detention) violation, property rights - confiscating stuff without any trial or judge or jury, stealing money.

      It's just normal business in USA government and looks like the population is all fine with it, because the government in question is still in power.

  12. Re:It's worth the expense by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the government has to spend a bunch of money to make sure that doesn't happen, I'm perfectly okay with that.

    What happens when they spend the money and it still happens? Is that cool, too? These guys are fucking criminals, I proctored the TSA testing for 3 years. Believe me, half of them looked like they were either under the influence of narcotics or had more than a passing familiarity with them. You are absolutely no safer with them then you were with the security you had before 9/11.

  13. typo by MrShaggy · · Score: 2

    RuePaul Rand Paul, they are the same ;)

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    1. Re:typo by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      no, RuPaul was at least briefly entertaining

    2. Re:typo by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

      Wait, I thought RuPaul, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul were the same guy.

      Oh man, I thought for a while the republicans were going to run a drag queen for the presidential candidate.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    3. Re:typo by desdinova+216 · · Score: 2

      It might be more entertaining if it was RuPaul running for president.

    4. Re:typo by meerling · · Score: 2

      Not even close! Just look at the ears. Besides, Rupaul wears better dresses. :)

    5. Re:typo by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that'd be an improvement on any candidate in the field. At least it'd stop all this bullshit of outlawing marriages/same-sex unions. Seriously, if you ain't involved in one, why should you care?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:typo by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      It absolutely would. Imagine someone of a very conservative Middle Eastern country being faced with the decision to either shake the hand of a drag queen or rebuff them and piss off the most powerful military on the planet. It's lose-lose!

      I say we just put some Delta guys in cocktail dresses and drop them into a political function in another country. It'll be super effective.

    7. Re:typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the tea party wants a govt. so small that it can fit into a bedroom.

  14. I'm ok with them not using the equipment.... by schlachter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it's the buying it part that's problematic.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  15. Well finally by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looks like at least someone in Congress has two brain cells to rub together. Or did they just realize that the prevailing political wind was strongly turning against the TSA and that supporting it would look bad come election time? Actually, come to think of it, I don't care: either way, lets hope it goes past "slamming" and turns into "slamming their doors shut".

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:Well finally by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, "wasting" in this case doesn't refer to security theatre. The "wasting" that the oversight committee is complaining about here is that the TSA is lots of props for their theatre, but not putting on a performance.

      If the TSA actually used what they bought, regardless of whether that actually made anyone any safer or not, that would entirely satisfy the oversight committee.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Well finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money is being wasted only because it is being spent on the wrong corporations. The new wave of congresscritters has completely different loyalties to completely different corporations, so whenever they see huge chunks of money going to the wrong corporations (in this case those to whom the old guard of congresscritters were loyal) they pronounce the expenditures wasteful so they can get buy-in to diverting those funds to the new set of corporations.

    3. Re:Well finally by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, "wasting" in this case doesn't refer to security theatre.

      Actually, it does. Buying stuff on the premise that buying and using it will create security and not using it is a form of security theater. (Its a form of security theater directed mostly at Congress rather than travelers, but it is theater nonetheless.)

      If the TSA actually used what they bought, regardless of whether that actually made anyone any safer or not, that would entirely satisfy the oversight committee.

      I don't think the evidence is sufficient to support that. That the oversight committee recognizes that it is impossible for the equipment to be doing any good in storage does not imply that the oversight committee putting it to use with no actual effect would "entirely satisfy" the committee.

  16. Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Because after this latest underwear-related threat to our national security, I predict searches will get a LOT more annoying.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Now, now. We aren't there yet. But, now all underwear must be checked.

    2. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Nope. DHS is now worried about body bombs. Basically, surgically implanted bombs where the scar heals. The terrorist waits a year or so before boarding a plane.

      You can't stop something like that unless you X-Ray every man, woman, and child. And they will do it too. Don't doubt me on this!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 3, Funny

      my friend's mom's fake tits are the bomb, and there's no scar there either.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    4. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll be cavity-searching you up to their elbows pretty soon, too.

