Sen. Rand Paul Introduces TSA Reform Legislation

OverTheGeicoE writes "Over a month after Sen. Rand Paul announced his desire to pull the plug on TSA, he has finally released his legislation that he tweets will 'abolish the #TSA & establish a passengers "Bill of Rights."' Although the tweet sounds radical, the press release describing his proposed legislation is much less so. 'Abolition' really means privatization; one of Paul's proposals would simply force all screenings to be conducted by private screeners. The proposed changes in the 'passenger Bill of Rights' appear to involve slight modifications to existing screening methods at best. Many of his 'rights' are already guaranteed under current law, like the right to opt-out of body scanning. Others can only vaguely be described as rights, like 'expansion of canine screening.' Here's to the new boss..."

Comments

Re:The screeners used to be private

[cpu6502]

Yeah you can sue a private screener. You can't sue the government. Well, you can, but the government won't let you win the case, as happened recently. A man was thrown to the ground and severely injured, so he sued the TSA, and the TSA refused to turn-over the videos because of "national security". The man was forced to drop the case since the evidence was being withheld.

Re:The screeners used to be private

[mianne]

The key point, which is not addressed at all within the press release is whether the Govt. will subsidize private screening or not. This is important because if so, then the TSA will simply be subcontracted out to Halliburton or other firm, and waste, fraud, and abuse will only increase, more security theater = more screeners = more equipment = more profit!

If, instead, airport screening was funded by the airport or airlines themselves (yes, either way, the air traveler ultimately picks up the tab) then they'd have an incentive to maximize passenger throughput while minimizing cost. They would still want reasonable security measures for safety's sake and to keep insurance premiums low and lawsuits to a minimum.

If JFK Intl still insisted on Whole Body Imaging, pat downs, no fly lists, liquid bans, shoe removal, and all the other nonsense introduced over the past decade, they'd probably have to charge about $15 per passenger to cover the cost. Therefore LaGuardia may then see that by just relying on metal detectors, X-rays for carry-ons, and canine patrols, they could screen each passenger for about $2 each, while having fewer delays and fewer upset travelers.

The upshot in this hypothetical example is that passengers who are still worried about another 9/11 style attack can fly out of JFK and feel reassured that they'll be perfectly safe from terrorists and will gladly pay for the privilege of being strip-searched, irradiated, groped, and prodded in exchange for this reassurance. Those who'd rather not pay to be humiliated can fly out of LaGuardia instead. Even humoring the idea that they'd be twice as likely to die in a terrorist incident as those who opted for the "enhanced" screening at JFK. Or in other words, instead of 25,000,000:1 odds, they'd be facing 12,500,000:1 odds.

Would traffic out of these two airports remain largely unchanged, would travel dry up out of LaGuardia out of fear, or would traffic dry up at JFK due to invasive security theater. I'd place my bets on the third scenario. However, in a true Libertarian sense, whatever imbalance was created if any would be corrected in short order by one airport adopting the policies of the other which took away their business.

Re:Government is more efficient than private indus

[anagama]

Boogers -- my mod points just expired and you need someone to mod you up.

Anyway, here's another example. WA state used to have state run liquor stores and used the profit from those stores to fund state services, like fire departments and whatnot. Now, WA did have some of the higher booze prices in the nation, but we also don't have an income tax, so it used a "sin tax" in part as a way to make up the difference. The stores had a really nice selection too.

Here is the last price list the state published:
http://whatcomnewsforums.com/misc/washington_state_liquor_control_board-MAY_2012_PRICE_LIST.pdf

On June 1st, the first day of privatization, selection went in the toilet, and prices skyrocketed. Here's one example from page 6 of the price list for Red Breast Irish Whisky.

The state store price was $49.95 out the door.
The state retail price was $39.11
The wholesale price can be calculated (*): $25.66

Fred Meyer is currently selling Red Breast at a special price of $60 (reg is $65). This is pretax.
Many voters favoring the initiative stupidly believed that "competition" was synonymous with "lower prices," but I-1183 included a provision that wholesalers would have to pay a 10% fee, and retailers a 17% fee, to make up for the loss to the state from losing the stores. The Office of Financial Management, as required by law, evaluated the law and concluded prices would rise. This summary was even in the voter's pamphlet, but if many slashdotters can't RTFA, most voters only watch TV and totally bought the notion that competition and lower costs go hand in hand -- they never read more than the title let alone the summary -- just voted like the ads told them to.

Anyhow, starting with a wholesale price then of $25.66, after the wholesale fee, it would be $28.23, and after the retail fee, $33.03. The reg shelf price at Fred Meyer is almost a 100% markup, and even the sale price is an 81% markup, to which the old state taxes are added, making the out-the-door price of the bottle of Red Breast, $75.13 (on sale) or $81.16 (reg price).

Now, certain store brand rotguts are perhaps 50 cents to a buck cheaper than rotgut carried by the state stores, but anything decent is at 25% more expensive and some things are substantially more, Red Breast being about 60% (reg price). Worse, the profit the state would have used to benefit all Washingtonians, is now largely exported. It has been partly replaced by the new fees, but surely an initiative will kill those in the future and it is at that point, a WA income tax would become more likely. I'd really rather just decide whether to "sin" and pay a sin tax, than to have an income tax shoved down my throat every year.

So, this is an example where privatization costs the public much more in the short run, AND increases the likelihood of an income tax, which will cost the public much more in the long run. But Costco will make gazillions so its all good right? Corporate socialism is the name of the game now.

(*) WA markup was 13c for a 750 ml bottle, plus 51.9% http://liq.wa.gov/stores/liquor-pricing