    5. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by Paracelcus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now what I propose is that I (70) and all other over 65 show up at the airport in a bathrobe and slippers (nothing else) send your belongings ahead via FedEx or UPS, and before entering the screening area, kick off the slippers and take off the bathrobe, REMEMBER, OVER 65 ONLY! Insist on a hand search (I've got some hiding places I want explored)!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    6. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

      Try it, and they'll arrest you anyway.

    7. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by meerling · · Score: 1

      There are so many ways to get weapons in past that so called 'security' it's insane. Part of the method of doing it is by not walking in with something that has ACME EXPLOSIVES printed on it in large red letters. But seriously, there are many ways for someone good at social engineering, chemistry, long term planning, weapon design, slight of hand, or a few other things to get a potentially lethal weapon in. And by the way, you really only need one of those skills.
      If you have a group of suicide willing suckers, it becomes even easier. You can just feed them through till one makes it and pulls off the attack. After all, they were all going off to die, what do you care if 2 or 3 out of a dozen get caught. Hell, 19 out of 20 is probably good enough for that kind of insanity.

      Before anybody is dumb enough to make the accusations, no I have no plans to do anything crazy like that.
      Then why do I have ideas on doing it? Because it's an interesting puzzle, and there has been a lot of talk about it lately. I also firmly believe you can't fix an issue, until you can find it, and only a complete moron doesn't believe there are issues.
      (Even as a gradeschooler I was pointing out security flaws to local businesses. Bad news, they ignored the kid that pointed out the problems. Good news, the only crime around there was the occasional traffic or fish & game violations. We didn't even have graffiti to worry about. Yes, that town was boring unless you were the fishing/hunting nut.)

    8. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Heh. I go commando. Let them TRY to find underwear on me!

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    9. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "step over here sir."

    10. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Get an overly obese man to just put loads of stuff in- between his rolls of fat.

      They have to search you... but they don't have to like it.

    11. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do one better. I wear a *kilt* when I have to fly, and I refuse to go through the scanners. The last time I went through a security check point, I could have been carrying a cantaloupe between my thighs and they wouldn't have caught it with the frisking I was given.

    12. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Genius my friend, pure genius.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    13. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by isorox · · Score: 1

      Because after this latest underwear-related threat to our national security, I predict searches will get a LOT more annoying.

      We only need to search double-agents. The CIA can provide a list of them

      The fact that there are so few attempts to blow up planes that the CIA has to provide would-be-suicide-bombers just proves it's not a problem.

    14. Re:Fly naked! It's the only way to be sure. by isorox · · Score: 1

      Now what I propose is that I (70) and all other over 65 show up at the airport in a bathrobe and slippers (nothing else) send your belongings ahead via FedEx or UPS, and before entering the screening area, kick off the slippers and take off the bathrobe, REMEMBER, OVER 65 ONLY! Insist on a hand search (I've got some hiding places I want explored)!

      Please do

      John Brennan (no, not the Deputy National Security Advisor, a different one) did so, and getting more people doing it will raise attention and debate in the media.
      http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/naked-tsa-protest-portland-man-john-brennan-takes-cloths-

  17. Speaking of waste money by arbiter1 · · Score: 2

    Congress really should look at themselves on this matter, hundreds of millions is pocket change compared to how much congress has wasted over last 30 years.

  18. End The TNA by wonderboss · · Score: 1
    --
    more cowbell
  19. and this is news? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

    "the tsa is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars"

    thank you captain obvious.

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  20. O rly? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    Congress: The Government Is Wasting Hundreds of Millions In Taxpayer Dollars

    FTFY

    1. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money isn't wasted, it is merely spent to enrich certain well-connected government contractors and create jobs for the companies that they own...
      On the other hand, they probably could have spent the money more wisely (or given it back to the US treasury), but that's not the way that government works.
      At least they didn't throw a party in las vegas...

    2. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Government Is Wasting Hundreds of Billions In Taxpayer Dollars Every Year

      FTFY

    3. Re:O rly? by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      The Government Is Wasting Trillions In Taxpayer Dollars Every Year

      FTFY

      FTFY

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
  21. Re:It's worth the expense by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    1/10 on the troll scale there buddy. The TSA have caught exactly ZERO terrorists since their creation. They refuse to provide any statistics under the guise of "security".

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  22. A hefty price by Fishbulb · · Score: 2

    The price for freedom is safety and security.

    The catch, of course, is that safety and security are just illusions anyway. They can be promised to you but never delivered.

    1. Re:A hefty price by wonderboss · · Score: 1

      As in we will sell our freedom for safety and security? Or at least for the illusion of safety and security.

      --
      more cowbell
    2. Re:A hefty price by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

      I thought the price for freedom was a buck-o-five?

    3. Re:A hefty price by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      No, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance (--Thomas Jefferson). In that regard, we citizens of America have failed horrendously.

      This is but an interesting sideline, however, since I believe what you were trying to say is that the price of safety and security (or at least, "the appearance of...") is freedom, since we seem to have offered our freedom up wholesale for TSA's security theater.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    4. Re:A hefty price by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Can we do a reverse transaction then? I'd like to trade my illusory security for my real freedom.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:A hefty price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good quote. here's another:

      People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. - Attributed to Ben Franklin
       

  23. Perspective by Livius · · Score: 1

    Can it really be considered 'wasting' money given that the function of the TSA is to spend money without constructive purpose?

    (Of course it also inconveniences travellers and violates rights, but nothing beats a large government budget for making something look more important than it really is.)

  24. TSA: I know you are but what am I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News Flash!!! [Insert wasteful government entity]: [Insert another wasteful government entity] Is Wasting Hundreds of Millions in Taxpayer Dollars

    Isn't the operating budget for congress in the hundreds of millions. Who creates and votes on the budget?

    1. Re:TSA: I know you are but what am I by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

      The operating budget for Congress is in the billions. $5.5Billion actually.

  25. Sewer-cide bombers? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    ...when the bomb is swallowed and explodes while in the large intestine.

    And yes, as a matter of fact, I *do* think that's funny.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Sewer-cide bombers? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we must close Taco Bell for national security?

  26. TSA wastes money? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the whole POINT of the TSA to waste taxpayer money doing nothing?

    I heard through the grape vine that Homeland Security sends dump-trucks with their offices supplies into the desert at night. You can only use so many post-it notes to write; "#2 in Al Qaeda caught / blowed up!"

    Quick -- someone look busy!

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  27. Re:It's worth the expense by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >>>The TSA's whole job is to keep radical idiots from blowing me and my family up in mid air.

    You're worried about the 1 in 700 million odds of death-by-terrorist. And yet you stuff your face with fat & sugar, which WILL kill you through artery blockage. Way to totally invalidate your original argument.

    Stop being afraid of unlikely events like death-by-terrorist, death-by-tsunami, or death-by-meteorite, and focus on the REAL killers like heart attack, brain stroke, cancer, or driving to work in your car. Those are the things that kill 99.999% of Americans.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  28. How much do you wanna bet... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    ...that the contractors making bank here are controlled by republicans?

    1. Re:How much do you wanna bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...then why haven't the Democrats taken a stand against the TSA instead of telling us to tolerate it?

      More than likely, everyone in the federal government is just trying to find an angle to work here in order to gain money at the cost of civil rights.

    2. Re:How much do you wanna bet... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      ...that the contractors making bank here are controlled by republicans?

      Of course they are. We all know that democrats are saints and only Evil Republicans like Obama would trample all over the Constitution and run up huge deficits. Only Evil Republicans would ever run guns into another country like that evil Republican AG Holder.

      Oh.... wait....

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

  29. Re:It's worth the expense by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    not all cynical irony is trolling. some people are just facetious because it makes the frustration hurt less.

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  30. Re:It's worth the expense by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Funny

    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
    Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: Thank you, dear.
    Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
    Homer: Oh, how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
    [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
    [Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

  31. We need to solve this like a congressperson would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What we clearly need is an office of oversight and management for the TSA. The brand new department would have a branch office in every major city airport. Employees would work 2 hours a day and get paid 6 figure salaries through retirement [mandatory at ripe old age of 35 and which would be inherited by their children after they died]. The overseers would observe the gropings and the periodically make sure the screener's rubber glove was clean. They would also occasionally glance at the TSA books occasionally before rubber stamping them and approving them their annual 20% budget increase request.
    Problem solved!
    Clearly this is the only way to promote fiscal discipline while maintaining public safety (for the children of course).

  32. Please sign this petition at whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reading this made my blood boil - please support this petition to wind down the TSA

    http://wh.gov/mMW

    1. Re:Please sign this petition at whitehouse.gov by fartrader · · Score: 1

      Let's not.

  33. Re:It's worth the expense by steelfood · · Score: 2

    Those are the things that kill 99.999% of Americans.

    DHMO is also a prolific killer. And, it's everywhere.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  34. Not a problem by PPH · · Score: 1

    The TSA figures that if they can slip a few dollars out of each piece of luggage, they can make up that shortfall in no time. Heck, they might even turn a profit.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  35. TSA lines: the next terror frontier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You wanna make an absolute terror scene? Roll a carryon sized bag full of explosives into the middle of a TSA line on the day before Thanksgiving in a major airport. It's likely that you will kill a thousand or more people, will be on the news for weeks, and will absolutely freak out anyone who is going to fly somewhere. It's the soft spot of the target. Coordinate a dozen of these one-man wrecking balls to go off within a minute of so of each other, and you can take out not just 4X as many people as on 9/11 with the same number of "hijackers" but shut down the entire air traffic system of the US on the busiest travel day of the year.

    All made possible by the TSA policies and the screening intensity escalation.

    1. Re:TSA lines: the next terror frontier by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      Some guys tried driving a car full of explosives into Glasgow Airport a few years ago.

      When the "bomb" failed to explode (simply setting the car occupants on fire), a local headbutted one of them to the floor. Official reports he was helping the man stop, drop, and roll.

      This is how you deal with terrorists.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  36. Re:It's worth the expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if TSA wanted to save lifes in transportation the should look at cars, +30000 die on the road in the US every year

  37. wasted may be the wrong word by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the money is more accurately going from taxpayer's pockets into certain individual's pockets, not blindly wasted.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  38. Sign petition to wind down the TSA by pr1m35 · · Score: 0

    Let your opinion be heard http://wh.gov/mMW Thanks

  39. We're working on that by bigtrike · · Score: 1

    We're all pooling together to rid this world of pure DHMO.

    1. Re:We're working on that by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Yesyesyes, ban DHMO!!! That shit is EVIL!!!

      (chuckles, setting up a website for banning DHMO and planning how to spend the loot^Fcontributions before they figure out what we wanna ban...)

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:We're working on that by bfandreas · · Score: 2

      Dihydrogenmonoxide is not only dangerous when inhaled, ingested in quantities, it causes CATASTROPHIC events killing THOUSANDS each year! It's never ben publicized but it caused major damage in New Orleans after Katrina. Even months AFTER the storm was gone! Why does the government hush it up?
      Do not mock this tragedy! Not only for our children, for our children's children!

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  40. Re:It's worth the expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget ManBearPig

  41. What's the Current TSA Approval Rating? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I bet it's still higher than Congress'.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  42. Re:It's worth the expense by sjames · · Score: 2

    Alas, the TSA isn't even that good. You'd have to throw in Moe beating a bear with a 2x4 while the Bear Patrol is busy raiding the nursery school for it's stuffed toys to complete the picture (to be on the safe side, show them tazing the babies).

  43. Like the man said... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    The TSA likes to go on giant spending sprees, buying up security equipment and then never, ever using it.

    "Just be thankful you're not getting all the government you're paying for." --Will Rogers

  44. A Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Be the TSA or DHS

    2. Confiscate items at airports

    3. Auction off confiscated loot/items

    4. Profit!!!

  45. Re:It's worth the expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, death itself is not what one should fear. Another successful terrorist act in US air space will lead to the removal of the last few strands of rights and privacy we currently enjoy, as well as the devaluation of our currency as we waste another $3-4 trillion on a series of pointless wars and subsequent nation building.

  46. Re:It's worth the expense by lightknight · · Score: 1

    1.) 'Tis not your money (the government answers to the tax-payers).
    2.) 'Tis only an illusion of security. People who believe comforting lies can never be safe.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  47. Election year..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the recent bad publicity for the TSA/SOPA/PIPA/CISPA. Heck, the commander-in-chief himself actually (kind of) stood up for something controversial.

    However, I since it's an election year I know that this is just an extended April Fools and everything any politician states comes with fingers crossed behind the back.

    Please, for the love of all things, prove me wrong America.

  48. won't someone think of the pedophiles and voyeurs? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    If we abolished the TSA what are all the pedophiles and peeping toms going to do with themselves? They'd probably end up getting in trouble. With the TSA they have a 100% legal outlet for their sexual urges and cravings.

    PedoBob's schedule:
    9am-12am: Man the peep booth and exercise the fleshlight and anal vibrator.
    1pm-3pm: Fondle little boys' dicks and balls and slide your fingers down their ass crack, pausing for a nice feel up of the anus. Don't forget to enjoy the sensual scalp message. Carefully remember the sensations for later wanking session at home.
    3pm-5pm: Get the now sticky fleshlight out of the hiding place and get ready for some more 'work' wanking to all the naked boys and girls. Tell yourself how you are keeping the public safe from terrorists. Then have another wank.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  49. Federal employees are not crazy high paid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least not all federal employees. I am a software developer for the feds, I took a substantial pay cut from my last civilian job (in this economy, can't be too picky). Took the job about one year ago. I am certain my pay is well below what civilian employees would be paid.

    Forget that myth about great benefits. That used to be true, about 15 years ago, but all that has changed. Federal employees get the equivalent of a 401K. Health benefits are no better, same HMOs etc. Tuition assistance is the same, or worse.

    Even job security is not what it used to be for federal employees, there have been huge layoffs in the last year. Also hiring freezes and so on.

  50. and America now wants tourists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funniest part about this is that recently America, for apparently the first time in ages, has started campaigning to attract international tourists.

    Do you have any idea what the expression on people's faces here in Australia looks like when you say:
    "Hey! America wants tourists! Cheap travel and accom. Get on board! BUT you need to:
    1) Submit your fingerprints, credit card numbers and private personal information to the American government months in advance
    2) Submit to radiation (on the way out - Australia now forces all international passengers to be irradiated on exiting the country)
    3) Allow a complete stranger to grope you and your family, including your children, specifically involving fondling your genitals and you have no legal right to refuse
    4) Allow a complete stranger to potentially detain you, strip search, throw you in jail without or eject you from the country (only if you are very very lucky, and most likely AFTER they have groped and strip searched you) "

    and all because you thought that America might be the place to have a nice relaxing holiday away from home and see the sights.

    You do get some very strange looks.
    People have discussed holidays here at the office from time to time.. and I go through this every time. They don't believe me. I advise googling it. This generally turns into an hour long conversation about why America does not want tourists and a general discuss about other places to go which are absolutely no where near America.

    Damn shame Canada is so close to America. Several people in the office quite like going there.

    It's a real pity Japan is turning into America. I won't go there myself as I believe that only criminals are fingerprinted. Now I probably will never visit Japan. I'd like to live there, but it is doubtful I will emigrate in this environment.

    1. Re:and America now wants tourists! by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      japan isnt turning into america, the japanese are just like that about foreigners, and they've been so for a very long time.
      if you think visiting is tough (its not), then emigrating (including citizenship to get away from paying US taxes when you dont live in the US) is impossible (in reality it is merely very difficult).

      its just one of those (little) things you need to get used to as a foreigner here.

  51. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Congress Is Wasting Hundreds of Billions In Taxpayer Dollars.

  52. efficient project management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    efficient project management rule #1 - use 99% of the budget this year, so next year you get more. when you get the money, make sure that:

    * first, you allocate budget to purchase equipment through friendly and grateful companies. [pays for your private jet]
    * then, you allocate budget to make a decent living for thousands of bureaucrats in washington who move around papers with tsa stationary. [keeps their kids in private schools]
    * then, you allocate budget for tens of thousands unskilled minimal wage tsa workers across the country. [keeps trash off the streets]
    * then, whatever is left of the budget minus 1% you blow on shit that will sit in the storage. [keeps the ball rolling]

  53. Where are the press conferences by bhalter80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every law enforcement agency in the land has learned the value of sensationalizing the war on drugs. Every time they take more than an ounce of pot off a college kid there's on the news talking about what a great bust this was. Given that in the last 11 years passengers en route have subdued no less than 3, people in a position to take down the plane :

    Shoe bomber
    Underwear bomber
    Nutzo pilot on Jet Blue

    Clearly passengers and crew can handle a wide range of threats in the air. During this time TSA has had exactly 0 of these kinds of press conferences regarding stoping a plot AT the airport what value is the TSA adding again?

    On a side note air-charter (14 CFR Part 135) opperators do not have their passengers screened by the TSA, were never required to install bullet proof doors at the cockpit and can and do opperate the same aircraft types that scheduled air cariers opperate.

  54. Re:It's worth the expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather die at the hands of a terrorist than give up an ounce of liberty.

  55. Can you believe it? by vertigovegan · · Score: 1

    Last year they spent ten-million dollars on divining rods and they never used them. OMG! But they did make a lot of money at tazering the innocent and molesting people into missing their flights.

  56. Re:It's worth the expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the flip side, junkies are probably the most likely to know where you're hiding your stash or anything else deemed illegal. They've years of personal experience dealing with their own concealment practices. There might still be weapons on the plane, but you can be sure as shit there's nothing worth injecting or swallowing any more.
    Freebies for the TSA crew !
    Getting loaded on the government purse with government approval - good score.

  57. Re:It's worth the expense by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    The TSA's whole job is to keep radical idiots from blowing me and my family up in mid air.

    Why is there such a fear that the bogey man will blow you up in mid air? Do you fear being blown up at the mall? At church? At school? At your office? Anywhere else people congregate? Yet you are so worried about the sky? You do know that they spent quit a bit more than $200M.

  58. Privatize the TSA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the only way to make it more efficient. They could even upsell when doing the grope. "Would you like fries with that?"

  59. Not a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a waste if you're in the business of government. When you're spending other people's money, it hardly matters whether you "succeed" or "fail". What matters is that the money passes through your hands, giving you a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. Government failure is typically used as justification for even more spending, quite unlike what happens when you're spending your own money.

  60. The myth of the "average" gov't worker by mcharlet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's actually pretty astonishing how many really good people are in the level of government just beneath senior leadership. We know people who work 12-16 hours a day at extremely high-stress, difficult jobs that would stretch the capabilities of most people. They love working in government despite the fact that they would get an instant raise of +25% (and the chance to get an annual bonus) if they moved to the private sector. The book "To Big to Fail" has a great description of Paulson looking at his staff in astonishment thinking that all of these folks would be making far more money if they weren't there in the room with him. I think it's misleading to consider the "average" government worker. The *best* government workers are very, very good but have their salaries roughly capped at around 150k. This is probably a pretty good bargain for us taxpayers.

  61. Re:It's worth the expense by khr · · Score: 1

    Are you sure it's the TSA you want to look into that? They'd probably try to solve it by making everyone go through scanners and get groped before getting into their car.

  62. why not hold them accountable by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    If the equipment is found to not be used and sitting collecting dust, take it out of the budget for the next year, and let them recuperate the costs by selling off the machines for a proper price (not cheap to get rid of it) and let them use THAT money to buy the next stuff they need...all of a sudden we will see a lot less waste!!!

  63. Of course they are.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that to attempt to produce good theater and spectacle one must waste massive quantities of money... That, or hire a bunch of ass-clowns to do the grunt-work.

    In this case, the TSA covered both their cheeks^H^H^H^H^H^Hoptions at once.

  64. Re:It's worth the expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..show them tazing the babies... with one hand, and the other in their diapers... TFTFY

  65. Re:It's worth the expense by isorox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The TSA's whole job is to keep radical idiots from blowing me and my family up in mid air. If the government has to spend a bunch of money to make sure that doesn't happen, I'm perfectly okay with that. Seriously, $200M. How many millionaires can't afford to pay a few extra bucks in taxes every year to make sure 300 million plus people can fly safely?

    Please list the people the TSA have stopped from blowing you and your family up.

  66. I think Congress got it backwards by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 2

    Speak softly and carry a big stick.

    --Theodore Roosevelt (supposedly, a W. African proverb)

    Congress loves to shout about how crappy the TSA is, but then they keep giving them huge sums of money to continue being crappy.

    And they actually expect the public to believe they give a rat's ass about anything besides money